[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 186 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5798-H5816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING URGENT MATERNAL PROTECTIONS FOR NURSING MOTHERS ACT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
716, I call up the bill (H.R. 3110) to amend the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the
workplace, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and Labor, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part C of House Report 117-137, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3110
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Urgent Maternal
Protections for Nursing Mothers Act'' or the ``PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act''.
SEC. 2. BREASTFEEDING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE.
(a) Expanding Employee Access to Break Time and Place.--The
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 7, by striking subsection (r);
(2) in section 15(a)--
(A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) to violate any of the provisions of section 18D.'';
(3) in section 16(b) by striking ``7(r) or 15(a)(3)'' each
place the term appears and inserting ``15(a)(3) or 18D''; and
(4) by inserting after section 18C the following:
``SEC. 18D. BREASTFEEDING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE.
``(a) An employer shall provide--
``(1) a reasonable break time for an employee to express
breast milk each time such employee has need to express
breast milk for the 2-year period beginning on the date on
which the circumstances related to such need arise; and
``(2) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from
view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public,
which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.
``(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an employer shall not be
required to compensate an employee receiving break time under
subsection (a)(1) for any time spent during the workday for
such purpose unless otherwise required by Federal or State
law or municipal ordinance.
``(2) Break time provided under subsection (a)(1) shall be
considered hours worked if the employee is not completely
relieved from duty during the entirety of such break.
``(c) An employer that employs fewer than 50 employees
shall not be subject to the requirements of this section, if
such requirements would impose an undue hardship by causing
the employer significant difficulty or expense when
considered in relation to the size, financial resources,
nature, or structure of the employer's business.
``(d) No provision of this section or of any order
thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or
State law or municipal ordinance that provides greater
protections to employees than the protections provided for
under this section.
``(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), before an employee
commences an action to recover liability under section 16(b)
for a violation of paragraph (a)(2), the employee shall
inform the employer of the failure to provide adequate place
and provide the employer with 10 calendar days after such
notice is provided to come into compliance with subsection
(a)(2) with respect to such employee.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case that--
``(A) the employee has been discharged because the employee
has made a request for break time or place under this section
or has opposed any employer conduct related to this section;
or
``(B) the employer has indicated that the employer has no
intention of complying with subsection (a)(2).
``(f) The circumstances described in subsection (a)(1)
arise if an employee--
``(1) begins providing breast milk for a nursing child; or
``(2) gives birth, including to--
``(A) a stillborn child; or
``(B) a child over whom the employee does not retain legal
custody.
``(g)(1) This action shall apply to an air carrier, as
defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code,
subject to the following requirements:
``(A) In providing a break described in subsection (a)(1)
to a crewmember, an employer shall not be required to--
``(i) completely relieve such crewmember from duty during
break time taken during flight time; or
``(ii) provide such a break during critical phases of
flight.
``(B) Nothing in this subsection shall require an employer
to incur significant expense, when considered in relation to
the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the
employer's business, to retrofit an aircraft.
(2) In this subsection--
(A) the terms `flight time' and `crewmember' have the
meaning given such terms in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations; and
(B) the term `critical phases of flight' has the meaning
given the term in 121.542 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.''.
(b) Clarifying Remedies.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended by
striking ``15(a)(3)'' each place the term appears and
inserting ``7(r) or 15(a)(3)''.
(c) Guidance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall issue
guidance with respect to employer compliance with section 18D
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by this
Act, which shall be similar, with respect to specific
examples of compliance, to the guidance relating to
``Supporting Nursing Moms at Work'' published on the website
of the Office on Women's Health of the Department of Health
and Human Services as of such date of enactment.
(d) Conforming Coverage of Certain Other Employees.--
Section 203(a)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and section 12(c)'' and inserting
``section 12(c), and section 18D''; and
(2) by inserting ``, 218D'' after ``212(c)''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Expanding Access.--Except as provided in subsection
(c), the amendments made under sections 2(a) and 2(d) shall
take effect on the date that is 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Remedies and Clarification.--The amendments made under
section 2(b) shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(c) Application of Law.--Section 18D of the Fair Labor
Relations Act of 1938 (as added by section 2) shall not apply
to crewmembers of an air carrier, as defined in section 40102
of title 49, United States Code, until the date that is 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS REQUIRED.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor,
shall propose regulations, as appropriate, to--
(1) identify appropriate means for air carriers, as defined
in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code, to comply
with subsection (b)(1) of section 18D of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 during flight time; and
(2) update title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to ensure
that expressing breast milk is considered a physiological
need.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
[[Page H5799]]
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3110, the PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass H.R. 3110,
the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, a bipartisan bill that would
strengthen workplace protections for nursing mothers.
Nursing mothers should have a clear right to break time and a clean,
private space to pump breast milk at work. As we have heard from health
experts and worker advocates across the country, these basic
accommodations ensure that nursing mothers can balance their work,
their health, and the health of their babies.
Regrettably, many nursing mothers still do not have these
protections. Under current law, millions of workers--including
farmworkers, transportation workers, and teachers--are currently
excluded from Federal protections for nursing employees.
The nursing mothers who are covered by existing law have limited
recourse when their rights are violated.
To close these gaps, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act expands
existing protections for nursing mothers for nearly 9 million employees
who are currently left out. It provides nursing workers with access to
meaningful remedies when employers fail to provide appropriate time and
pumping space.
Importantly, this bill includes an amendment to clarify that
congressional employees are covered by these protections and to address
safety concerns by including airline crew members break time to pump
during a flight.
No working American should be forced to choose between going to work
and staying healthy, so we must take this urgent step to support
nursing workers and strengthen our economy.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration
Policy in support of H.R. 3110.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3110--PUMP FOR NURSING MOTHERS ACT--Rep. Maloney, D-NY, and 8
cosponsors
The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.
3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for
Nursing Mothers Act. No new mother should face unfair
treatment in the workplace because their employer refuses to
provide them with reasonable break time and private, clean
space needed to adequately express breast milk while at work,
forcing them to choose between their health and the health of
her child, and earning a paycheck. Yet millions of new
working mothers, disproportionately working mothers of color,
face this challenge every day.
Congress recognized the importance of ensuring that workers
are able to have the time and space they need to express
breast milk by passing section 4207 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, also known as the 2010 Break Time
for Nursing Mothers Act. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act
would ensure that millions of working mothers previously
excluded from the 2010 Break Time law are protected. By
closing this gap, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will
ensure millions of nursing mothers have a clear right to pump
at work. Without these protections, nursing mothers face
serious health consequences, including risk of painful
illness and infection, diminished milk supply, or inability
to continue breastfeeding.
H.R. 3110 is a bipartisan bill that would also require
employers to pay an hourly employee for any time spent
pumping if the employee is also working. The legislation
would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies
available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Finally, the PUMP Act also gives employers flexibility
to identify solutions that work for their specific business
environment. For example, the bill requires employees to
inform their employers about inadequate space to express
breast milk 10 days before filing suit for violating the
requirement.
The Administration encourages the House to pass this
bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to
working with the Congress to fill the gaps in the law so that
all new mothers who choose to breastfeed are guaranteed the
workplace protections they deserve.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the
legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3110.
This act puts overly burdensome, one-size-fits-all requirements on
businesses.
While I believe empowering women in the workplace is important, we
must not saddle businesses with rigid policies that will open them up
to legal action. We, instead, must support flexible policies that allow
women to thrive in the workplace.
This bill's flawed scheme and expansive mandate do more harm than
good and will further bog down businesses that are already struggling
to recover from the pandemic. During this difficult time, the last
thing small businesses need is more sweeping mandates.
More than 2 million women left the labor force in 2020. Now more than
ever, we need to advocate for flexible workplace policies that improve
conditions for, and empower, working mothers.
I fully support women who wish to enter and return to the workforce,
and I understand the challenges that can come with this, especially for
nursing mothers. Yet, I don't believe one-size-fits-all mandates are
beneficial, not for women and not for employers.
Workplaces are as varied as the people they employ. Putting every
workplace under the same standard, despite a job creator's needs or
ability to meet that standard, will ultimately be bad for the American
worker.
Airlines are just one example of an industry that will be negatively
impacted if this bill is signed into law. Under this bill's rigid
requirements, airlines may have to rethink plane designs or modify
aircraft to provide a private space, other than a bathroom, for nursing
mothers to pump, as required under the bill.
The rigid break requirements in the bill are also inappropriate for
airlines because flight crews have varying responsibilities in
preparation for and throughout flights, which ensure the safety and
security of passengers.
Exposing airlines and other businesses to such inflexible
requirements will hurt struggling businesses.
Further, not all nursing mothers have the same needs. Pretending that
they do might be convenient, but it also demonstrates ignorance about
the diverse circumstances that mothers are in.
I wholeheartedly believe that it is possible to provide women with a
healthy environment in which to work and simultaneously to allow
businesses flexibility in providing accommodations.
When I first entered the workforce, nursing-accommodation
requirements for women in the workplace were not even on the horizon.
Countless workplaces now provide such accommodations, and rightly so.
Current law provides accommodations for hourly workers.
Creating a healthy place for women to thrive is important to us all,
but there is a right way to go about this and a wrong way. H.R. 3110 is
the wrong way.
Most employers have their employees' best interests at heart, but
H.R. 3110 treats our job creators as if they are out to harm the very
women they depend on to keep their businesses running.
Again, this is the wrong way to go about empowering women in the
workplace.
This bill's excessive penalties, expansive mandate, and lack of
clarity will create a perfect storm for frivolous lawsuits. Unfounded
lawsuits cost businesses billions every year in the United States. We
should do all we can to prevent opening businesses up to harmful legal
action.
I would like to remind my colleagues that Representative Miller-Meeks
submitted her bill, the Supporting Working Mothers Act, to the Rules
Committee as an amendment to provide a commonsense alternative to the
PUMP Act.
That is a sensible amendment that meets the actual needs of nursing
mothers without forcing overly burdensome regulations on our job
creators.
That amendment, unlike the PUMP Act, expands access to nursing
accommodations in the workplace without
[[Page H5800]]
relying on punitive mandates that expose businessowners to costly
litigation.
The Supporting Working Mothers Act adds nursing-accommodation
coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional
employees, ensuring that over 80 percent of currently exempt women are
covered.
That amendment also includes a fair and workable process to ensure
accommodations are provided for nursing mothers by encouraging
collaboration between workers and employers to identify and make
improvements when accommodations are insufficient.
Representative Miller-Meeks' commonsense amendment serves nursing
mothers in the workforce without sacrificing the well-being of our job
creators. This is the right way to empower women.
I am extremely disappointed that the Democrat majority refused to
make the amendment in order. Democrats chose to stifle debate on this
commonsense approach to nursing accommodations in favor of a flawed
mandate.
Because the bill is impractical and overly punitive, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chair of the
Oversight and Reform Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of the
bill.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding and for his incredible leadership in this body.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act, a bipartisan bill I authored with Representative Herrera
Beutler. Our bill has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators
Merkley and Murkowski.
When I first came to Congress, working mothers would come to me,
often in tears, and advocate for a place to safely pump breast milk.
Often, they were fired, ridiculed, forbidden, or forced to pump milk in
bathrooms.
Since those years, I have worked for on-site lactation rooms, here in
government and really everywhere in our country.
In 1998, I passed a provision allowing State WIC agencies to purchase
breast pumps for new mothers, making it easier for low-income moms to
choose breastfeeding.
In 1999, Congress passed my bill to guarantee the right to breastfeed
on Federal property.
Most recently, Senator Merkley and I passed the Break Time for
Nursing Mothers as part of the Affordable Care Act. This act provides
employees with critical protections to provide break time for nursing
mothers and a private place to pump milk.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act we are considering today builds on
the Break Time Act by protecting the nearly 9 million employees who
were not originally included in these protections. Those covered by the
PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act now include teachers, nurses, farmworkers,
and software engineers, to name a few.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would also ensure that nursing
mothers have remedies if their employers fire them or violate these
breastfeeding protections. In addition, if an employee is fired for
taking a break, the PUMP Act ensures that workers can seek
reinstatement.
It also extends breastfeeding protections for 2 years, in line with
recommendations from the World Health Organization.
Over 150 organizations have endorsed this important legislation. I
include in the Record letters of support from some of those
organizations, including the Center for WorkLife Law, and MomsRising,
to name a few.
Written Statement of the Center for WorkLife Law Before the United
States House of Representatives--September 24, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives: The Center for WorkLife
Law submits this letter to the U.S. House of Representatives
in full support of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections
(PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
The Center for WorkLife Law is a research and advocacy
organization that seeks to advance gender, racial, and class
equity in employment and education. We collaborate with
employees, employers, attorneys, and government officials to
identify practical and legal solutions to work-family issues.
