Federal Advisory Committee Transparency Act

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

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.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I have the right to close.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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-

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Liz Morris,

Center for WorkLife Law,

UC Hastings College of the Law.

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.

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.

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.