PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget Committee has announced a markup for the Build

Back Better Act for tomorrow and Saturday. It is my intention to bring it to the floor next week.

This legislation will help move tens of millions of Americans closer to economic security while also making transformational investments in making childcare more affordable, helping Americans access healthcare, and addressing climate change with the seriousness that it deserves and demands.

On September 27, pursuant to the rule passed on August 24, the House will consider the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This legislation passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis last month and would create millions of good jobs all across America by investing in critical infrastructure.

That bill and the Build Back Better America Act are the essence of the vision and program that has been proposed by President Biden, which, as I said, will grow millions of jobs and make the lives of Americans more secure and safer.

Mr. Speaker, if time allows, the House may also consider three bills from the Committee on Education and Labor:

H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide workplace protections for mothers to pump breast milk in the workplace.

H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act, which allows applicants to bring a disparate claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when they experience age discrimination while seeking a job.

In addition, H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, which modifies, expands, and reauthorizes the fiscal year 2026 Family Violence and Prevention Services program, which funds emergency shelters and supports related assistance for victims of domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, there may be additional legislative items as possible and as necessary.

The Budget Committee is going to take it up tomorrow. They don't need a CBO score for that. The Budget Committee chairman is seeking a CBO score as soon as that can be attained, but I don't know that particular date that that will occur.

Clearly, this bill has been under consideration for a very long period of time, and the President proposed it a very long time ago, in the early part of this year. So it is something that the CBO has been considering, that the committee has been considering. Hopefully, the CBO can produce a score relatively quickly. But I don't, in answer to the gentleman's question, have a specific time or date.

Mr. Speaker, it is my expectation that we will be getting a score. I want to tell the gentleman it is also my understanding that the expenditures that will be proposed will be paid for.

New revenue.

As I said, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance have worked on revenues to pay for what we are going to buy so that we do not create additional debt. That is my view, that they continue to have that intention.

There are use taxes on a lot of things, and there are also corporate taxes in that bill. There are some additional revenue items in that bill as well. But I can't tell you exactly because they have not offered a manager's amendment, which I expect to have offered at the Committee on Rules. That does not come out of the Budget Committee, as the gentleman knows.

The Budget Committee is going to put together the 12 bills and send them to the Committee on Rules, and then the Committee on Rules will act on them. I expect a manager's amendment, but I cannot predict for the gentleman what that manager's amendment will be at this point in time.

It is possible.

Well, we have to see what the Budget Committee does tomorrow.

We all will.

We will have to see how the debate goes on Monday, see how long that takes.

I have advised Members that, obviously, we have a lot of work to do and that we have scheduled a number of workweeks, committee workweeks--which, by the way, I think have been very successful. We started those in June of last year, and I think they worked out very well, giving the committees an opportunity to meet uninterrupted by having to come to the floor.

With votes, as we know, we continue to have the challenge not only of COVID but the variant, an additional illness spike, so we are still having votes longer than we otherwise would have. So I think that those work periods have worked very well, and there are some scheduled for October.

But I have also advised Members that we have a lot of work to do, and if we need more legislative time, we will provide for that, and Members will get sufficient notice for that. But I did want to put them on notice that we may have to have more floor time than is currently provided for by the committee workweek schedule.

But as soon as we have a sense of when those days will be needed, we will let Members know.

Well, obviously, the government funding authority ends on September 30 at midnight, the end of the fiscal year, and it would be our intention to deal with whatever bill the Senate sends back to us-- if, in fact, they do not take our bill--as soon as it comes to us.

We believe that it is absolutely essential not to shut down government, which is costly, disrupts the lives of the American people and those who are expecting services, and is irresponsible.

Even more irresponsible is not increasing the debt limit. I have been saddened on a regular basis that our Republican colleagues are prepared to vote for debt limits when you have a Republican President and not when you have a Democratic President, as if somehow it is the President that creates the debt.

The President doesn't create the debt. The Congress creates the debt. This is not for debt that we may create in the future. It is for debt that we have already created, either by cutting taxes, therefore cutting revenues, or by spending money.

As you know, the debt limit was substantially increased under the Trump administration in a bipartisan way. But unlike this year, Democrats joined with Republicans to ensure that the full faith and credit of the United States of America was not put at risk. And the President of the United States signed that legislation, a Republican President.

So it is, I think, very sad that our Republican friends did not join every Democrat in saying we will not put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States for debts that have been incurred.