WorkLife Law's 2019 report Exposed: Discrimination Against
Breastfeeding Workers found that shortcomings of the existing
Break Time for Nursing Mothers law have caused lactating
employees to face significant obstacles at work. Even with
the current law's protections, breastfeeding employees
leaking milk have been denied permission to take pumping
breaks; they have been fired just for asking; and refused
privacy, forcing them to pump milk with their breasts exposed
to coworkers, clients, and the public in physically unsafe
conditions. Employees who do not receive the break time and
private space they need can face serious health consequences,
including illness and painful infections, diminished milk
supply, and weaning earlier than doctors recommend. Many
employees also suffer economic losses when they are fired or
forced to resign following a request for lactation
accommodations.
The PUMP Act would correct key shortcomings of existing law
that undermine the economic security and health of women and
their families.
Closing the Coverage Gap that Excludes Millions of Workers
Nearly 9 million women of childbearing age are currently
excluded from the protections of the Break Time for Nursing
Mothers Law, meaning they have no clear federal right to
receive break time and private space to pump milk during the
workday. This exclusion was unintentional at the time the law
was enacted. The resulting coverage gap is considerable and
impacts employees in a wide range of occupations, including
many of those working in the top two pink-collar occupations:
nursing and teaching. The PUMP Act would correct this
senseless exclusion to bring all workers whose employers are
covered by the FLSA under the law's protection.
Providing Appropriate Remedies to Encourage Compliance
Even when clear violations occur, the Break Time for
Nursing Mothers provision cannot be counted on to deliver
appropriate remedies in a court of law. Because employers
cannot be held accountable for intentional legal violations,
noncompliance has been widespread. As one judge expressed in
the case of an EMT who was fired simply for asking that she
be given break time and space: ``While the Court is
sympathetic to Plaintiff's argument that this renders [the
Nursing Mothers law] ineffective, there is no support from
the case law or DOL [Department of Labor]'' to provide a
remedy. Another federal judge observed: ``An employer faced
with a request to allow an employee to take breaks to
breastfeed may simply fire the employee rather than attempt
to accommodate the request for breaks. And indeed, the Center
for WorkLife Law has heard from too many workers whose
employers have done exactly that.
The PUMP Act would correct this absurdity and encourage
employers to follow the law by making remedies that are
already available in other employment law contexts equally
available to breastfeeding workers.
However, the PUMP Act is not expected to lead to a
significant increase in lawsuits. A recent analysis by the
Center for WorkLife Law found that while enforceable laws
increase breastfeeding rates, they do not cause a meaningful
increase in litigation rates. The study reviewed all cases
filed in each state with enforceable lactation break time and
space laws (similar to the PUMP Act) through 2020 and found:
Litigation rates for violations of the state laws were
extremely low. Over the combined forty-seven years that the
four jurisdictions' break time and space laws have been in
effect, there were only six (6) cases total.
The annual likeihood a private employer will be sued under
a break time and space law is essentially zero (0.0002
percent). A business owner is over 25 times more likely to be
struck by lightning in their lifetime.
Notably, the state laws WorkLife Law studied do not include
the additional employer protection found in the PUMP Act that
gives businesses 10 days to correct space violations before
any lawsuit can be filed, a provision that will further
decrease the number of lawsuits that would be filed should
the PUMP Act pass.
The PUMP Act is a balanced approach that meets the needs of
breastfeeding employees while also serving employers who make
reasonable attempts to follow the law. When employers have
clear standards to meet, and appropriate consequences if they
don't, employers have shown that they are able to provide the
break time and space that working mothers need. Complying
with break time and space requirements is simple, and
creative solutions exist in all industries. As described by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, employers
that support breastfeeding with affordable solutions realize
cost savings from increased loyalty and retention, reduced
sick time, and decreased health care and insurance costs.
Our organization urges all members of Congress to vote in
support because the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would ensure
that all breastfeeding women have the full protection of the
law and ability to meet their basic needs while away from
their nursing babies during the workday. It is a simple
solution that promotes maternal and child health, as well as
the economic security of women and families.
[[Page H5801]]
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Liz Morris,
Center for WorkLife Law,
UC Hastings College of the Law.
____
Written Statement of Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner Co-Founder & Executive
Director, MomRising Before the United States House of Representatives--
September 24, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives: MomsRising submits this
letter to the U.S. House of Representatives in full support
of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for
Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
MomsRising is a national online and on-the-ground
grassroots organization with more than a million members
nationwide. We work on a broad range of issues and policies
to achieve economic security for all moms, women, and
families in the United States.
While nearly four out of five U.S. mothers start out
breastfeeding, less than half are still breastfeeding at six
months postpartum. One of the main causes for the drop-off in
breastfeeding rates is the lack of break time and a private
place to pump in the workplace. MomsRising members around the
country have shared their stories and pictures about needing
better places to pump breastmilk.
Currently, federal law requires employers for most hourly
wage-earning and some salaried employees (nonexempt workers)
reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom location to
express breast milk for one year after the child's birth,
This is a great first step, but it leaves millions of workers
without any protections at all. We must close the gap in the
law and expand protections for all breastfeeding mothers who
work outside of the home. The PUMP Act will close gaps and
include meaningful enforcement.
Breastfeeding isn't just good for moms and babies. The fact
is that breastfeeding is good for the physical and economic
health of our nation. Recent studies have shown if mothers
could meet current medical recommendations for breastfeeding
it would save the US economy nearly $13 billion per year in
paediatric health costs and premature deaths.
With three-quarters of moms being the primary or co-
breadwinner these days, we must close the gap in existing law
and expand protections for all breastfeeding mothers who work
outside of the home. Sadly returning to work is too often a
significant barrier to breastfeeding, but we can do better.
Please support all breastfeeding and working moms and
support the PUMP Act.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner,
Co-Founder & Executive Director,
MomRising.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. As these organizations have
demonstrated, without these protections, nursing mothers face serious
health consequences, including the risk of painful illness and the
inability to continue to breastfeed.
Studies have shown the health benefits for breastfed infants. It is
really important and can prevent other diseases.
These basic protections would ensure that working moms who want to
breastfeed can continue to do so and prevent nursing mothers from being
singled out, ridiculed, or fired.
This bill is an important step for work-family balance. We say we
support families. Today is a vote for families, work-family balance,
and mothers and infants.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' bipartisan vote.
{time} 0930
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Foxx for yielding me
time to speak on this important issue.
As a mother and a physician, I understand the tremendous value that
nursing an infant brings both to the mother and the child.
As the director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, I attended
conferences and spoke on the need to encourage mothers to consider
breastfeeding and the benefits of breastfeeding, be they nutritional,
immunological, or the tremendous bond that occurs through
breastfeeding.
It is also why, despite being a working mother who was doing a
general surgery internship and ophthalmology residency, I breast-fed
both of my children. Because I was a working mother, that included
expressing breast milk by pumping.
I understand and I am supportive of the collaboration between
employers and nursing mothers to have a private place to do so at their
place of employment. I recognize that H.R. 3110 is trying to address
this issue and provide accommodations for nursing mothers, which I
wholeheartedly support, however, I feel the bill needs improvement.
As it stands, H.R. 3110 puts a one-size-fits-all treatment of nursing
accommodations for different businesses and industries. The bill also
puts excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the
nursing-accommodation requirements in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
These unreasonable penalties, combined with compliance challenges
posed by the mandate, will lead to costly and protracted lawsuits
because of their adversarial nature.
The result will be delayed accommodations for working mothers. Rather
than a collaborative arrangement between an employer and a nursing
mother employee, this bill is punitive in nature.
To address laws and H.R. 3110 and build on current law protections
for nursing mothers, I submitted my bill, H.R. 4297, the Supporting
Working Mothers Act, to the Rules Committee as an amendment.
My bill is based on legislation introduced in a previous Congress by
the sponsor of the bill we are debating today. Unfortunately, the
majority refused to allow my amendment to even be debated on the floor.
My amendment represents a workable, feasible, and reasonable approach
to the Fair Labor Standards Act nursing-accommodation requirements.
First, my amendment would have modified current law by providing
coverage to white collar executive, administrative, and professional
employees, while also maintaining current law coverage of hourly
employees. My bill also preserved the 50-employee undue hardship
exemption threshold as a safeguard for small businesses.
These provisions would ensure coverage for over 80 percent of the
women who are not currently covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act
nursing-accommodation requirement.
The bill we are debating today, H.R. 3110, significantly increases
the penalties for employer violations that are required for
breastfeeding accommodations, regardless of attempts at compliance.
These penalties are disproportionate to the technical and
unintentional Fair Labor Standards Act violations which could occur
under this bill.
My amendment would have preserved the authority of the Secretary of
Labor to provide injunctive relief to address shortcomings and
accommodations and assessable monetary penalties for repeat violations.
However--and this is critical--my amendment also includes a provision
establishing a collaborative process for employees and employers to
create and improve accommodations in a timely fashion without relying
on time consuming and expensive lawsuits.
Because workplaces are not one size fits all, it is critical that
legislation on nursing accommodations provide clear requirements that
are adaptable to many kinds of workplaces, so that employers understand
their obligations and are able to comply.
Again, given my strong support of breastfeeding, pumping, and storing
of breast milk, I am very disappointed that my amendment was not ruled
in order by the majority and that Congress did not take this
opportunity to address the flaws in H.R. 3110.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the co-chair
of the Maternity Care Caucus and the lead Republican sponsor on the
bill.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of our
bipartisan bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
Honestly, the whole goal of this legislation is to protect a nursing
mother's ability to provide for her infant by pumping at work.
And let me be clear, this is a business-friendly bill. This is
current law. For those who are thinking we are shaking the Earth and
doing something brand-new, it actually is current law. There were
problems with the way the current law was written; it was actually put
in the wrong place in code, and we are fixing that.
So the way it is currently, you could be a mom who gets into working
and
[[Page H5802]]
you have worked your way up into a career where you are salaried and
you make a decent amount of money, but you were excluded from this
legislation. You didn't have the right to expect this, even though
other workers did.
We are simply making some of those changes to make sure that folks
who were not eligible for overtime, like that working mom, would be
covered under current law.
This bill gives businesses clarity and predictability and allows
small businesses to claim undue hardship exemptions in recognition of
the unique challenges that they face.
Making sure our economy works is a huge priority to me, but we have
to also recognize that working moms make up a significant portion--and
should--of the workforce, and it is going to grow.
I thank my colleagues for improving this bill to reflect its original
intent with regard to businesses, namely, differentiating between large
corporations and mom-and-pop operations.
As a mom of three young kids myself, I understand finding the balance
of raising kids, going to work, and just simply finding a place to pump
while working.
My first child was a 28-week preemie. It was imperative for her to
have breast milk; we were told this by her doctors. She could not
handle formula, and they said it is imperative that you do what you can
to breastfeed her. And I joke I am going to write a book called, Oh,
the places I have pumped. I have pumped in trains, on planes, in
automobiles, in some poor low-ranking officer's office at the Pentagon,
at a kibbutz in Israel on a codel; I mean, everywhere. And I can tell
you, there are places that are clean and helpful, and it doesn't have
to be like the Taj Mahal; you just need something that is not crammed
in a public toilet where people are flushing over you.
So on a really serious note, this is a critical piece of legislation
that is going to empower women in the workforce to continue to provide
for their families.
Imagine a single mother not having that choice, she has to work, and
maybe she wants to provide breast milk for her child or maybe she has
to in a circumstance like mine. Making sure that mothers of infants and
toddlers can continue to do this in the workforce and continue to join
the workforce is absolutely vital.
With women making up over half of our Nation's workforce, it is
crucial that moms aren't forced to choose between going to their job or
breastfeeding their child.
With the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of this legislation,
this bill seeks to help, not hinder, an employer's ability to provide a
safe space for moms to pump.
I am proud to help lead this bipartisan legislation with my
colleague, Congresswoman Maloney, so moms in southwest Washington and
across this country can feel secure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters
of support from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National
Retail Federation.
Chamber of Commerce
of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2021.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representative: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 3110, the
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing
Mothers Act, as reported from the Education and Labor
Committee and as anticipated to be be improved via manager's
amendment. We hope this legislation will be further refined
as the legislative process continues to address the unique
issues related to the air travel sector.
This legislation would update the Break Time for Nursing
Mothers Act, which became law in 2010. This law amended the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers with
more than 50 employees to provide a space for mothers to
either nurse or, more likely, to express breast milk. It also
requires employers to provide reasonable breaks for workers
to nurse. Because the legislation amended the FLSA's overtime
provision, it did not cover workers exempt from overtime. It
also lacks an enforcement mechanism.
The PUMP Act would expand coverage to those workers
currently exempt and would provide workers with a remedy if
employers fail to provide accommodation or reasonable breaks.
