H.Res. 716

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

I want to start by thanking my Republican co-lead on this bill, the dean of the House, Congressman Don Young of Alaska. I also want to thank Chairman Bobby Scott, my Democratic co-lead, for his tireless leadership to protect all workers, but especially older workers and older jobseekers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will fix a loophole in current law that fails to protect older job applicants during the hiring process.

Despite what many people assume, older job applicants are not protected under the current Age Discrimination in Employment Act protections, commonly called ADEA.

Mr. Speaker, my bill seeks to fix this. This bill would allow older job applicants to bring claims for disparate impact discrimination hiring against employers.

While that may sound like legal technicalities and legal mumbo-jumbo to some people watching back home, Mr. Speaker, disparate impact claims are very, very important. They are important because some hiring practices might seem age-neutral on their face, but they actually impact job applicants that are older disproportionately.

The bill would clarify the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to give job applicants the right to bring these claims forward. Three- fourths of workers age 45 and older blame age discrimination for their lack of confidence in finding a new job.

But it is not just simple statistics. It is about real people and real stories.

It is like one of my neighbors, an engineer who can't find meaningful work after losing his job. He is about 60, but he is always told he is too experienced and overqualified. But he says it is all about his age.

It is about Rebecca in California, who is age 75, forced to provide her birth

date on a web-based job application where the year of her birth isn't even an option on a drop-down menu for the birth year. So she can't even apply, because the options don't include the year of her birth.

It is like Carolyn in Tennessee, age 52. She was let go from her job in March of last year. She has filed 65 job applications but gotten zero interviews. She has a BS in business finance and an MA in educational administration. She says people half her age are getting those jobs instead. She was told she needed more recent, relevant experience.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article sharing Carolyn's story entitled ``Older job seekers find experience, education may not be enough in pandemic.''

[From NewsChannel5 Nashville, Jan. 12, 2021]

Older Job Seekers Find Experience, Education May Not Be Enough in

Pandemic

(By Levi Ismail)

Nashville, Tenn. (WTVF).--Older workers are having trouble

making it back into the workforce and studies show it's part

of a trend we haven't seen in nearly 50 years.

In the first six months of the pandemic, older workers (55

and older) were 17 percent more likely to become unemployed

than their slightly younger peers.

Carolyn McKeown is 52 years old, but says she hasn't had

much luck finding a job in the nearly one year it's been

since she was let go back in March 2020. She first reached

out to us in September and since then, she's filed 65

applications with zero interviews. It's just finding the

right time and the right place,'' McKeown said.

McKeown has a Bachelor's degree in business and finance, as

well as a Master's degree in educational administration. For

decades she's worked in HR, insurance, and mortgage lending,

which she thought could be a valuable experience to any

prospective employer.

When jobs continued to turn her down, she began surveying

anyone who made the time to listen. McKeown asked how these

people half her age were getting jobs and many of them

explained that it was simply an option right out of school.

``I feel as though we're being scrutinized more heavily and

told that we need recent relevant experience, as though we've

never worked before,'' McKeown said:

The US Census Bureau found that for the first time in

nearly 50 years, jobseekers (55 and older) are facing higher

rates of unemployment than those a few years younger. They

also found that older workers stayed unemployed longer.

Tennessee Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development explains how

it works.

``This program right here can help a senior make themselves

more marketable or maybe upgrade an existing skill or teach

them an entirely new skill,'' Cannon said.

Cannon explains that these may not all be full-time jobs,

but they are jobs capable of helping someone earn an income

at a time where the money is tight.

McKeown is at the point where she's barely managing to pay

her bills. She's tapped out her savings and can no longer

afford health insurance. Not unlike the many other older

workers who now can't imagine the idea of voluntary

retirement.

That said, she's not looking for anything part-time or

without benefits. She acknowledges that some of her

qualifiers may keep her from getting certain jobs, but

McKeown says she knows her worth. Under a much different

time, her credentials could have landed her a high-paying job

with benefits. She's not expecting the same pay as before,

but McKeown says she should be afforded similar opportunities

she knows are out there.

For McKeown, she knows some employers think it's too

expensive to train an older worker in this more virtual

workforce. She says she's learning every day how to keep up,

so this stigma that older workers are somehow less capable is

the only thing outdated.