Now, I have been here for some time, and just in terms of the public debt going up, under Bush 1, it went up 55 percent; Clinton, 37 percent; Bush 2, 86 percent; Obama, 88 percent; Trump, 39 percent.

Now, obviously, those figures all are based on a lower base than their successor had, but it is interesting that under Ronald Reagan, the debt went up 189 percent, and he signed every one of those. And he also urged us not to put the credit at risk.

In addition, on September 8, 2017, the Republican-controlled House voted 316-90 to suspend the debt limit through December 8, 2017, under a deal endorsed by President Trump. The ``yea'' votes included Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Again, on September 8, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 80-17 to suspend the debt limit through December 8, 2017. The ``yea'' votes included Majority Leader McConnell, Majority Whip Cornyn, Finance Chairman Hatch, and GOP Conference Chair John Thune all voting in favor of that.

In addition, on February 9, 2018, a year later, the Republican- controlled House voted 240-186 to suspend the debt limit through March 1, 2019. Voting ``yea'' were Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all voting for the measure.

Leader McConnell has stated that it would be irresponsible not to extend either the date or the amount of the debt limit. The business roundtable has said this: Failure to let the U.S. Federal debt limit to meet the U.S. obligations would produce an otherwise avoidable crisis and pose unacceptable risk to the Nation's economic growth, job creation, and financial markets. Goldman Sachs has essentially said the same thing, the American Bankers Association, and numerous other organizations that I can mention.

So I am sorry that earlier this week the Republicans voted unanimously against keeping the government open and making sure that we did not compromise the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But I will assure the gentleman, as soon as a bill is sent back from the Senate, that we will take that up. I hope it is a responsible bill.

I hope it does what Senator McConnell, under President Donald Trump, said ought to be done. Perhaps now that we have a Democratic President, somehow the fiscal responsibility does not seem as important as it did when Donald Trump was President, and I think that is unfortunate.

I, personally, by the way, think that the debt issue is a phony issue. There are only very, very few countries that have a debt limit. The debt limit is decided when we spend money or cut revenues, not in some other venue. And once we do that, the assumption ought to be, and I think has been, that we are going to pay our debts as a country.

And the only time we came close to not doing that was about a little less than 10 years ago, and for the first time since I have been a Member of Congress, which is over 40 years, the rating of the United States was reduced, minisculely, but nevertheless reduced. A shocking consequence of playing games with the debt limit.

So I would hope that my friend would urge his party to not treat this as either a political issue or partisan issue, and would treat it as the issue it is, an issue of the fiscal responsibility and full faith and credit to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

It is hard to respond, Mr. Speaker, to a not-responsive issue on why we are not voting to extend the debt limit. McConnell said he wasn't going to vote for the debt limit long before there was anything about Iron Dome. In fact, we passed Iron Dome. We passed it overwhelmingly with over 420 votes. It is now over in the Senate, and I hope they pass it immediately, which would, by the way, be faster than they would have done the CR.

Having said that, the gentleman voted for $5 trillion of debt in 2020. It wasn't paid for. We were confronting a great crisis called COVID-19. And in a bipartisan way, we passed $5.4 trillion of spending, the largest amount of spending, I think, in any year that I have been in this Congress.

We did it in a bipartisan way with the expectation that we would borrow that money to meet the emergency that confronted us, and that we would pay for that debt. It didn't have anything to do with politics. It didn't have anything to do with who was President of the United States. And all that verbiage was to mask the fact that, frankly, my Republican friends don't like voting to pay the bills.

They do like to cut revenues, whether or not they balance the budget. And the good news, from their standpoint, was they inherited an economy that was going up incrementally every year.

The gentleman talks about jobs on his tax bill. Under President Obama, who inherited a tanking economy from George Bush, not withstanding the tax cuts that they had effected, during the Obama administration we created 10,838,000 jobs. During the Trump administration 6,688 net jobs. About 35 percent less. But that is irrelevant, it is a smokescreen. It is to distract.

The fact of the matter is we have incurred debt, we have incurred it in a bipartisan way. Whether the objective was defense or whether it was domestic or tax cuts, we created the debt on behalf of the United States of America. We borrowed money and we said to our creditors: we will pay you back.

It had nothing to do with Iron Dome. The Republicans had said if the debt limit was in there, they weren't going to vote for it. They were not going to take responsibility for the debt that they, in a bipartisan way, $5.4 trillion last year, incurred, signed by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump could have stopped every nickel of that money from being spent. He did not. It was a bipartisan agreement.