The bill as passed by the Education and Labor Committee and
the manager's amendment would improve upon the introduced
version of H.R. 3110 in several key areas:
Employers would be allowed 10 days to improve space
allocated for nursing mothers before employees could proceed
with seeking relief from the courts. This provision would
assure that more employees can get the accommodations they
need in a timely manner rather than triggering a drawn out,
costly, and uncertain litigation process.
Department of Labor would be required to issue guidance
that is consistent with the existing information from the
Office on Women's Health of the Department of Health and
Human Services' website in order to assist employers with
compliance.
The number of employees necessary for employers to be
eligible for the hardship exemption would be made consistent
with other provisions of law.
This legislation should be improved to provide a reasonable
exemption for the air travel sector. The limitations on space
on airplanes would make compliance with this legislation
impractical and in some cases impossible. We hope this issue
is addressed as the bill makes its way through the
legislative process.
The PUMP Act is a win-win for nursing mothers and the
companies that employ them. Employers would get clarity and a
way to avoid litigation, and nursing mothers would be able to
remain in the workforce. The bill as reported by the
Education and Labor Committee and augmented by the manager's
amendment is the product of collaborative negotiations
between employers and advocates for this bill. The Chamber is
pleased to strongly support this legislation.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley.
____
National Retail Federation,
Washington, DC, October 12, 2021.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of the National Retail
Federation, I write to express our support for and urge the
passage of H.R. 3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal
Protections for Nursing Mothers (PUMP) Act.
NRF, the world's largest retail trade association,
passionately advocates for the people, brands, policies and
ideas that help retail thrive. From its headquarters in
Washington, D.C., NRF empowers the industry that powers the
economy. Retail is the nation's largest private-sector
employer, contributing $3.9 trillion to annual GDP and
supporting one in four U.S. jobs--52 million working
Americans. For over a century, NRF has been a voice for every
retailer and every retail job, educating, inspiring and
communicating the powerful impact retail has on local
communities and global economies.
For over a decade, federal law has required employers to
provide nursing mothers with reasonable break times to
express breast milk. Further, employers must designate a
facility in which to do so, that is shielded from view and
``free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.'' As
enacted, only nursing mothers who are non-exempt from the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) were covered by the new
requirements. The PUMP Act would expand coverage to all
nursing mothers. This legislation also includes important
provisions that will ensure that employers are properly
notified if it is alleged that they are not providing
appropriate facilities for nursing, including a 10-calendar-
day time period for employers to provide such facilities
before any litigation can commence.
The PUMP Act is a sound piece of bipartisan legislation
that will allow nursing mothers to maintain their vital role
the American workplace.
Sincerely,
David French,
Senior Vice President Government Relations.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Person Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member from North Carolina for yielding.
Person Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act, or should I call it the pump for nursing persons act? I
can't keep up with the rules of this House.
At a time, Person Speaker, when we have 10 million job openings, why
does the Democrat majority have such contempt and disdain for
struggling businesses, job creators, and employers?
With businesses already suffering from endless regulations and the
resulting costs passed on to consumers, not to mention being saddled
with the vaccine mandates, endless COVID restrictions, why are
Democrats relentlessly consumed with making things worse?
[[Page H5803]]
The fact is, Democrats are economically illiterate. They don't
understand that the government doesn't have any money, they can only
take it from taxpayers, and businesses don't truly pay taxes or pay for
regulations. They have two choices: Close or pass on those costs to
consumers.
Democrats believe that employers are abusing and exploiting their
workers, and Democrats are working every day to punish them, with the
result being more lost jobs, greater supply shortages, and higher
inflation as we see around our country today.
We all believe in an equal workplace for men and women, but I oppose
legislation that falsely victimizes employees and is truly just another
payout for trial lawyers, otherwise known as Democrat donors. They are
seeking to exploit these excessive new penalties on businesses.
The fact is employers want happy and productive employees. They are
working hard to attract and retain those workers. And they are already
making these accommodations without the heavy hand of the Federal
Government.
I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to visit a business or
talk to an employer.
This regulation was written by trial lawyers, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I will be doing the same.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), the co-chair of the Black
Maternal Health Caucus.
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, every mom returning to the workforce
after childbirth should be provided the time and space that they need
to safely and privately pump breast milk at work.
As a nurse, I understand how critical breastfeeding is to the health
of both mom and baby.
Without sufficient workplace protections, breastfeeding employees are
at risk of serious and painful health consequences and reduced milk
supply. They can also face harassment, docked pay, and even job loss.
Yet each year, millions of workers, including teachers, nurses,
farmworkers, and salaried employees are denied this basic protection
due to an unintended loophole in current law.
I am grateful to Chairwoman Maloney for her leadership, and I am
proud to join her in leading the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act to close
the coverage gap and ensure all breastfeeding moms are protected and
supported as they return to work.
This bill is bipartisan and has a broad coalition of support from
public health, labor, and civil rights groups, as well as from the
business community.
It is also urgently needed, providing commonsense, necessary
protections for working moms, as well as more clarity and
predictability for employers.
Returning to work after childbirth already poses many inherent
challenges for moms and their families, and we must remove barriers for
parents making the best choices for their families and themselves.
I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on this important
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three letters in support of
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act from the National Education
Association, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the
March of Dimes.
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2021.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The 3 million members of the National
Education Association, who educate and support 50 million
students across the nation, urge you to vote YES on the
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing
Mothers Act, H.R. 3110. Votes on this issue may be included
in the NEA Report Card for the 117th Congress.
The 2010 Break Time law provided important protections that
ensured employees would have reasonable break time and a
private place to pump breast milk. However, the law excludes
certain categories of employees, including educators; in
fact, nearly one in four women of childbearing age is not
covered by the Break Time law. The PUMP Act would:
Protect the nearly 9 million employees who are not now
covered by the Break Time law;
Require employers to provide reasonable break time and a
private, non-bathroom space for breastfeeding employees to
pump during the workday;
Provide employers with clarity on when pumping time must be
paid and when it may be unpaid, leaving in place existing law
protecting many salaried workers and clarifying that any time
spent pumping while the employee is working must be counted
as hours worked; and
Ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that
are available for other violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Decades of scientific research tell us that breastfeeding
helps put children on the path to life-long health and
wellness. This strong foundation, in turn, can pave the way
for their future success in school. The PUMP Act supports
children's early development, while also recognizing that
breastfeeding mothers are crucial breadwinners for their
families. We urge you to vote YES on the PUMP Act.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan,
Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
____
September 24, 2021.
Dear Members of Congress: The National Partnership for
Women & Families is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy
organization committed to improving the lives of women and
families by achieving equity for all women. Since our
creation as the Women's Legal Defense Fund in 1971, we have
fought for every significant advance for equal opportunity in
the workplace, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). We
write in strong support of H.R. 3110, Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act. This
bipartisan legislation will support breastfeeding employees
and their families, improving infant health and the economic
security of women and families.
Once pregnant workers return to the workplace after giving
birth, many will need the ability to pump breastmilk during
the workday. While the Affordable Care Act requires employers
to provide reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom
space for certain breastfeeding employees to pump, persistent
coverage gaps exist. Roughly one in four women of
childbearing age are not covered by current law. Since
breastfeeding is associated with a host of improved health
outcomes, expanding these protections to the 9 million
workers currently excluded from the Break Time for Nursing
Mothers law is essential to support mothers in the workplace.
In addition to closing the coverage gap, the PUMP Act will
also clarify for employers when pumping time must be paid and
when it may be unpaid, and extend the remedies available for
other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act to nursing
employees, ensuring that working parents' rights are
protected.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is crucial because it will
fill the gaps in the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law,
allowing breastfeeding employees to remain in the workforce
while keeping their families healthy. It is time to clarify
and strengthen existing federal protections for breastfeeding
employees by passing the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness,
President, National Partnership
for Women & Families.
____
March of Dimes,
September 24, 2021.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Leader Schumer and
Leader McConnell: On behalf of March of Dimes, the nonprofit
organization leading the fight for the health of all moms and
babies, we urge swift passage of the bi-partisan Providing
Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act
(S. 1658/H.R. 3110).
We began that fight more than 80 years ago as an
organization dedicated to eradicating polio in the U.S., a
goal that we achieved. We continue that fight today as we
work to address some of the biggest threats to moms and
babies, such as premature birth and maternal mortality,
through research, education, programs and advocacy.
March of Dimes' ongoing work to improve maternal and infant
health is more important than ever as our nation is in the
midst of a dire maternal and infant health crisis. Rates of
preterm birth are increasing, the U.S. is one of the most
dangerous places to give birth in the developed world, and
there are unacceptable disparities in birth outcomes between
women and infants of color and their White peers. We also
know, the health and well-being of mothers and infants are
inextricably linked. By improving the health of, and
conditions for, women before, during and between pregnancies,
we can improve outcomes for both them and their infants. But
we have many challenges before us.
One of those challenges is ensuring the ability for a
mother to feed her infant after returning to the workplace.
When a new mother returns to work after having a baby,
[[Page H5804]]
she will need continued support in the workplace to ensure
she can continue to breastfeed her child if she chooses.
Exclusive breastfeeding has a significant impact the health
of the baby, as well as benefits for moms. However, returning
to work can make continuing the breastfeeding relationship
between mothers and their infants very difficult, especially
if employers don't provide employees with adequate break time
and an appropriate space to express breastmilk during the
workday.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included provisions that
required certain employers to provide break time and a place
for most hourly wage-earning and some salaried employee to
pump at work. The Providing Urgent Maternal Protections
(PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act would extend those supports to
the 9 million employees that were excluded from the ACA's
protections and provide for enforcement of this benefit.
These nurses, teachers, retail workers, and managers across a
number of industries deserve the same protections as other
working mothers. March of Dimes proudly endorses the PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act (S. 1658/H.R. 3110).
Thank you again for the opportunity to express March of
Dimes' strong support for this bipartisan legislation under
consideration, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (S. 1658/H.R.
3110). We urge the swift advancement of this important bill
and look forward to its passage.
Sincerely,
Stacey Brayboy,
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
& Government Affairs.
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank these groups for their support
of the bill and for their tireless efforts on behalf of working moms.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 3110, the PUMP Act.
Americans want nursing mothers to have adequate provisions in the
workplace. The fact is, they are already provided in the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The bill before us consists of unreasonable burdens on employers and
penalties that will end up disincentivizing job creation.
At the same time that nursing mothers deserve protections, employers
deserve allowances for flexibility in their workplace.
We are in the midst of an economic, supply chain, and employment
crisis. We don't need to put more hurdles in the way of businesses and
employment.
When I am in my district and I speak to business owners all around my
district, the number one thing I hear is we cannot find enough workers.
Why are we going to put more strain on them?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the co-chair of the
Maternity Care Caucus.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the PUMP Act
to expand workplace protections for breastfeeding moms and ensure they
have access to appropriate and necessary accommodations.
Decades of research have shown that breastfeeding is one of the most
cost-effective interventions for improving maternal and child health.
Compared with formula-fed children, breastfed babies have a reduced
risk of ear, skin, stomach, and respiratory infections, sudden infant
death syndrome, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, and childhood
leukemia.
However, while 84 percent of U.S. babies are breastfed at birth, only
25 percent are still exclusively breastfed at 6 months of age.
I commend my colleague, Carolyn Maloney, for her career-long
dedication to improving these breastfeeding statistics.
Congresswoman Maloney's 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers law
provided the first critical protections to ensure mothers would have
reasonable break times and a private place to pump breast milk.
{time} 0945
Mothers with this access to workplace support have lower healthcare
costs, absenteeism, and turnover and show improved job morale,
satisfaction, and productivity.
However, that law unintentionally excluded 9 million women from these
workplace protections, including teachers, software engineers, and many
nurses.
Expanding workplace protections to include these women is important
because research clearly shows that without protections, breastfeeding
employees have increased risk of painful illness and infection,
diminished milk supply, and are more likely to stop breastfeeding
early.
As cochair of both the Maternity Care Caucus and the Public Health
Caucus, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the PUMP Act, which
is a commonsense solution to eliminating workplace barriers that
interfere with successful breastfeeding.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is critical to ensuring all mothers
have the opportunity to reach their personal breastfeeding goals to
protect their babies, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Written Statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Before the
United States House of Representatives, September 27, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives: The Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics submits this letter to the U.S. House of
Representatives in full support of the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R.
3110).
Representing more than 112,000 credentialed nutrition and
dietetics practitioners, the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics is the world's largest organization of food and
nutrition professionals. The Academy is committed to
improving the nation's health and advancing the profession of
dietetics through research, education and advocacy. Our
vision is a world where all people thrive through the
transformative power of food and nutrition. Our mission is to
accelerate improvements in global health and well-being
through food and nutrition.