``How do they determine what the job applicant is lacking.

A job gap doesn't mean you lack the skills. It just means

you're lacking time,'' McKeown said.

What is the rebound?

As Middle Tennessee works to rebound from the impact of the

Coronavirus, we want to help. Whether it's getting back to

work, making ends meet during this uncertain time, or

managing the pressure, we're committed to finding solution.

In addition, we want to tell your stories of hope,

inspiration, and creativity as Middle Tennessee starts to

rebound.

Mr. Speaker, another story. Diana, age 53, was forced to take early retirement after her company downsized. She wasn't ready to quit working, but she hasn't found a job.

The loaded question in the application, she says, is always: When did you graduate from high school? This question tells her age. Because of that, she has gotten no interviews.

These folks are not alone. I want to read some comments from other jobseekers in their 50s about their experience job hunting:

``No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60 plus who still want to work are not so plentiful in rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled: ``I'm not dead: Inside the struggle of finding work after 50 in North Texas.''

[From the Dallas Business Journal, Feb. 11, 2019]

`I'm Not Dead': Inside the Struggle of Finding Work After 50 in North

Texas

(By Jason Wheeler)

The good news first: Diana Hinton's dog Maxwell has been on

a lot of walks lately. The bad news: She's had time for that.

Hinton's employer of almost three decades downsized, and

she had to take early retirement long before she was ready.

A recent data analysis by Pro Publica and the Urban

Institute found that early retirements are often not as

voluntary as they sound. The analysis also found that

shockingly high percentages of workers over 50 are forced out

of their jobs before they can reach retirement age.

On one of those frequent walks with Maxwell, Diana Hinton

told us she and her dog thought their outings would be for a

limited time only.

``I think the first few weeks he was looking at me like

aren't you going somewhere?'' Hinton said.

Those few weeks became a few years.

When we talked to her in September 2018, Diana was busy

going about her usual routine of filling out applications

online and sending out resumes. Often, she found herself

paining over that dreaded question on the application form.

``Here we go . . . `when did you graduate high school?'

Which I hate because I know they start adding in their

heads--she's gotta be in her 50s,'' Hinton said.

She was 53 at the time. When we talked to her, we had just

begun a series of reports on the middle class called ``Stuck

in the Middle.''

On social media, we heard from so many people in the 50-

plus age group talking about the difficulty of finding

employment. A sampling of the messages:

``. . . No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60+ who still want to work are not so

plentiful in the rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work . .

.''

Many respondents also bolstered another of the findings

made by Pro Publica and the Urban Institute--that being

derailed so close to retirement age is devastating to

retirement plans. A sampling of the messages about how long

people will have to work:

``I'm still working at 78.''

``. . . gonna die working.''

``Looks like I'm working full time until dead, and leaving

nothing behind.''

``Foreverrrrrrrrrrrrr . . .''

``Till the end.''

``We don't even talk about retirement age anymore,'' said

Claire Turner, deputy director of the Elder Financial Safety

Center at The Senior Source. ``People are wanting to work as

long as they can. So they get the question in the interview

where do you see yourself in five years? I see myself

working.''

The Senior Source specifically helps people 50 and over to

search for jobs. They offer free resume workshops, conduct

mock job interviews, and teach software and social media

classes, among other things.

Each year, the center helps as many as 2,000 older workers,

and Turner said, unequivocally, ``There is age

discrimination. It is true. The average duration of

unemployment nationwide is 22.7 weeks, but for older adults,

it is 32 weeks.''

``I think seniors bring a lot to the table,'' said 64-year-

old Michael Dade, who took classes at The Senior Source after

he had to take early retirement from an accounting job at an

oil company that downsized. ``I felt like I had to be twice

as good as some young person.''

Dade cautioned others in his age group who still have jobs

to stay hungry.

``I have seen people who basically put it in cruise control

at (age) 55,'' Dade said. ``No one has paid enough dues to

have a guaranteed job now. Any day you go to work you have to

think it could be your last day and plan that way.''

Dade now drives the van and coordinates volunteers at The

Senior Source. He advised younger people to pay attention to

the plight of older workers who lose, or are forced out of,

their jobs. He warned those younger workers that they, too,

will be older workers someday. He also said the older worker

being forced out of a job could be their parents.