I believe, although I don't have the figures in front of me, that Mr. Scalise voted for every one of those bills. He can correct me if I am wrong on that.

But the debt limit is a pretense that somehow if you vote against raising the debt limit you will somehow, Mr. Speaker, solve the debt problem of the United States.

No. The way you solve that is paying your bills.

I would urge the gentleman--I don't know what is going to come back from the Senate, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, my experience has been, particularly over the last, about 15 years, it has been Democrats who have responded to the fiscal responsibility call of Republican Speakers--Mr. Boehner and Mr. Ryan--who couldn't get the majority of Republicans in their own party to vote for their bill exercising fiscal responsibility. I am proud to say that Democrats were there on behalf of bills sponsored, essentially--I don't know the name of the sponsor on the bill--but supported by both Speaker Boehner and Speaker Ryan. I don't have those figures in front of me, but I can bring them up perhaps next time we talk.

So I would urge my friend, let's get off this political Biden this or--I don't even know if any of those bills have passed because I don't know what list he is reading from, but, Mr. Speaker, he lists the names of bills in Congress.

We passed the rescue plan but got no Republicans on that.

Why?

Because we were over having a Republican President. So now a Democratic President was trying to make

sure that this country didn't fall through the floorboards, that our small businesses didn't fall through the floorboards, that our families and individuals didn't fall through the floorboards, and that our childcare providers didn't fall through the floorboards. So they were through voting for those bills. They were voting for them when Trump was President but stopped voting for them when Biden was President. I get that. But the debt limit is about all of us. It is about our country.

Very frankly, as Goldman Sachs and the Business Roundtable and others have said, it is about the global economy. It is about jobs. It is about working men and women having jobs and America being competitive with the rest of the world. That is what the debt limit is about, and that is what the Business Roundtable is saying, not one of our spokes- organs. That is what the Chamber of Commerce is saying.

So, yes, we can argue the specifics, the 4 million less jobs were created under Trump than were created under Obama. We can talk about that. We can talk about a larger debt under Trump in terms of actual dollars. I am not going to talk about that.

Why?

Because we incurred them together because we needed to do so because our country was in trouble and our people were in trouble.

So I will tell the gentleman we are going to--his question was, in case we all forgot it, we probably did--that we are going to deal with the bill that comes back because we are absolutely committed to making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is not put at risk.

I have different facts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will not characterize the substance of that argument. However, I believe it has no merit, Mr. Speaker, none, zero, zip.

It is as if we Democrats, when we voted three times to assure that we didn't violate the debt limit under Donald Trump, as if we would say: Well, this is not our debt, this was, after all, the debt of the tax cut of 2017, so we shouldn't pay this.

In fact, the debt, of course, like family debt, is not necessarily for the car, for the mortgage, or for the clothes that we bought for our children to go back to school. It is a cumulative debt, a cumulative debt that--by the way, under Democratic Presidents since President Truman--were increased 24 percent; under Republicans since Truman, 45 percent.

It would be ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, for me to say: Well, I am only going to pay for this debt, that debt, and this debt that I agree with.

Of course, the $5.4 trillion that Mr. Scalise and I voted for in 2020 is a part of the debt that we need to have to service now. In fact, what we of course did, we didn't increase the debt limit per se because politically that was very controversial because people demagogue it. So what we did was we changed the date, which is a ruse, which is a political sleight of hand. It has the same exact effect.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the argument that it is not my debt and your debt and this--in fact, most of those bills haven't passed and haven't created any debt yet. I don't know the list, so I don't know whether they have been passed or some have passed. I presume, obviously, the rescue plan did pass, it wasn't paid for. Of course, it was approximately 30 percent of what Mr. Scalise and I voted for in 2020.

But, nevertheless, the debt is the debt; and not to support making sure that America legally can pay that debt is irresponsible.

I don't know the status of those bills. I will check on the status of those bills.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, there is a tragedy occurring at our border. There are people in grievous circumstances and in unbearable danger in their home countries. That has been a case for some period of time, and we have some very bad people taking advantage of that and promising them a free route to America, taking advantage of that pain, that suffering, and that fear that so many people have, in this case Haitians who fled their own country, presumably many of them after an extraordinary earthquake and they are living in places that are not their homes.

We all talk about it, and we all believe that America is the greatest

country on the face of the Earth. It is. Therefore, it is not surprising that people who are in pain and grieving and are concerned for the future of their children want to come to the United States of America. But, clearly, we cannot take all of the people who would like to come to America.