The Academy's impact goals include increasing equitable
access to food, nutrition and other life-style related
services. As an organization that is overwhelmingly composed
of women in the workforce, the struggle to balance
professional responsibilities and motherhood is well-known to
our members as is the nutritional case for breastfeeding and
its continuance despite returning to work. Thus, for the
Academy, the issue of workplace accommodations for
breastfeeding women is both personal to our members and their
health and professional given the unquestionably essential
role of human milk in early nutrition for infants.
For over a decade--truly since the passage of the
Affordable Care Act--the Academy has advocated for
legislation addressing workplace accommodations for mothers
doing their best to meet the demands of earning a wage,
caring for their infants and protecting their own health but
who work for employers not included in existing law.
Women choosing to continue breastfeeding after returning to
work should be supported in this very personal yet
consequential decision that carries life-long outcomes for
both mom and infant.
It is unfortunate that such an important decision is often
not supported or understood by employers who benefit
directly. In one study, only 40 percent of mothers reported
having access to both break time and a private space to pump
while on the job. There is also inconsistency regarding how
employers meet legal requirements to accommodate
breastfeeding workers, even for those currently covered by
the law. As shared in the media, stories from women employees
report janitorial and other closets as the designated pumping
location and reveal barriers faced by moms requesting an
unpaid break.
A key recommendation of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans is, ``For about the first 6 months of life,
exclusively feed infants human milk. Sadly, among women who
work full-time, only 10% of those who started breastfeeding
their babies will still be breastfeeding by the time their
infant reaches six-month of age. The anticipation and
apprehension associated with how to continue to breastfeed
after returning to work prevents some moms from even
initiating breastfeeding.
There are three key reasons that Congress should pass the
PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act: 1) Human milk offers superior
nutrition and health benefits compared to infant formula, 2)
employers benefit from breastfeeding moms who return to work
and 3) increasing breastfeeding initiation and duration are
public health priorities of the United States. Examining the
rationale more closely demonstrates the positive outcomes
expected with passage of the bill.
1. Human Milk Offers Superior Nutrition and Health Benefits
Compared to Infant Formula
The Academy has previously noted that ``. . . exclusive
breastfeeding provides optimal nutrition and health
protection for the first 6 months of life and breastfeeding
with complementary foods from 6 months until at least 12
months of age is the ideal feeding pattern for infants.
Breastfeeding is an important public health strategy for
improving infant and child morbidity and mortality, improving
maternal morbidity, and helping to control health care costs.
Breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of otitis
media, gastroenteritis, respiratory illness, sudden infant
death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, obesity, and
hypertension. Breastfeeding is also associated with improved
maternal outcomes, including a reduced risk of breast and
ovarian cancer, type
[[Page H5805]]
2 diabetes, and postpartum depression. These reductions in
acute and chronic illness help to decrease health care
related expenses and productive time lost from work.
2. Employers Benefit from Breastfeeding Moms Who Return to
Work
Aside from nutrition and the health benefits to the mother
and baby, employers gain from women who continue to
breastfeed after returning to work. First, breastfeeding
employees miss work less often. One-day absences to care for
a sick infant or child happen twice as often for mothers who
chose to feed their infants formula. Second, since
breastfeeding is associated with lower health care costs for
mother and baby, employers also benefit from lower medical
insurance claims. One insurance company, CIGNA, found that
343 employees participating in a worksite lactation support
program resulted in an annual savings of $240,000 in health
care expenses, 62 percent fewer prescriptions and $60,000
savings related to absenteeism rates over a two-year period.
Finally, for businesses that offer a worksite lactation
program, there are even greater tangible benefits to the
employer. These include lower turnover rates and absenteeism
for working women, fathers and partners; additional health
care savings; higher productivity and loyalty; as well as a
positive public image.
3. Increasing Breastfeeding Initiation and Duration are
Public Health Priorities of the United States
Across federal agencies, significant resources are
appropriated and authorized to encourage mothers to initiate
breastfeeding and to continue after returning to work. A few
examples include:
Health and Human Services
In 2011 a landmark policy document, The Surgeon General's
Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding, outlined measurable
goals and objectives for stakeholders' efforts to align
national policy with public health goals. While progress has
been made over the past decade because of the recommended
actions, there continue to be gaps and opportunities to
address policies that support breastfeeding including those
related to employment and the workforce.
The Office of Women's Health offers support for women
through published guidance and notably for employers through
its ``Business Case for Breastfeeding.''
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Women, Infants and Children's Program receives
appropriated funds to support its peer counseling program and
the program extends participation to women who continue to
breastfeed for one-year post-partum.
The 2020-2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans led by
the USDA recently added new recommendations for children from
birth to two years of age. As noted, a key recommendation is
that for the first 6 months of life, infants should be fed
human milk. After 6 months of life, complementary foods and
breastfeeding are recommended until one year of age.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Centers CDC has made breastfeeding a public health
priority and encourages state health departments, hospitals
and local communities to implement public health goals and
align resources to support breastfeeding rates for
communities of color. ``Because of the importance of
breastfeeding for the health of mothers and babies, CDC
supports breastfeeding through hospital initiatives, work
site accommodation, continuity of care, and community support
initiatives.''
The federal government advocates for breastfeeding and its
continuance for working women, but laws and regulations don't
make it easy for women in all sectors of the workforce to
fulfill breastfeeding public health goals and objectives.
Why will the PUMP Act help?
It is reasonable to expect that if breastfeeding and
workplace accommodations are seen as public health priorities
by the federal government and tax-payer dollars are used to
fund programs designed to encourage and support breastfeeding
for the public, that policies protecting and advancing the
interest of the government's investment should be
implemented. The PUMP Act is one such policy that will
eliminate barriers for women who are teachers, flight
attendants and other exempt workers.
The bi-partisan PUMP Act will bring equity to nearly nine
million women in the workforce and their families who
currently lack protections as they seek to provide
recommended nutrition to their new babies.
Women in the workforce are striving for economic stability
to help support their families. The country benefits from
their contributions to our economy. Instead of focusing on
what happens when employees need unpaid time to feed their
baby as their doctor, nutrition experts, and the U.S.
government recommend, consider what happens and the cost to
our nation when they do not. Through WIC, the U.S. government
provides services to approximately 53 percent of all U.S.
infants. Infant formula is the most expensive item in WIC
food packages and costs to the government exceeded $927
million in fiscal year 2010. The direct cost to the
government of providing infant formula and the related
indirect cost of employee turn-over, absenteeism and most
importantly, the increased health care costs of formula-fed
infants make this bill a win for all parties and protects the
economic interest of the U.S.
Perhaps then Federal Reserve Chair and current Secretary of
Treasury Janet Yellen said it best in an essay following her
2017 remarks at the ``125 Years of Women at Brown
Conference'' sponsored by Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island:
``. . . a number of factors appear to be holding women
back, including the difficulty women currently have in trying
to combine their careers with other aspects of their lives,
including caregiving. In looking to solutions, we should
consider improvements to work environments and policies that
benefit not only women, but all workers. Pursuing such a
strategy would be in keeping with the story of the rise in
women's involvement in the workforce, which has contributed
not only to their own well-being but more broadly to the
welfare and prosperity of our country.''
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics urges all members of
Congress to vote in support of this bill because it is the
right step to support babies, mothers, employers and
ultimately the health and prosperity of our nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeanne Blankenship, MS RDN,
Vice President, Policy Initiatives and Advocacy, Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 leaves a whole host of unanswered questions
for employers regarding their obligations under the bill as written.
H.R. 3110 threatens job creators with disproportionate penalties for
technical or unintentional violations of the FLSA's accommodation
requirements.
For example, are employers required to build a separate room to
provide these accommodations?
H.R. 3110 fails to answer this question or the circumstances and
specifications an employer would need to know to comply with such a
requirement, or how such requirements would interact with other Federal
laws.
For instance, the bill does not clarify whether the space must be
compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, accessibility
requirements, or how it will fit in with the ADA requirements, such as
clear path of travel. Nor does the legislation give appropriate
guidance as to whether the space must be permanent or temporary. In
addition, the remedies in H.R. 3110 go far beyond what is recoverable
with respect to other proven wage-and-hour and break violations under
both Federal law and State laws.
The expansion of remedies in the bill will increase litigation and
result in a financial windfall for trial lawyers. But these penalties
do not address the employees' main interest in obtaining appropriate
break time and space. Expanded monetary damages will undoubtedly lead
to more litigation and the additional delays that litigation brings in
already overburdened courts. It also should be noted that the
Department of Labor is better suited to enforce technical violations of
the FLSA quickly and effectively; litigation is no solution.
DOL has institutional knowledge of Federal labor laws, including the
FLSA, and is equipped to provide accurate guidance to employers.
To understand the implications of H.R. 3110, one only needs to look
at the proliferation of lawsuits for ``gotcha'' technical violations
throughout various Federal and State wage-and-hour laws or the ADA to
recognize that costly litigation will follow and positive results for
employees will be delayed.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights
and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and
Labor.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
bipartisan PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
Since 2010, the Affordable Care Act has required employers to provide
nursing mothers with break time to express milk, as well as access to a
private non-bathroom space for pumping.
Although this was a significant improvement for working moms--one
that I didn't have when I was breastfeeding my babies--the law still
left 9 million workers uncovered, including teachers, agriculture
workers, engineers, and others.
This coverage gap is unacceptable, and it means that each year
millions of parents who choose to breastfeed must
[[Page H5806]]
decide between the health of their child and maintaining employment.
The coverage gap has also disproportionately harmed Black and brown
women, who represent 12 percent of the workforce but nearly 20 percent
of women of childbearing age who are not covered by the existing break
time provision.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will address this coverage gap by
simply amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protections to
workers who are not currently covered.
As Representative Herrara Beutler explained, this is current law. We
are just closing a gap that is leaving too many nursing moms out. It
will also clarify that if a worker is not relieved of their duties
during the time spent pumping, then those hours must count as hours
worked.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rights of
women in the workplace and to help their families by joining me in
voting for the bipartisan PUMP Act.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of the
bill from the United States Breastfeeding Committee.
Written Statement of Nikia Sankofa Executive Director of the U.S.
Breastfeeding Committee Before the United States House of
Representatives--September 24, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McCarthy, and all
members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S.
Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) submits this letter to the
U.S. House of Representatives in full support of the
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing
Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
The USBC is a coalition of more than 100 national
nonprofits, breastfeeding coalitions, community-based
organizations, and federal agency partners that support a
shared mission to drive collaborative efforts for policy and
practices that create a landscape of breastfeeding support
across the United States. We are committed to ensuring that
all families in the U.S. have the support, resources, and
accommodations to achieve their breastfeeding goals in the
communities where they live, learn, work, and play.
We know that the vast majority of people become parents
during their lifetime, and their needs and the needs of their
infants are neither surprising nor difficult to meet if we
plan appropriately. A simple and common-sense policy solution
to address ongoing workplace barriers and inequities is
within the reach of Congress through the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R.
3110), which strengthens the existing Break Time for Nursing
Mothers law and has bipartisan and bicameral support.
Human Milk: A Proven Prevention Strategy
Breastfeeding is a primary prevention strategy that builds
a foundation for life-long health and wellness, adapting
overtime to meet the changing needs of the growing child. The
evidence for the value of human milk feeding to overall
health is scientific, robust, and continually being
reaffirmed by new researcher.
Human milk feeding is proven to reduce the risk of a range
of illnesses and conditions for infants and mothers. Compared
with commercial milk formula fed children, breastfed infants
have a reduced risk of ear, skin, stomach, and respiratory
infections; diarrhea; and sudden infant death syndrome. In
the longer term, breastfed children have a reduced risk of
obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, and childhood
leukemia. Women who breastfed their children have a reduced
long-term risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease,
and breast and ovarian cancers. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends infants be exclusively breastfed for
about 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing
complementary foods for at least 1 year.
Barriers to Success
The great majority of pregnant women and new parents want
to breastfeed, but significant barriers in the community,
health care, and employment settings can impede breastfeeding
success. In 2017, the national breastfeeding initiation rate
among infants was 84.1 percent, representing a 13.8 percent
increase from 2001. However, by six months of age, only 25.6
percent of U.S. infants exclusively breastfeed. Despite
overall increases in breastfeeding initiation and duration,
deep racial, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities in
breastfeeding rates persist. Compared to national averages,
only 73.7 percent of Black infants and 80.7 percent of Native
American infants are ever breastfed, contributing to
inequalities in maternal and infant health outcomes.
Furthermore, a distressing 60 percent of mothers report that
they did not breastfeed for as long as they intended.