Therefore, we need a system because America is made up of immigrants. It has been made strong by immigrants. It has been made successful by immigrants. It has been made a great country by immigrants.

My own father came from Denmark at the age of 32 in 1934. Almost everybody who serves in this House, some are immigrants themselves who came themselves to the country. Some at 2 years of age and some at other ages.

The gentleman is correct. We need to deal with this. We need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our values and respect for individual lives and individual persons. That is one of the great, great differences that we celebrate in America, the importance that we put on the individual.

We said that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal--today we clearly would say all men and women--and endowed not by us, not by our Constitution, and not by our laws, but by God. We have some of God's children who are fearful, scared, and running, running to a safer place. And that place for almost all the world is America.

So we have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to adopt a rational, comprehensive immigration reform regime where people will know the rules of coming to America. They will know the rules of how you apply, how you are processed, and how you are vetted. Whether you are coming here because you just want to come to America to succeed and to make your family live in a better neighborhood called America, or you are coming because your family and your are unsafe in the country in which you then reside, we need comprehensive immigration reform.

I would be glad to work very closely with my friend, the Republican whip from Louisiana, on seeing if we can get to that place because we have all been talking about it, all of us.

I think there is not a person in this room--I don't know about in this room, but over the years--who hasn't said our immigration system is broken, who hasn't said we need secure borders, who hasn't said we need secure borders and reveled in the fact that we are a nation of immigrants who have made us stronger so that we can get to a place where we pursue a rational policy for implementing that concept.

So I will tell my friend, I will look at those two or three pieces of legislation he mentioned and talk to the committee chairs about their status and let the gentleman know.

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.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts and my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The good news is that Democrats, and I hope some good friends, some Republicans, will not kick American families down the aisle and down the road. That is why we are here today, to ensure that those human beings will not be kicked down the road.

I am stunned by the actions of my friends that would not support the paying of your bills.

Let us not discard the reality of what lifting the debt ceiling means. It is the bills that have already accrued. It is the light bill; it is the telephone bill; it is the heat bill; it is the tuition for college. Those are bills that have accrued that we are paying for. That is the example the American people ask.

Then we are trying to work together to ensure that lead poisoning that is killing our children in water--that the INVEST Act is ready to go with the Build Back Better, that broadband is ready to go with the Build Back Better.

Then, of course, we want to do something innovative. The housing crisis in

America is unbelievable. Homelessness is on the rise. Veterans who have pledged their life to us as Americans and who have put on the uniform unselfishly are homeless in droves. They are homeless in big cities, like Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and in rural areas. None of that is attributed to local leaders.

When I was home yesterday interacting with the engine of the economy--construction companies and workers and engineers--they begged for having us come together, INVEST Act, Build Back Better. This bill includes a $35 billion investment in the HOME Investment Partnerships.

We want to make sure that Medicare is strong, Federal Medicaid. We want housing, climate change, the immigration reform. There are many elements that will stop pushing the American people down the road like a can and just keep saying to them: We will get it one day. We will get it another day.

Provide education for all those workers who were stymied during the pandemic. Stop the eviction of individuals who I saw come out into the street.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times.

[From the New York Times, October 8, 2021]

What the Debt Ceiling Means for Social Security and More

The federal government is about two weeks away from being

unable to pay its bills--and that could delay benefit

payments to tens of millions of retirees, Medicare and

Medicaid providers, and numerous others receiving checks from

the U.S. Treasury.

Running into the federal borrowing limit could lead to a

catastrophic default on the nation's debt. Once the

government reaches the ceiling--and exhausts all other

measures to keep payments flowing--it will run out of funds

for bills it has already promised to pay.

To avoid such a calamity, Democrats are weighing a change

to filibuster rules in order to hold a vote. Senator Mitch

McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has suggested

allowing a temporary increase until December, although that

would merely postpone a default deadline for a matter of

weeks.

The government has never defaulted on its obligations, so

what would happen is unclear. But the effects could be wide-

ranging, covering programs as varied as Social Security

benefits and school lunches.

``There is no public playbook for what to do when you

breach the debt limit,'' said Marc Goldwein, senior policy

director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a

fiscal watchdog group. ``We don't know what will happen.''

What Programs Could be Affected?

A lot, covering a lot of people.

A default could potentially--but not necessarily--delay the

payment of Social Security benefits, which reach about 65

million Americans in some form.