Structural and environmental barriers can make it difficult
or impossible for families to establish an adequate milk
supply to sustain human milk feeding at medically recommended
levels. For many families, rather than being a matter of
personal choice, infant feeding practice is informed by
circumstance.
More than half of mothers enter or return to the labor
force before their children turn one year old, with as many
as one in four women returning within just two weeks of
giving birth. When back at work or school, many discover that
they are unable to pump breast milk as frequently as
necessary or they have no choice but to pump in an unsanitary
or unsafe location, such as a bathroom. Economically-
marginalized women and non-white women are more likely to
return to work earlier than their more affluent white
counterparts. Without necessary accommodations, they are too
often unable to produce enough milk for a caregiver to feed
their child during separations and may not be able to
maintain their milk supply.
Breastfeeding families throughout the United States are
facing barriers that make it difficult or impossible to start
or continue breastfeeding--but it does not have to be this
way. Public health initiatives, including legal and policy
interventions and approaches designed to enable more infants
to breastfeed, have the potential to markedly improve
population health.
Current Laws and Simple Accommodations Across Industries
The Break Time for Nursing Mothers law (Break Time law),
passed in 2010, provides critical protections to ensure that
employees have reasonable break time and a safe, private
place to pump breast milk. All the same strategies that
businesses use for any other type of break time, such as rest
breaks, meal breaks, or medical breaks can be utilized to
support breastfeeding employees.
Businesses of all sizes and in every industry have found
simple, cost-effective ways to meet the needs of their
breastfeeding employees as well as their business. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office on
Women's Health hosts the Supporting Nursing Moms at Work
resource, which provides a critical link between the need for
workplace support for breastfeeding families and the need for
implementation guidance for their employers. The online
resource provides a user-friendly tool that employers can use
to identify and implement industry-specific solutions to
providing time and space accommodations that work from farm
fields to grocery stores, and restaurants to offices. These
examples are already helping employers and employees identify
practical solutions that work for their business.
In many workspaces, compliance is as simple as placing
butcher paper or a curtain over a window in a managers'
office. In outdoor worksites, pop up tents or the cab of a
construction vehicle are used to meet the needs of
breastfeeding employees. To be functional, the pumping space
simply needs to be furnished with seating and a flat surface
such as a desk, small table, or shelf for the breast pump. As
long as the space is available each time the breastfeeding
employee needs it, the employer is meeting the requirements
of the law. If there are no breastfeeding employees, the
employer does not need to maintain a space.
Gaps in Current Law and Impact on Families
Unfortunately, the placement of the Break Time law within
section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) resulted
in nearly 9 million women--nearly one in four women of
childbearing age--being excluded from coverage. Those left
unprotected include teachers, software engineers, and many
nurses, among others. Without these protections,
breastfeeding employees face serious health consequences,
including risk of painful illness and infection, diminished
milk supply, or in ability to continue breastfeeding.
Over the past decade we have learned how to make
breastfeeding and employment work, but the significant
coverage gaps in the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law mean
that workplace breastfeeding accommodation implementation is
radically inconsistent. Employees of the same company and in
the same building frequently do not have access to the same
accommodations, and to figure out who must be accommodated
can be complicated for businesses.
In addition, little recourse is available for employees who
are covered by the Break Time law to ensure they can use
their rights. Section 7(r) of the FLSA does not specify any
penalties if an employer is found to have violated the break
time for nursing mothers requirements. This means that in
most instances, an employee may only bring an action for
unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation and an
additional equal amount in liquidated damages. According to
the Request for Information on the Break Time for Nursing
Mothers provision, which includes the Department of Labor's
preliminary interpretations of the law, ``Because employers
are not required to compensate employees for break time to
express breastmilk, in most circumstances there will not be
any unpaid minimum wage or overtime compensation associated
with the failure to provide such breaks.
A Bipartisan Solution to Simplify Existing Law: the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act
A policy solution with bipartisan support, the PUMP Act
would support breastfeeding employees while clarifying
implementation for employers across the nation. The bill
would strengthen the 2010 Break Time law by closing the
coverage gap and providing remedies for nursing mothers that
are available for other violations of the FLSA.
The Break Time for Nursing Mothers provision is written
with language that provides
[[Page H5807]]
immense flexibility and does not require the construction of
a permanent, dedicated lactation space. The PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act would maintain this flexibility. More than half
of all states have enacted legislation that impacts
breastfeeding employees. For many of these states, the PUMP
for Nursing Mothers Act would have little to no impact on
employer requirements.
For over ten years, the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee has
worked with organizations and government agencies on this
issue. We have documented the experiences of workers and
employers, seen the innovative solutions created by
businesses of all sizes, and identified the legislative gaps
that need to be addressed. After more than a decade of
raising awareness and mobilizing action, one thing is clear:
America needs the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
By aligning federal law with the needs of families and
ensuring that employers have the comprehensive resources and
support that they need, we can create a better tomorrow
together.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nikia Sankofa,
Executive Director,
U.S. Breastfeeding Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 3110 claim the bill merely fills
unintended gaps in the nursing-accommodation requirements signed into
law in 2010, but this description is not accurate.
H.R. 3110 imposes a flawed scheme full of unreasonable expanded
mandates, including overly-broad coverage coupled with gratuitous and
disproportionate penalties. The bill expands the Fair Labor Standards
Act's coverage of break time for nursing mothers to all 143 million
employees covered by the act. As a result, H.R. 3110 will require one-
size-fits-all nursing accommodations and impose substantial compliance
burdens on a wide variety of workplaces and industries.
Admitting this problem in the underlying bill, the manager's
amendment attempts to mitigate the bill's requirements so that they are
compatible with ensuring safety and security for airline passengers and
flight crews.
H.R. 3110 requires that airline employees have access to an enclosed
area for pumping breast milk, even though aircrafts designs are
regulated by the FAA for safety, security, and reliability, with
limited ability to add additional enclosed space. Remote and rural
airports also face unique challenges because of the smaller planes in
use at those airports. It is even more challenging to provide a private
space in a commercial aircraft other than a bathroom, as mandated by
H.R. 3110.
Additionally, many of these planes have small flight crews with few
redundancies in duties. Under the bill, they would be hard-pressed to
maintain appropriate staffing levels and access to services. Exposing
businesses to inflexible and unworkable requirements, coupled with
increased penalties for alleged violations, will clearly create new
incentives for trial lawyers.
H.R. 3110 will only encourage trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of
questionable validity targeting unsuspecting business owners.
Supporters of H.R. 3110 say the bill is about providing women with
better accommodations in the workplace, but the truth is the bill fails
to live up to that promise.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, consideration of H.R. 3110 marks the latest in a
series of affronts to small businesses perpetuated by House Democrats
throughout the 117th Congress. Last month, Democrat members of the
Committee on Education and Labor voted to increase drastically the
penalties on employers, including a 512 percent increase in
Occupational Safety and Health Act penalties and a whopping 900 percent
increase in Fair Labor Standards Act penalties on job creators,
including small businesses.
Democrats also voted to authorize the National Labor Relations Board
to levy $50,000 and $100,000 fines on small business owners for
business activities that are currently lawful.
Republican Members offered several amendments at the committee's
reconciliation markup to exempt small businesses from the devastating
impacts of those provisions. However, these commonsense amendments were
voted down by committee Democrats on party-line votes.
The bill we are debating today was reported out of committee with
disturbing implications for smaller employers. Currently under the
FLSA, businesses with fewer than 50 employees may demonstrate that the
FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirements would impose an undue
hardship. The FLSA's unique hardship provision is an affirmative
defense to claims that small businesses must demonstrate in court.
Committee Democrats chose to cut the undue hardship exemption in half
to fewer than 25 employees. While this Democrat affront to small
business was corrected in the manager's amendment, more changes are
necessary to protect small businesses fully.
H.R. 3110 imposes excessive penalties for minor or technical
violations of the FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirement, while
failing to anticipate workplace realities in providing accommodations.
These excessive penalties, combined with the high probability of minor
or unintended infractions related to compliance with a complex mandate
on hundreds of thousands of new businesses, will lead to a
proliferation of expensive and protracted lawsuits, resulting in
delayed accommodations for workers.
In contrast to the shortcomings of H.R. 3110, Dr. Miller-Meeks
submitted a responsible substitute amendment for consideration, which
implements commonsense and workable alterations to the FLSA's nursing-
accommodation requirements. The Miller-Meeks' amendment adds nursing
accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or
professional employees while preserving FLSA treatment of unique and
disparate workplaces.
Her amendment also preserves the Secretary of Labor's FLSA
enforcement authority to address shortcomings in workplace
accommodations through injunctive relief or levy civil monetary
penalties against repeat and willful violators.
Dr. Miller-Meeks' amendment would not only ensure that the needs of
small businesses are protected, but would also update FLSA nursing-
accommodation requirements in a way that meets the needs of both
mothers and employers.
It is disappointing and unfortunate that the Democrat leadership
prevented the Miller-Meeks' amendment from being considered today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we
will instruct the Committee on Education and Labor to consider an
amendment to exempt certain industries with unique workplace
environments from the requirements in the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1000
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 imposes one-size-fits-all
nursing accommodation requirements on different kinds of work
environments, including those found in the airline, shipping, and
agriculture industries.
As a mother of two who nursed both children while working, I
understand the importance of having these accommodations in the
workplace.
Under current law, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides hourly
employees with access to accommodations while providing for certain
industry and job specific exemptions. This approach includes special
protections to include the smallest of farms, which are not
proportionally impacted by regulatory mandates such as the one we are
debating today.
[[Page H5808]]
The mandate in H.R. 3110 would impose the same requirements on all
143 million employees covered under the FLSA. This would impose
substantial compliance challenges and introduce safety concerns based
on the nature of business operations in certain settings. For example,
this would fail to account for the unique working conditions found in
the aviation industry.
H.R. 3110 requires that airline employees, who are currently exempt
from FLSA breastfeeding accommodation requirements, have access to a
space for pumping breast milk. This is despite the fact that aircraft
designs are regulated by the FAA for safety and reliability purposes
with limited ability to add additional private spaces.
Modification of aircraft space would be prohibitively expensive and
require the removal of airline seats. This requirement is even more
challenging for smaller planes with fewer passenger seats that service
regional airports.
Additionally, pilot and flight attendant duties are heavily regulated
by the FAA with few redundancies in duties among staff, complicating
the ability of aviation businesses to maintain appropriate staffing
levels and access to services when faced with inflexible government-
mandated breaks.
Democrats acknowledged this problem in their manager's amendment to
H.R. 3110 but failed to mitigate the negative impacts the bill would
have on critical passenger safety and security functions, both on the
ground and during flight.
Because workplaces are not one-size-fits-all, it is critical that any
legislation in this area preserves flexibility for airline, shipping,
and small farm employers to work with their employees to develop best
practices in meeting individual workplace needs.
Sweeping and overly prescriptive requirements that do not adequately
address both the workplace environment and workplace needs will not
lead to the best results for working mothers.
Nursing mother accommodations should be encouraged, and the ongoing
efforts of businessowners to ensure access for their workers are to be
applauded and supported.
I am going to offer this motion to recommit to ensure certain
businesses have the flexibility to be able to develop nursing
accommodations that meet the needs of their employees while accounting
for unique working environments.
Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 is not the right way to empower women in the
workplace.
I support expanding flexible nursing accommodations in the workplace
for women, but not in such a way that will unnecessarily increase
liability for employers without helping nursing mothers.
Furthermore, this bill levels excessive penalties for minor technical
violations, opening our job creators to expensive and spurious
lawsuits.
Dr. Miller-Meeks' Supporting Working Mothers amendment is a
responsible alternative. It expands nursing accommodation coverage to a
variety of workplaces but also maintains exceptions for unique
workplaces.
That is the kind of flexible pro-woman and pro-jobs solution we need.
We have had enough of Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach and overly
broad mandates that hurt the very job creators we are relying on to
help our economy recover from this pandemic. It is very disappointing
that the majority denied debate on a practical alternative that will
meet the needs of working mothers.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110.
This bill would do much more harm than good. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters
in support of the bill from the AFSCME and the Association of Flight
Attendants-CWA.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, October 21, 2021.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to vote yes on the PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act (R.R. 3110). This bill prioritizes both
the physical and economic needs that new mothers must balance
upon returning to work. It strengthens federal employment
standards that protect working women who need break time and
a private space, other than a bathroom, to express breast
milk.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) currently requires
employers with more than 50 employees to provide a space for
mothers to either nurse or express breast milk. Covered
employers must also provide reasonable breaks for workers to
nurse. An estimated 8.65 million women of childbearing age
are excluded from these nursing mother protections because
they are not covered by wage and hour standards under the
FLSA. Current law also lacks broader enforcement mechanisms
for workers denied these protections.
H.R. 3110 improves current protections by:
Expanding the number of nursing workers protected by the
law.
Extending the duration of the protections from one year
after the child's birth to two years after the employee gives
birth or begins providing breast milk for a nursing child.
Limiting undue hardship exemption to employers with fewer
than 25 employees, rather than employers with fewer than 50
employees under current law.
Clarifying that banned workers can seek legal and equitable
relief for their employer's failure to provide them with the
needed break times and private space to express milk.
We urge you to stand with working women and their families
by voting to pass H.R. 3110.
Sincerely,
Bailey K. Childers,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
Written Statement of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA),
AFL-CIO Before the United States House of Representatives--September
27, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, and Members
of Congress: The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA)
AFL-CIO submits this letter to the U.S. House of
Representatives in full support of the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R.
3110).
AFA represents nearly 50,000 Flight Attendants at 17
airlines. Our union has advanced the Flight Attendant
profession for 75 years, beating back discrimination and
improving wages, benefits, working conditions, and aviation
safety, health and security in the aircraft cabin. When the
profession began Flight Attendants could not be married or
pregnant, among other discriminatory conditions of
employment.
For years, AFA has identified the need for federal
protections for nursing Flight Attendants because none exist.
In 2010, the Break Time law, which amended the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) to require that employers provide
reasonable break time as well as a private place other than a
bathroom to express milk provided a monumental step in the
right direction. However, millions of nursing mothers were
unintentionally left out of this important piece of
legislation. The PUMP Act finally rectifies this oversight
and includes Flight Attendants.
In 2021, AFA conducted a survey of almost 400 Flight
Attendants to understand their perspective on pumping and
expressing breast milk during the course of their work day.
An overwhelming majority (86 percent) of Flight Attendant
respondents indicated that they faced significant obstacles
pumping while on and off duty, as well as in between flights.
As a result, 75 percent of Flight Attendant respondents
decided to quit pumping and expressing breast milk before
they planned to because it was too difficult to find the
time, a private location, a clean environment, and access to
cold storage for their milk.
We support the PUMP Act because it will alleviate many of
these obstacles for nursing Flight Attendant moms to ensure
they have the right, along with the privacy, to pump and
express milk. We realize this is a complex issue for Flight
Attendants who work in an unconventional workplace. However,
we can and should do better to support these nursing mothers
in the workplace.
We urge all members of Congress to vote in support of H.R.
3110, the PUMP Act.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steve Schembs,
Director of Government Affairs, Association of Flight
Attendants-CWA (AFA).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Madam Speaker, it has now been more than a decade since Congress
passed critical protections to guarantee nursing workers break time and
private space to express breast milk at work.
As we have heard today from Members on both sides of the aisle, these
protections are essential to protecting the health of nursing workers
and their
[[Page H5809]]
families, yet nursing workers are continuing to suffer from gaps and
weaknesses in the Federal law.
The need to address these gaps is even greater today as our economy
recovers from COVID-19. Millions of workers, particularly working
mothers, are looking to re-enter the workforce after being forced out
of their jobs during the pandemic.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would provide workers with the peace
of mind that they will not have to choose between returning to work and
protecting themselves and their babies.
Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to deliver on our promise to
help all workers recover from the pandemic, stay safe, and succeed in
their careers. This legislation will strengthen existing law, improve
the lives of nursing workers across the country, and help our economy
get back on its feet.
We know this program works because the provisions in this bill are
already law on the Federal level and in several States, without the
kind of problems that have been suggested that might happen--those have
not occurred under present law--and without any explosion of lawsuits.
These provisions are already law, and there have not been lawsuits.
The substitute offered by the minority does not expand to as many
mothers as this bill does, and it would actually roll back some
protections they already have.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms.
Herrera Beutler) for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I rise today as chair of the Subcommittee
on Workforce Protection; co-founder and co-chair of the Black Maternal
Health Caucus; as one of the original cosponsors of the bipartisan PUMP
for Nursing Mothers Act; and as the mother of Jeanelle and Billy.
The issue before us today is one of equity and fairness. In our
country, mothers often have to choose between providing for their
families or nursing their babies.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act ensures that millions of working
mothers have the access and protections they need to nurse for as long
as they choose to do so.
So, why is this Bill so important? As the co-chair of the Black
Maternal Health Caucus, I know how important it is to break down the
barriers that hold nursing mothers and their children back from the
best possible health outcomes.
Every major medical authority strongly encourages nursing for at
least the first year of life, as it provides significant health and
nutritional benefits to both the mother and infant.
By closing an unintended loophole, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act
provides protection and support to an additional 9 million working
mothers who have been forced to choose between nursing and earning a
paycheck.
Fundamentally, this bill says that nursing mothers should not be
punished for making the best choices for their health, and the health
of their children.
Especially during this pandemic and America's maternal health crisis,
I urge each of my colleagues to cast a vote for this critical
legislation, and I urge the Senate to send it to President Biden's
desk.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110,
the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional
loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act.
The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for
hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk
at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child.
Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all
working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection.
H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections
to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees
currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and
farmworkers.
H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid
pumping time.
The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried
workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must
pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is
also working.
Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to
remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women
with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and
balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees.
More than 80% of new mothers in the United States begin
breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce.
New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while
juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are
exacerbated as a new parent.
According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and
Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only
infants, but also for mothers.
For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with
an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes,
heart attacks, retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome
in adult women.
For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious
illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can
increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2
diabetes, leukemia and SIDS.
This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose
between their own health, their infant's health, and their income.
This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring
suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean,
private place and breaks to breast pump at work.
Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline
to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for
breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from
pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by
employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between
breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message
that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a
career and motherhood.
For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the
``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''
[From ACLU, Sept. 30, 2021]
The PUMP Act Would Protect Nursing Workers Like Me
(By Melissa Hodgkins)
I took Frontier Airlines to court for making it impossible
for me to pump breast milk at work. Other workers shouldn't
have to fight for their rights like I did.
When started my career as a flight attendant, I never
imagined that I wouldn't be able to continue breastfeeding
after I went back to work. I thought that, like most
workplaces, my airline would be required by federal law to
provide workers a clean, private place and breaks to pump at
work. (That's thanks to a provision known as the Break Time
for Nursing Mothers law.)
But it turns out my employer isn't. That's because flight
attendants are among the approximately 9 million women who
are excluded from the law's protection--along with other
transportation workers, teachers, agricultural workers,
nurses, and many others. A bill before Congress right now--
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act--would fix that. Congress
should act now to pass it.
I first realized the pickle I was in when I became pregnant
with my first child and found out that my employer, Frontier
Airlines, didn't provide any accommodations for nursing moms.
I'd watched other flight attendant moms trying to make it
work pumping on the job--and I saw how stressful it was for
them.
They were too fearful of losing their paychecks to ask the
airline to accommodate them. When some of my coworkers did
ask for breaks and a place to pump, Frontier actually
prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them
off the job without a paycheck.
That was when I started to feel like Frontier was making me
choose between my career and breastfeeding my baby. I believe
breast milk is optimal for babies, and I wanted to give him
those health benefits. At the same time, I didn't feel great
about pumping in an unsanitary airplane lavatory, and having
to scramble to find time to pump between flights, especially
given my unpredictable schedule. I was worried I'd lose my
job if I had to pump on duty and got reported. Even though I
desperately wanted to keep nursing my baby, I just couldn't
see how I could make it work. It was a wrenching decision,
but I decided I had no choice but to give up breastfeeding in
order to go back to work and support my family.
No woman should have to make that kind of decision. But
because of the gap in coverage under the current law, too
many of us still do. The ACLU is representing me in a lawsuit
arguing that Frontier's treatment of pregnant and
breastfeeding pilots and flight attendants is discriminatory.
But if the airline had not been exempt from the duty under
the existing federal Break Time Law to provide breaks and a
clean place to pump, we probably would have never had to take
Frontier to court over that in the first place.
[[Page H5810]]
The PUMP Act would give workers like me the protection we
need: a clear requirement that all employers must provide
workers who are nursing with the basic accommodations they
need. Solutions exist in all industries--including airlines--
that would allow employees to pump safely. And the bill would
strengthen the law in other ways, extending protections from
one year to two years, clarifying that it covers situations
like adoption or stillbirth, and ensuring that when employers
are not in compliance, there is a meaningful way to enforce
it.
The bill has bipartisan support in Congress. Let's make
sure it becomes law so that all workers--no matter what
industry they work in--have the choice to continue
breastfeeding and the ability to get back to work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part D of House Report 117-137
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question.
amendment no. 1 offered by ms. ross
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part D of House Report 117-137.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to the Committee on Education and Labor of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that contains
recommendations as appropriate to improve compliance among
covered employers, including what is known about employee
awareness of the rights afforded to them by the amendments
made by this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for my amendment. My
amendment to the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would help ensure women
have sufficient notice of the new protections afforded to them in this
bill.
By ensuring that eligible people are provided with sufficient
informational resources, more women will be able to exercise their
rights and the likelihood of employer defection will be reduced.
In many places in this country, including my home State of North
Carolina, it is easier to take a smoke break than for a mother to take
a pump break. This is simply unacceptable.
By passing the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, we can end this
discrimination against breastfeeding workers and guarantee that no
mother will have to choose between earning a living and feeding her
child.
But a law is only as effective as its enforcement, and we have
unfortunately witnessed countless occasions where businesses have
failed to inform workers of their rights. Just in this last year, the
Department of Labor investigated six businesses in North Carolina for
violations of breastfeeding rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
My amendment would provide the necessary information to ensure these
workplace violations do not continue. We owe it to our nursing mothers,
their families, and our local communities to be vigilant about
overseeing the implementation of this law.
This is a gender equality issue, a labor rights issue, and an
economic justice issue that demands our attention.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the director of
La Leche and the National WIC Association.
Written Statement of Diane Thompson, Director of La Leche League
Alliance for Breastfeeding Education Before the United States House of
Representatives--September 24, 2021
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives: La Leche League Alliance
for Breastfeeding Education submits this letter to the U.S.
House of Representatives in full support of the Providing
Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act
(H.R. 3110).
La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding Education (LLL
Alliance) is a division of La Leche League International in
the United States. While we receive our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
status as a charitable organization through our association
with LLLI, we are a separately incorporated entity.
Representing over 1000 Leaders spread across 43 states, LLL
Alliance provides resources and support for La Leche League
Leaders and Area Administrators, as well as information and
support for parents.
La Leche League believes that breastfeeding, with its many
important physical and psychological advantages, is best for
baby and mother and is the ideal way to initiate good parent-
child relationships.
Breastfeeding is crucial to the health of both mothers and
babies. It provides protections and health benefits for far
longer than the duration of the breastfeeding relationship.
Why would the USA not want to encourage and support the
feeding of human milk? Some of the advantages include for
mothers: lower risk of breast cancer, lower risk of ovarian
cancer, lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, and
less endometriosis. For children: fewer instances of
allergies, eczema, and asthma, fewer childhood cancers,
including leukemia and lymphomas, lower risk of type I and II
diabetes, fewer instances of Crohn's disease and colitis. See
the CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health
Organization.
We have Leaders and parents that are supported who are
denied the opportunity to pump at work because of the types
of jobs they have. Especially affected are teachers in the K-
12 system and nurses who are not currently covered. This can
have several effects. Mastitis caused by not pumping--these
leads to lost days at work and possibly the cessation of
breastfeeding. It is disappointing that those individuals who
do so much caretaking can be deprived of caretaking for their
own children.
Why would the PUMP act be helpful? Among other reasons it
would close the coverage gap. The bill would protect nearly 9
million employees excluded from the 2010 Break Time law by
extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees
as well as other categories of employees currently exempted
from protections.
It would provide employers clarity on when pumping time
must be paid and when it may be unpaid. The bill leaves in
place existing law protecting many salaried workers from
having their pay docked and clarifies that any time spent
pumping while the employee is also working, a common
occurrence for many employees, must be counted as hours
worked.
This is not a partisan issue--parents of any party benefit.
La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding Education urges
all members of Congress to vote in support because as stated
above it closes gaps in the current law. Individuals should
not have to choose between going to the bathroom or pumping.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Thompson,
Director, La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding
Education.
____
September 27, 2021.
Re National WIC Association Support for the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R.
3110).
On behalf of the National WIC Association (NWA), the 12,000
service provider agencies we represent, and the approximately
6.3 million women, infants, and young children our members
serve, we write to express our strong support for the
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing
Mothers Act (H.R. 3110). This legislation is a critical step
towards ensuring healthy child development and postpartum
health outcomes for working mothers served by WIC.