It could also delay payments to government contractors,

including hospitals that accept patients who use Medicare and

Medicaid benefits. If the situation dragged on for weeks or

months, it could threaten access to health care, Whitney

Tucker, the deputy director of research on the State Fiscal

Policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

said in a recent note.

Some state-run programs that use federal money, like those

providing free or reduced-cost breakfast and lunch to low-

income students, might not be immediately reimbursed. The

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as

food stamps, would also be affected.

And it would probably halt payments being made to families

under the newly expanded child tax credit, which in July

began sending eligible families half of the credit in monthly

installments. Roughly 35 million families received the

benefit in July.

When Could this Happen?

That's not totally clear. The Treasury secretary, Janet L.

Yellen, has said the government will hit the debt ceiling on

Oct. 18. But some analysts believe the actual date could be

pushed back a few days, or perhaps longer.

It's important to note that this situation is different

from a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails

to pass bills that permit new spending. White House officials

warn that running into the debt ceiling is far more damaging.

Won't the Government still have some money?

Yes, the Treasury will have some revenue coming in--from

estimated quarterly income taxes, excise taxes and other

sources--but the department has maintained that it does not

have the authority to pick and choose which payments it will

make.

``There is only one viable option to deal with the debt

limit: Congress needs to increase or suspend it, as it has

done approximately 80 times, including three times during the

last administration,'' a Treasury spokesman said.

But if no agreement is reached, some policy experts say

that the Treasury may ultimately have to pick winners and

losers--and that's a difficult bind, because there are

several conflicting laws at play.

The law says the government cannot borrow once it hits the

debt limit, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says

that the United States must honor its obligations. Other laws

state that certain benefits and salaries must be paid.

Is there anything else the government could do?

The Treasury might decide to issue more bonds anyway and

leave it to the Supreme Court to figure out the

constitutional questions, said Len Burman, an institute

fellow at the Urban Institute.

``They could ignore the debt limit,'' he said. ``It is a

question that has never been adjudicated because it hasn't

come up before.''

But previous administrations have rejected that approach,

he said, and legal experts don't agree about whether it would

actually work.

What about Social Security?

Social Security--which reaches tens of millions of

Americans through retirement, disability and survivor

benefits--is a bit different from other programs because it

is largely financed through a dedicated payroll tax. It also

has its own trust funds, which may give it more flexibility,

some experts said.

The taxes coming into the program aren't enough to pay all

of the benefits, according to Jason J. Fichtner, chief

economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who held several

positions, including acting principal deputy commissioner, at

the Social Security Administration. But since the checks are

sent out on a staggered basis, the agency could wait for more

cash to come in, which would result in delayed payments.

But there's also at least one other possibility. If the

Treasury redeemed the special-issue bonds from the program's

trust fund to pay benefits--and then quickly replaced them

with newly issued bonds--that wouldn't raise the debt

ceiling, Mr. Fichtner argues.

It's not clear whether the Treasury agrees with his

assessment.

What else could happen?

If the United States were to default on its debts--that is,

stop making payments on the Treasurys it has sold--there

would almost certainly be major consequences in the global

markets.

The immediate effect would be that portfolios held by

investors as varied as pension funds and holders of 401(k)s

would face a market tailspin. Even after any debt-ceiling

standoff were resolved, global investors would demand higher

interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds--so the government's

borrowing in the future could become more expensive.

A default may also make it more difficult for consumers to

secure loans, and they would most likely pay more when they

did.

``In the case of a debt default, it would quickly spark a

credit crunch so the issue for borrowers becomes much more

about whether you can get a loan in the first place,'' said

Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

``Lenders would likely freeze or cut credit lines on home

equity lines of credit and credit cards. Personal loans would

be harder to get and could see higher rates.''

What if the problem isn't quickly resolved?

An extended impasse would cause significant damage to the

U.S. economy, Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner, both senior

fellows at the Brookings Institution, a research group, wrote

in a recent report.

``Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-

lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained--and

completely avoidable--damage, particularly given the

challenges that Covid-19 poses to the health of the

economy,'' they wrote.

If it dragged on through November, the federal government

would have little choice but to significantly slash

government spending by roughly $200 billion--a

``devastating'' blow to the economy, Mark Zandi, chief

economist of Moody's Analytics, said in a recent analysis.

And the increased expense of borrowing would only add to

the hit in the long run.

``Americans would pay for this default for generations,''

he said.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Forbes.

[From Forbes, Oct. 4, 2021]

Defaulting on the National Debt Ceiling Would Be Catastrophic for Small

Businesses

Here we go again. It seems every time this issue arises,

lawmakers seem intent to put the U.S. economy and small

businesses at risk.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen has said that the federal government will run

out of money on October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised.

The government reached its debt limit at the end of July and

Treasury has been taking steps to keep from defaulting. If

the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming weeks, the U.S.

will default on its debt for the first time in its history

and that will be catastrophic for small businesses.

There is no question that our national debt needs to be

addressed in the coming years with a mixture of revenue

raises and spending cuts as the Clinton Administration did in

the 1990s. However, defaulting on the debt is not the answer.

It will not be some teachable moment on government spending.

Instead, it

will have unnecessary and irreversible consequences for

almost all Americans. A Navigator survey also found that 58

percent of Americans support raising the debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Just a few

days ago, Senate Minority Leader McConnell blocked Democrats

from using a simple majority to get this done.

Why? Republicans may want to use this as a campaign issue

against Democrats this coming fall trying to claim that they

are growing the national debt. But, the real story is, the

national debt has risen regardless of which party is in

control. There will be a time when Republicans will be in the

driver's seat and need to raise the debt limit, and let's

hope Democrats move beyond politics because playing

``chicken'' with the debt limit is not good politics, not

good for small business, not good for our national security,

and not good for the economy. In fact, an analysis by Moody's

Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that

defaulting on the national debt would wipe out as many as 6

million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth.

``We can't emphasize enough how disastrous it would be for

Congress to consider a government shutdown if consensus

cannot be met in advance of the funding deadline. Small

businesses are especially vulnerable and many would not

survive a government shutdown at this time due to the

pandemic, particularly with the rapid spread of the Delta

variant, and trying to move from crisis to recovery,'' wrote

Candace Waterman, President and CEO of Women Impacting Public

Policy, in a letter to U.S. House and Senate leadership.

Here are five ways defaulting on the national debt would

harm Main Streets across the country.

1. More Expensive Small Business Loans

A majority of credit rating agencies rate the U.S. federal

government at AAA, the highest level. Defaulting on the debt

would lead to an automatic downgrade of the country's credit

rating, driving up interest rates for all Americans. Small

business loans will become costlier as private lenders are

forced to increase their interest rates. Even Small Business

Administration (SBA)-guaranteed loans, which are often lower

cost and more accessible but still reflective of market

conditions, will become more expensive.

2. Higher Credit Card Interest Rates

Many small business owners use their personal credit cards

to cover business expenses and manage debt. As with loan

rates, small business credit card and personal credit card

interest rates will also rise, squeezing the amount of

capital small business owners have to work with and

potentially driving them into more debt.

3. Tightened Credit Markets

One can look at the stories of Argentina and Greece to see

what happens to a country's credit markets when it defaults'

on its debt. The same will be the case for the United States

if it follows in these countries' footsteps. Credit markets

will tighten up and U.S. banks will prioritize lending to

businesses where they have pre-existing relationships, which

are more likely to be larger ones than small ones. Small

businesses, especially unbanked ones and those in underserved

communities, would be at a severe disadvantage when they have

the least financial cushion.

4. Plunging Stock Markets

Moody's Report estimates that stock prices would likely

plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in

household wealth. This would be a one-two punch for small

business owners who would see their own retirement savings

dissipate and then lose business from consumers who are now

dealing with their lost nest egg. In turn, larger public

companies could lose value, thus making it harder to

incorporate small businesses into their vendor supply chain.

5. Delayed Treasury Payments

The Treasury Department has been taking steps to meet its

obligations, including payments to households such as Social

Security. If the U.S. default on its debt, the government

would immediately need to stop more than 40 percent of

expected payments, including Social Security and other

household income. There are a number of downstream effects

this would have on small businesses, including a loss of

customers and a strain on business owners and employees now

taking steps to make ends meet for themselves and their loved

ones.

The American economy and its Main Streets are working

through their greatest crisis since World War II. Both are

still standing right now but a default on the national debt

would be a knockout blow. Let's stop playing politics and get

the debt limit raised. Once that's done, we can return to the

important work of getting an infrastructure bill passed that

has the ability to pave the way for the next generation of

American small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, let us do the debt extension that the Senate has given us, but let us not accept this paltry extension. Do it right in December and save the American people. Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, do it together. Do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' and the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 716 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 716, for four measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order eight amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Job Applicants Act, under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1301, an increase of the public debt limit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to

en bloc requested roll call votes on previously considered suspension bills through October 22, 2021, and provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through November 18, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, Republican Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``The government is us; we are the government, you and I.''