Because millions of nursing moms are in the workforce and
need protections to pump breastmilk, the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act is imperative for protecting the nation's
breastfeeding women, including WIC participants. The Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, based on longstanding
recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics,
promotes exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and
encourages ongoing breastfeeding as complementary foods are
introduced. More than half of mothers return to the paid
labor force before their children are three months old, with
as many as one in four returning within just two weeks of
giving birth. Many of these mothers choose to continue
breastfeeding well after their return to work to meet the
standards reiterated in the Dietary Guidelines--and those
employees need to express (or pump) breast milk on a regular
schedule.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) is the nation's leading
breastfeeding promotion program, serving about 500,000
breastfeeding women with a combination of professional and
peer support. Over the last
[[Page H5811]]
two decades, WIC providers have worked to increase the rates
of breastfeeding initiation amongst women participating in
the program by 30%. As WIC works to address societal,
intergenerational, and historic barriers to breastfeeding,
employment protections are vital for the 15.2 million women
who live in households that earn less than 185% of the
federal poverty line.
According to the Surgeon General, breastfeeding protects
babies from illnesses like ear, skin, and respiratory
infections, diarrhea, and vomiting, as well as longer-term
conditions such as obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and
asthma. Mothers who breastfeed for the recommended duration
benefit, from lower risks of breast cancer, heart disease,
and other ailments. Higher breastfeeding rates in the United
States are associated with lower healthcare costs, with the
American Academy of Pediatrics projecting $13 billion in
health care savings if 90% of families in the United States
exclusively breastfed for six months.
Research indicates that significant breastfeeding
disparities are sustained by both income and race/ethnicity.
Lower-income women experience lower breastfeeding rates than
middle-higher income women. Furthermore, Black women
experience significantly lower breastfeeding rates than White
women and Latinas. Barriers to breastfeeding for these
vulnerable groups include family and social pressures, a
rapid return to work after delivery, lack of facilities to
breastfeed or pump in the workplace and in public, and
targeted marketing by the infant formula industry. In order
to further improve these rates, specifically amongst low-
income women and women of color, workplace barriers to
breastfeeding must be addressed.
Passed in 2010, the Break Time for Nursing Mothers
provision included in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, provided critical protections to ensure that
employees would have reasonable break time and a private
place to pump. Since the law was tied to language in the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), millions of nursing mothers were
left without an express statutory right to pump at work.
Without these protections, nursing mothers face serious
health consequences, including risk of painful illness and
infection, diminished milk supply, or inability to continue
breastfeeding. Employment is compatible with breastfeeding,
and solutions to support nursing mothers exist in all
industries. In fact, studies show that supporting nursing
mothers leads to lower employer health care costs,
absenteeism, and turnover, as well as improved morale, job
satisfaction, and productivity. Without protection, nursing
employees are likelier to face harassment, reduced wages, and
job loss.
The fact remains that nursing mothers are suffering
negative health consequences and being forced to choose
between breastfeeding and earning a paycheck. The PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act would strengthen the 2010 Break Time law
by:
Closing the coverage gap
The bill would protect nearly 9 million employees excluded
from the 2010 Break Time law by extending the law's
protections to cover salaried employees as well as other
categories of employees currently exempted from protections.
Unfortunately, the 2010 Break Time law's placement within the
part of FLSA that sets overtime meant that nearly 9 million
women--nearly one in four women of childbearing age--were
excluded from coverage and have no clear right to break time
and space to pump breast milk under federal law. Those left
unprotected include teachers, software engineers, and many
types of nurses, among numerous others. The categories of
employees excluded under FLSA predate the 2010 Break Time
law, and were created specifically with overtime exemptions
in mind. There is no principled reason why these working
mothers should be ineligible to receive break time and space
to pump breast milk under federal law. The PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act fixes this harmful error.
Providing employers clarity on when pumping time must be paid and when
it may be unpaid
The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many
salaried workers from having their pay docked, and clarifies
that any time spent pumping while the employee is also
working, a common occurrence for many employees, must be
counted as hours worked. Under the existing Break Time law,
breaks do not need to be paid unless they are concurrent with
paid breaks. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act clarifies that
although the breaks taken under the law are typically unpaid,
if hourly workers are not actually relieved from duty while
pumping, then that time should be counted as hours worked.
The bill also specifies that it does not change existing
protections preventing employers from deducting compensation
from the salaries of employees who are exempt from receiving
overtime.
Providing remedies for nursing mothers
The bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to
remedies that are available for other violations of the FLSA,
bringing this law into alignment with other requirements that
are familiar to employers. Another unintended consequence of
the 2010 Break Time law's placement in the FLSA is that an
employee who is denied break time and space has no effective
remedy for the violation. An employer that violates the 2010
Break Time law can be ordered to pay the employee ``the
amount of their unpaid minimum wages,'' but violations of the
Break Time law typically do not involve unpaid wages. This
leaves those who are denied the ability to pump without any
meaningful way to enforce their rights, or to address the
negative health consequences (such as physical or emotional
suffering from infections or early termination of
breastfeeding) or financial harms (like unpaid leave or job
loss) that they may suffer. In light of the many exemptions
and the absence of an effective way to enforce the law's
requirements, it is no surprise that sixty percent of
breastfeeding employees still did not have access to break
time and space after the 2010 Break Time law was in effect.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act fills the gaps in the 2010
Break Time law so all breastfeeding employees receive the
full protections of the law.
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act represents the next
critical step toward bringing federal legislation into
alignment with the nutrition and practical needs of our
nation's families and their employers. On behalf of WIC's
national network of lactation support professionals and the
mothers that we serve, we urge your support for this vital
legislation.
Sincerely,
The National WIC Association.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this amendment does nothing to address the
shortcomings of H.R. 3110. We do not need a GAO report to know that
employers will face numerous challenges in complying with the sweeping
requirements imposed by H.R. 3110.
The Fair Labor Standards Act ensures that hourly workers have access
to time and space to pump breast milk, while exempting certain
professions and industries with unique operating environments.
Working mothers deserve proper accommodations to nurse in a clean and
safe environment without fear of losing their jobs, but failing to
account for differing workplaces, as H.R. 3110 does, is not the way to
help women.
The bill imposes one-size-fits-all treatment on a wide variety of
businesses and industries without providing feasible compliance
options.
H.R. 3110 would also impose new and excessive penalties for minor or
technical violations of the FLSA's nursing accommodation requirement.
These unrealistic penalties, combined with compliance challenges
resulting from the bill's mandate, will lead to a proliferation of
costly and protracted lawsuits. The result will be delayed
accommodations for workers.
A report which acknowledges the complexities and liabilities inherent
in H.R. 3110 and is released 2 years after the bill takes effect will
do nothing to mitigate the bill's failures.
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise strongly
in support of the amendment offered by Representative Deborah Ross from
North Carolina, and I thank her for her leadership in North Carolina
and here in Congress for working mothers, for infants, for families. We
need more work-family balance. We need more support for working
mothers.
We now know with COVID that many families are not going back to work;
they are reassessing their values. When you have a child and you want
to breastfeed, and there is no accommodation, there really is no way
you can go back to work, so this is pro-business, pro-worker, and pro-
family.
Her amendment directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO,
to conduct a study on how employers are complying with the PUMP for
Nursing Mothers Act. Even the best legislation must be monitored.
I am excited about the opportunity to ensure that employers are
protecting the rights of nursing mothers. It is pro-family when you
protect our mothers and our children.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I have
the right to close.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of
my amendment and the bill. Both are essential for our working mothers,
for
[[Page H5812]]
our families, and for the health of the next generation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1015
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we have a unique situation here this morning
with two Representatives from North Carolina who have totally different
opinions of this bill and this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. We
can do better. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
amendment; it is a day late and a dollar short. We should know what
these things are in advance and not after the fact. It is what some of
us might call a run-on amendment. We should have had the GAO study
earlier to get a better feel for what this bill would do to working
mothers and to businesses in our country.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
The amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Strickland
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
2 printed in part D of House Report 117-137.
Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 4. REPORT ON RACIAL DISPARITIES.
The Comptroller General shall--
(1) conduct a study on what is known about the racial
disparities that exist with respect to access to pumping
breastmilk in the workplace; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the results of such
study containing such recommendations as the Comptroller
General determines appropriate to address those disparities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, there are several contributing factors to why nursing
mothers may choose not to breastfeed and pump milk when returning to
work. They include inflexible work schedules that make nursing and
pumping breast milk regularly difficult; the lack of accommodations to
pump and store milk; and concerns regarding support from supervisors
and colleagues to pump milk.
In addition to these factors, women of color and low-income women
often experience the need to return to work shortly after giving birth,
in many cases earlier than 12 weeks, and they face additional barriers
such as racial discrimination and bias whether intentional or not.
This is why I am proud to offer my amendment to H.R. 3110, the PUMP
for Nursing Mothers Act, the underlying bill that protects vulnerable
workers by expanding access to breastfeeding accommodations in the
workplace.
This important piece of legislation advances our goals of equity in
the workplace, and my amendment seeks to strengthen this bill by
directing the GAO to conduct a study on the racial disparities that
exist in access to pumping breast milk in the workplace.
This amendment will also require that GAO submit a report to Congress
on the results of this study with recommendations to address any
disparities.
Employers can begin to address these barriers by offering private
lactation rooms, or nursing rooms, for both breastfeeding and pumping
with proper cleaning and storage facilities such as a table, sink, and
small refrigerator, providing employees with adequate pump breaks,
allowing flexible work schedules, and guaranteeing paid family leave.
In fact, we can look to my home State of Washington as a prime
example of how to lead on this issue. In 2019, the State legislature
passed and signed into law House Bill 1930, which goes one step further
than the current Federal law by expanding pump break rights to include
both salaried and hourly employees, requiring employers to provide a
private space for pumping that isn't a bathroom, and allowing mothers
to get pump breaks for up to 2 years after birth. Washington is also
one of the very few States that provides people with up to 12 weeks
paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child.
Yet, despite current Federal law, strong State-level protections such
as the ones in Washington, and the gains that have been made in this
area by employers in different sectors across our Nation, racial
disparities in the workplace still exist for women wishing to pump. My
amendment aims to close this gap and equip Congress with the data it
needs to create meaningful solutions.
We must ensure that women and mothers everywhere and from all
backgrounds have the support they deserve in the workplace.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 exposes a sweeping, one-size-fits-all
mandate on businesses of all sizes that is unworkable and unreasonable.
The bill treats all nursing mothers and workplaces as if they are the
same, despite known differences in employees' needs, industry-specific
challenges, and employers' abilities to meet the requirements.
This amendment calls for a Government Accountability Office study on
racial disparities with respect to access to workplace accommodations
to pump breast milk and for GAO to submit recommendations to Congress--
after the bill becomes law.
Madam Speaker, let me be clear, crystal clear. I abhor any type of
discrimination. There should be no place for discrimination in our
country, in our employment, or anywhere.
A study of this kind, however, should have been commissioned before
the committee debated far-reaching legislation to impose a flawed
mandate on all businesses in the United States. Instead, H.R. 3110 was
rushed to a committee markup within 2 weeks of introduction. Democrats
often put the cart before the horse, and this amendment does nothing to
remedy the shortcomings of this legislation.
Nursing women are not a monolith. They have unique needs that this
legislation ignores. H.R. 3110 is reductive and, working women deserve
better.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
A Better Balance.
September 23, 2021.
Re The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write
to express our strong support for the PUMP for Nursing
Mothers Act (``The PUMP Act''; H.R. 3110) because no one in
this country should have to choose between feeding their baby
and earning an income for their family. The PUMP Act will
mean millions of workers, excluded under current law, will
have adequate break time and space to express milk at work.
The PUMP Act will further the health of our nation's parents,
babies, and economy. Affording protections to workers so they
can pump milk to feed this country's children should be a
priority for every member of Congress. We urge every member
to support this bipartisan legislation and vote yes on the
PUMP Act.
A Better Balance is a national legal advocacy organization,
using the power of the law to advance justice for workers, so
they can care for themselves and their loved ones without
risking their economic security. We founded A Better Balance
fifteen years ago because we recognized that a lack of fair
and supportive work-family laws and policies, or more
broadly, a ``care crisis'' was harming a majority of workers,
particularly women, especially Black and Latina women, in
low-
[[Page H5813]]
wage jobs. In the case of nursing parents, too often, parents
return to work without the supports they need to continue
expressing milk at work and are forced to choose between
giving up breastfeeding and maintaining their employment.