He knew that government is at its best when it brings all of us together while also working for every single one of us. That means a system that allows every American the chance to put a roof over their head, food on their table, and a job that allows them to put some money in the bank, and where education and healthcare are affordable and not a luxury for the precious wealthy few.

Unfortunately, as a deadline loomed, those discussions have had to give way to a debate about whether our Nation will pay its debts. Rather than coming together to get this done, some on the other side advocated an approach that would stop government in its tracks and open the door on default for the first time in our history.

We all know what that would mean. It would send our economy off a cliff and make the cost of virtually everything skyrocket, all at a time when we should be helping families recover from the economic shock of the COVID pandemic.

Last week our Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, said that defaulting our debt would risk the benefits of more than 2 million military retirees and roughly 400,000 survivors.

Mark Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and previously worked for Republican Senator John McCain. He recently said that defaulting ``would be financial Armageddon.'' That is what has been at stake here, Mr. Speaker, financial Armageddon.

The debt ceiling has been raised or suspended roughly 80 times in our Nation's history, often in a bipartisan way. And I am grateful that, after much debate, we are finally doing the right thing again here today.

I took to the House floor two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and stressed the importance of preventing default. I spoke about how I voted to raise the debt ceiling when I was in the majority and in the minority, when there was a Democrat in the White House and when there was a Republican in the White House, and I asked Republicans to do one thing: If they weren't going to help us raise the debt ceiling, I asked them to get out of the way so that Democrats could prevent default on our own.

Now, I want to thank the minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, for taking that advice. He crafted the initial framework of a deal that will temporarily increase our debt limit into early December. And after voting with just 10 other Republicans to allow debate on that compromise, he got so far out of the way that he couldn't even bring himself to vote for the deal that he pushed for.

But the deal was made, and the compromise passed the Senate, and I am hopeful that we can send this bill to the President today and avert a totally self-made, unnecessary catastrophe.

And let me say, for the record, the first time we saw a dramatic increase in our Nation's debt was under President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who added $4 trillion to our Nation's debt; part of that was to pass tax cuts, again, primarily for those at the top.

So please spare us the lectures on taxes and spending today. Let's just finally do the right thing.

I want to thank all of those who will join with us today in making this possible. I pray that those who vote ``no'' will have their wisdom enlarged because what is before us is ultimately a stopgap. We will need to find a long-term solution in a matter of weeks; one that protects the full faith and credit of the United States, hopefully, without lurching from one short-term deadline to the next.

That is one of the most basic tasks of Congress and, on behalf of our economy and the American people, we will have to get this done. We always have. And we cannot afford not to this time around.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me also urge passage of the three underlying bills that are also included in this rule; legislation that will extend protections for nursing mothers in the workplace, prevent discrimination of older Americans in the workforce, and combat intimate partner violence. They are important ways for us all to show our support for protecting our Nation's children, families, and workers.

I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills. Let's show that the words of Teddy Roosevelt haven't completely fallen on deaf ears. Let's show that America pays its bills; and let's show that we can keep making government work better for every single American.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me remind my good friend that the compromise we are voting on was designed by Republican leader Mitch McConnell. It is not what I wanted. I wanted to get this out of the way and make it longer, quite frankly, so we weren't lurching from one deadline to another.

I would also say to my friend on the Rules Committee that it is a little bit hard for us to stand over here and to listen to some of my Republican colleagues complain, because what we are doing here is we are paying for the bills that Donald Trump and the Republicans accumulated.

I didn't like the tax cut that my friends forced through, by the way, with no Democratic support or consultation. It added trillions to our debt. But we have to pay for it.

It is like my Republican friends went out to a fancy restaurant, drank champagne and ate caviar and ran out of the restaurant before paying the bill, and now they want us to take the responsibility to pay for their bills.

Well, you know what? We have some experience in cleaning up the messes that have been left behind by our Republican colleagues. The last time Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they shut the government down, and then the new Democratic majority had to come in and try to fix all that. So my friends are really good at creating messes and piling up big bills, by the way, and then they say to us, you clean it up.

Well, you know what? We are putting our country first, and so we are going to clean up this mess, and we are going to move forward. And we are going to have a reconciliation bill, by the way, that will be mostly paid for. And if my friends don't like that, they can vote against it.

But let's be clear. Ninety-seven percent of what we are covering here are bills accumulated by Donald Trump and my Republican friends; I mean, 97 percent. So I don't know what the controversy is on the other side of the aisle.

You didn't want to accumulate all this debt? I remember during the tax debate we were talking to you about debt and you didn't want to hear anything about it. We had some Republicans say that debt doesn't matter on this floor. And now all of a sudden it does; now that we have a Democratic President and, by the way, a Democratic Congress that is trying to pay the bills that you accumulated. This is ridiculous. It is absurd that we are having this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, let me just state for the record that the House rules do not ban the use of any of the words that the gentleman is referring to. It is another one of these rightwing conspiracies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, my colleague on the Rules Committee, none of what he just stated has anything to do with what we are debating here today. What we are debating here today is whether or not we are going to pay the bills that have been accumulated, whether we are going to pay the bills accumulated as a result of an unpaid-for tax cut, mostly for wealthy people, and other spending.

The gentleman complains about gas prices. Imagine what is going to happen to gas prices if we default on our debt, if we destroy the entire economy. Imagine the harsh impacts on everyday, average citizens.

All of the other stuff is nice rhetoric, but we are talking about here today whether or not we should pay the bills that many on the other side voted to accumulate. But now, all of a sudden, they don't want to pay the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the news today that Mr. Yarmuth will not be running for reelection, and I think it is a sad day for this institution. He conducts himself with grace, with dignity, always sticking to the facts, and he has a demeanor about him that I think all of us should try to emulate. It is kind of sad to hear that news today, but I do admire him greatly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, you wonder why people hate Congress. I mean, we have somebody on the Budget Committee who is trying to make us believe that, in fact, raising the debt limit somehow controls spending.

The bottom line is the debt limit is about paying the bills that have already been accumulated, including many of the bills that my friend who just spoke voted to accumulate, including a tax cut bill that benefited the well off and the well connected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, yes, individual Democrats on occasion have voted ``no'' on the debt ceiling, and the party in control ends up carrying the day.

But I guess I would ask her, does she know how many times Democrats threatened to filibuster the raising of the debt ceiling in the Senate to make it virtually impossible for the party in control to be able to pass it?

I am happy to yield to her, but the answer to that is zero. Zero.

I said this before when we debated this a couple of weeks ago. You know, I don't expect my Republican friends to do the responsible thing, but I expect them to get out of the way so that we can. That is what is at stake here today.

Again, let me remind all my colleagues what happens if, in fact, we don't extend the debt limit. Again, according to the nonpartisan Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi says such a crisis could result in a loss of 6 million U.S. jobs, and $15 trillion in household wealth would be wiped out. Obviously, it is something that we cannot easily recover from, if we could ever recover from it, especially after the coronavirus pandemic.

Let me just say, I am so happy to hear that my Republican friends finally have seen the light on the debt. Where have you been? Where were you when Donald Trump brought his tax cut bill for the well off and the well connected? You had no problem at all piling on $2 trillion to the debt. Remember the debate we had on the floor? No big deal, no big deal.

I mean, would you reconsider that vote now? Or do you want to take back the vote that many of you cast--I think wisely so--to help provide COVID relief money to families that were struggling because of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes? Do you want to take that back?

Come on. This debate is embarrassing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, oh my goodness. The gentleman says that we buried the debt limit somehow in this

rule. I will lend him my glasses. It says in the title: Increase the public debt limit.

I don't know how much clearer it could be. It is in the title. Did you not read the rule?

Mr. Speaker, by the way, we met in the Committee on Rules on S. 1301 on September 29--2 weeks ago. On that same day, we debated the bill on the House floor and voted on it--up or down. Fully transparent--218 Democrats voted yes; 1 Republican voted yes; 2 Democrats voted no; 210 Republicans voted no.

It was a fully transparent process. What are you talking about?

Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is a Senate amendment to that very same bill. We don't need to start the process of hearings and markups and debate all over again for a Senate amendment to a bill that we have already debated and voted on--and by the way, a Senate amendment that was inspired by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.

So don't just come here and make stuff up. The debt limit is in the title of the rule, for goodness sake.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing two things from the other side.

One, is that they are fine with ignoring the debt if it is on things that they like. And then two, I am hearing that they are fine with defaulting on the debt, therefore throwing our economy into ruin. Talk about irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to save my breath, and I reserve the balance of my time.