As I shared with the House Education and Labor Committee in
my March 2021 testimony:
We hear over and over again on A Better Balance's free
legal helpline, new mothers returning to the workplace face
unfair treatment because their employers refuse to provide
them with the time and space needed to express breast milk,
forcing them to choose between a paycheck and providing
breast milk for their child. Some workers reduce their
schedules, are terminated, or are forced out of the
workplace, foregoing vital income and familial economic
security because their workplaces are so hostile to their
need to express milk. Others simply stop breastfeeding
altogether, sometimes even before entering the workplace,
perceiving (typically correctly) the challenges as
insurmountable. Too many who continue in their jobs struggle
with harassment, health repercussions, and dwindling milk
supply to feed their babies. These challenges face many new
working parents, but disproportionately low-wage working
mothers of color. These harsh workplace conditions for
breastfeeding parents represent a fundamental unfairness and
inequity in our legal system--and reinforce the stereotype
that motherhood and employment are irreconcilable.
One worker who recently called A Better Balance's helpline,
Sarah, is a certified medication assistant at a large long-
term care facility in Kansas. Despite having thousands of
employees, her employer disparaged her and put up roadblock
after roadblock when she needed to pump at work, telling her
once ``I gave my baby the bottle--I couldn't imagine having a
baby attached to me.'' After her supervisor berated her for
needing to pump, and she attempted to find a space in the
office to pump to no avail because a co-worker walked in,
told her to ``hurry up'', and refused to leave the room,
Sarah resorted to pumping in her car just once a day. Even
then, her supervisor came to the parking lot to try and stop
her from pumping. Because she was only allowed to pump once a
day, she frequently became engorged and suffered painful
clogged milk ducts. Meanwhile, at least of six Sarah's co-
workers took smoke breaks multiple times a day without
comment or issue. The contrast is startling and deeply
upsetting.
Sarah is not alone in her struggle. I also shared Izabel's
story with the committee:
Izabel, a dental assistant in North Carolina, was fired
shortly after submitting a doctor's note requesting three 15-
minute pumping breaks during her shift. Prior to submitting
the note, she had requested pumping breaks and her employer
told her she could only pump once per day during her lunch
break--which did not medically meet her breastfeeding needs--
even though there were roughly three other dental assistants
working in the office who could have helped her with her job
duties while she took breaks. Although likely covered by the
2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act, because of the law's
limited enforcement, Izabel's ability to get her job back or
be made whole were extremely limited.
Beastfeeding Has Myriad Benefits for Parents & Babies But, As We Know
Firsthand, Too Many Workplaces Lack Adequate Protections for Workers
Breastfeeding is increasingly common among American
parents. According to a recent study by the United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey, more than
84 percent of infants born in 2017 were breastfed for at
least some amount of time. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for
Americans and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend
exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, and continuing
breastfeeding while introducing complementary foods until a
baby is 12 months old or older. At the same time, more than
half of working parents return to their jobs before their
babies are three months old; twenty-five percent of workers
return within just two weeks of giving birth. This means that
working parents who wish to continue breastfeeding will need
to pump milk on a regular basis upon returning to work in
order to continue feeding their children and to avoid serious
health consequences. However, many parents returning to work
find it incredibly challenging to pump because they are not
provided with adequate break time or space to do so. This may
explain why, although 84 percent of infants born in 2017
breastfed for some period of time, only slightly more than 58
percent were still breastfeeding at six months.
The health benefits of breastfeeding are numerous. As I
outlined in my testimony:
Research shows that breastfeeding has substantial health
benefits for both mothers and babies. Breastfeeding protects
babies from acute illnesses, such as infections and diarrhea,
which can be serious especially in very young and vulnerable
babies like those born preterm, as well as from longer-term
conditions like childhood obesity and asthma. Likewise, as
Nikia Sankofa, the Executive Director of the U.S.
Breastfeeding Committee, made clear in testimony before the
House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in January
2020, the health benefits for mothers who breastfeed are
significant, and include lower risk of breast cancer and
heart disease. Medical consensus urges breastfeeding infants
for at least their first year of life in order to achieve
these health benefits.
Current Federal Law Leaves Behind Millions of Lactating Workers
In 2010, Congress passed the Break Time for Nursing Mothers
Act as part of the Affordable Care Act. The law amended
section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
207) and affords workers ``reasonable break time for an
employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1
year after the child's birth each time such employee has need
to express the milk'' and ``a place, other than a bathroom,
that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from
coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to
express breast milk.''
While groundbreaking, the 2010 law has three critical
problems: 1) it excludes millions of workers; 2) it has
inadequate remedies for employees whose rights have been
violated; and 3) it lacks clarity around breaks and
compensation.
1. Current law excludes millions of nursing parents. The
2010 law is housed in the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standard Act (``FLSA'') which means that those workers
exempted from overtime--nearly nine million women of
childbearing age--are also excluded from the law's
protections. These millions of workers, including
transportation workers, executive, administrative and
professional workers, and many others, have no federal right
requiring their employer to provide them break time and space
to express breast milk. As I emphasized in my testimony,
``There is no principled reason why these employees should be
denied the law's protections: each industry is fully capable
of standard or innovative solutions to ensure their employees
do not have to choose between breastfeeding and their jobs. .
. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on
Women's Health maintains an extensive and detailed website
describing how various industries, such as restaurant and
retail, can provide lactation break time and space, including
video testimonials, employer best practices examples, and
other resources. In 2021, there is simply no excuse not to
meet the needs of breastfeeding workers.''
2. Current law has inadequate remedies for workers who
experienced violations. Given the current law's placement in
the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the remedy for
violations of the Nursing Mothers law is misaligned.
Currently, the available remedy is to pay a worker any
overtime owed to them. As I explained to the Education and
Labor Committee in March,
``Such a remedy makes sense in the context of overtime: an
employee who works forty-five hours in a week without
overtime pay should be compensated with the missing payment
to be made whole. For a breastfeeding worker who has been
denied time and space to pump, however, this remedy is
nonsensical. A breastfeeding worker who is told she cannot
clock out to pump has been denied an unpaid break. Therefore,
she has no entitlement to payment and the law's contemplated
remedy--compensation for wages--is meaningless to her . . .
These weak enforcement mechanisms are antithetical to the
goal of ensuring that breastfeeding workers can get the
timely accommodations they need to continue breastfeeding and
keep their jobs''
3. Current law lacks clarity regarding pumping breaks and
compensation. Under current law, pumping breaks that are not
taken during a paid break do not need to be paid. However,
often, workers who are pumping may clock out but will still
take phone calls, emails, or other work requests while
pumping, and are then denied compensation for their time
worked while pumping. Because the language in the law says
that breaks may be uncompensated, confusion persists and
violations can occur when employers continue to require
employees to work while taking an unpaid pumping break.
The PUMP Act Would Close Gaps in the Law, Provide Appropriate Remedies
for Employees, and Give Clarity Around Compensation. Alternative
Proposals Fall Well Short of This Goal
The PUMP Act will close the gaps in current law and extend
the 2010 law's protections to nearly nine million employees
who are currently uncovered, including nurses, teachers, and
software engineers. Corporate leadership, coupled with
employees, advocates, and government agencies, have already
devised innovative, affordable, and flexible solutions for
nearly every workplace environment. In addition, the
Committee on Education & Labor also added language at the
bill markup requiring the U.S. Department of Labor to work
with the Department of Health and Human Services to build out
guidance for employers.
The legislation will also provide employers additional
clarity as to when break time can be unpaid, and will provide
remedies that are already available for other FLSA violations
if a worker's rights are violated. At the Education & Labor
Committee mark-up of the bill, the Committee also added
language ensuring fairness for employers by requiring
employees to inform their employers about inadequate space to
express breast milk 10 days before they file suit for
violating the requirement. The PUMP Act will benefit workers
and business alike, as there are well-recognized bottom-line
benefits for employers
[[Page H5814]]
in providing break time and space for lactating employees,
such as reduced absenteeism, lower healthcare costs, and
greater recruitment and retention. This is why the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation.
At the Committee markup, the minority introduced an
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, and subsequently, a
bill which mirrored that substitute amendment. Now, there is
an attempt to include this language again as a substitute
amendment to this bill. Although encouraging to see members
voice support for break time and space, this substitute
amendment does not afford the protections that breastfeeding
parents need because it does not address the two main
problems that the PUMP Act is addressing. The alternative
bill continues to exclude millions of workers from break time
and space protections and continues to leave workers with no
meaningful remedies. Supporting the alternative bill and not
the PUMP Act is hollow at best and offensive to working
parents who need real protections.
The PUMP Act will finally close the gaps in the law that
have left too many working parents without the ability to
pump at work and thrust into the painful position of choosing
between breastfeeding and their job. Congress has the
opportunity to right a fundamental wrong and pass the PUMP
Act. We urge you to support nursing parents in a meaningful
way and pass the PUMP Act.
Sincerely,
Dina Bakst,
Co-Founder & Co-President,
A Better Balance.
Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this important bill.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the amendment offered by
Representative Strickland from Washington. It is sensitive, important,
and strengthens the bill. It directs the Comptroller General to conduct
a study on racial disparities in breastfeeding and submit
recommendations to Congress that address those disparities.
As a member of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, we are studying
disparities in this caucus on healthcare and the challenges that some
women face.
Breastfeeding contains many health benefits for children and for
their mothers and should be accessible to all women no matter what
their race, and we should study any disparity and try to strengthen
access and availability.
This is an excellent amendment, and I support the gentlewoman for her
work and sensitivity.
Ms. STRICKLAND. In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment that benefits all of us regardless
of our political affiliation. This is a bipartisan bill, it deserves
our support as well as the amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate again: I have no tolerance
whatsoever for any type of discrimination in the workplace or anyplace
else. However, if we are going to do a study about potential
discrimination, it should be done before a bill is drafted, introduced,
and voted on.
This amendment does not improve the very bad underlying bill, H.R.
3110. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment,
vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Strickland).
The amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Van Duyne moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3110 to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Van Duyne is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 5. EXEMPTIONS.
The amendments made by this Act shall not apply with
respect to employees described under subsection (a)(6) and
under paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of section
13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200,
nays 224, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
YEAS--200
Aderholt
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--224
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Biggs
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Burchett
Bush
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gosar
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Greene (GA)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Hice (GA)
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
[[Page H5815]]
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Allen
Brady
Bustos
DesJarlais
Lamborn
Pence
Sherrill
{time} 1059
Messrs. COSTA, DOGGETT, Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ, Mr. GARCIA of Illinois,
Ms. CHU, Messrs. CASTEN, GOSAR, O'HALLERAN, DELGADO, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr.
BURCHETT, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. SWALWELL and TORRES of New York
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LUCAS, WEBSTER of Florida, and Mrs. BOEBERT changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Adams (Brown)
Bowman (Khanna)
Castro (TX) (Escobar)
Cawthorn (McHenry)
Cicilline (Pingree)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Cuellar (Costa)
DeFazio (Brown)
Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
Garamendi (Sherman)
Garbarino (Jacobs (NY))
Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
Gonzalez (OH) (Herrera Beutler)
Harshbarger (Kustoff)
Hartzler (Bucshon)
Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
Huffman (Stanton)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Jones (Jacobs (CA))
Kahele (Case)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lee (NV) (Clark (MA))
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lynch (Trahan)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Mfume (Evans)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Fallon)
Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
Payne (Pallone)
Perlmutter (Neguse)
Porter (Wexton)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Joyce (PA))
Speier (Scanlon)
Steel (Obernolte)
Stewart (Crawford)
Suozzi (Panetta)
Timmons
(Reschenthaler)
Vela (Correa)
Waltz (Diaz-Balart)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Williams (GA) (Jacobs (CA))
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 276,
nays 149, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 331]
YEAS--276
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Balderson
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Burgess
Bush
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Golden
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Salazar
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stefanik
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Young
NAYS--149
Aderholt
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gibbs
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClain
McClintock
McKinley
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Duyne
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--6
Allen
Brady
Bustos
Lamborn
Pence
Sherrill
{time} 1134
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. FEENSTRA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I was attending to an urgent matter in my
district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall
No. 330 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 331.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Adams (Brown)
Bowman (Khanna)
Castro (TX) (Escobar)
Cawthorn (McHenry)
Cicilline (Pingree)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Cuellar (Costa)
DeFazio (Brown)
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
Garamendi (Sherman)
Garbarino (Jacobs (NY))
Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
Gonzalez (OH) (Herrera Beutler)
Harshbarger (Kustoff)
[[Page H5816]]
Hartzler (Bucshon)
Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
Huffman (Stanton)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Jones (Jacobs (CA))
Kahele (Case)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lee (NV) (Clark (MA))
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lynch (Trahan)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Mfume (Evans)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Fallon)
Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
Payne (Pallone)
Perlmutter (Neguse)
Porter (Wexton)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Joyce (PA))
Speier (Scanlon)
Steel (Obernolte)
Stewart (Crawford)
Suozzi (Panetta)
Timmons
(Reschenthaler)
Vela (Correa)
Velazquez (Jeffries)
Waltz (Diaz-Balart)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Williams (GA) (Jacobs (CA))
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________