Dade suggested that younger people reduce their debt load,

save as much as they can, maximize contributions to their

retirement plans, and learn as many marketable skills as

possible. That's something he took advantage of in his former

job.

``I tried to make myself learn as much as I could,'' Dade

said.

Hinton also told us she took every training her former

company offered, and she advises others to do the same,

because it beats paying for those classes on your own

someday.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner said it's not enough to simply

acquire knowledge and skills--you have to be able to

communicate those assets to potential employers, while still

sounding humble. For instance, if you have always been a

dependable worker, you would say something like, ``Past

employers say my attendance is perfect . . . you want to say

people `say' I am good at this. That's always a great way to

deliver that message,'' Turner said.

A bright spot: Turner said she is seeing evidence that the

tight job market created by a low unemployment rate is

helping older workers who are unemployed.

``Employers are very open to older workers that they may

not have been before,'' Turner said.

We checked back with Hinton four months after our first

visit. She has seen no sign of that new openness to older

workers. Hinton's situation had become more desperate.

A few temporary gigs had come and gone, but she had yet to

land a permanent job, despite decades of customer service

experience, much of it in management.

The lack of employment was impacting most aspects of her

life:

Housing: ``Of course, the house, we don't want to lose it.

It may get to that point--not maybe soon--but maybe in the

next six (months) to a year.''

Health: ``I have medication I can't afford so I don't take

it.''

Retirement funds (which have depleted some): ``I don't even

want to check my Fidelity account.''

We asked her how many jobs she has applied for since she

lost permanent employment two years ago.

``Oh my God!'' she said. ``I would say . . . over 250. I

got out of that . . . maybe 10 interviews.''

That lines up with a 2017 study done by the Federal Reserve

Bank of San Francisco, in which researchers sent out tens of

thousands of fictitious applications from different aged

artificial applicants who had similar backgrounds. They found

that younger workers were significantly more likely to get a

call back from prospective employers than older workers were.

``I'm articulate,'' she said. ``I have an energy. I'm not

dead. Whatever the curse is . . . whatever it is it needs to

go away.''

Worried that her expansive resume might make her look

overqualified (and over age), she shortened it from four

pages to two.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner at The Senior Source said, ``When I

was looking, I had 25 resumes. Every single word was true,

but I had three different careers. We see all the time people

walk in with a resume that is very impressive, with all these

years of experience. They present that for a customer service

position and there is no correlation. The employer doesn't

even understand why you applied. So it is a matter of

tailoring your resume. It is definitely honest and factual;

it is just showing things that are relevant. The industry

standard is that people only show the last ten years.''

As we wrapped up our second visit with Hinton, she was

still filling out applications. But she had also just

received another rejection email.

``It says, `Dear Diana, thanks for your interest in our

customer service position. Unfortunately you have not been

selected to continue in our process for this position.' ''

Her dog, Maxwell, rests at her feet.

``Maybe he is my calm,'' Hinton said. ``He's calming me.''

Hinton wonders if she will ever leave him again to go back

to work.

``I am pretty strong, but I am almost sliding down, and I

have to keep telling myself, `Come on, Diana, you can do

this.' I didn't think it was going to be this hard.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 716, I call up the bill (H.R. 2119) to amend the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to make improvements, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2119.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the bipartisan Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021 introduced by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Before I continue, I want to encourage anyone struggling with intimate partner violence to reach out to the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE or the StrongHearts Native Helpline at 1-844-7NATIVE.

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to overstate the need to address intimate partner violence in this country. Roughly 1 in 4 women and nearly 1 in 10 men reported experiencing some sort of intimate partner violence.

These incidents often cause severe physical injuries that portend even graver consequences, including the tragic loss of life.

For survivors of violence, emotional trauma and intimate partner violence often last long after the physical injuries have healed, triggering lifelong struggles with disease and mental health challenges.

For decades, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act has been a central pillar in our response to domestic violence, authorizing services like shelters and 24-hour domestic violence hotlines.

Regrettably, these programs have been technically expired since the end of 2015. Although funding has continued, updates to the law have been long overdue. For example, we know that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of intimate partner violence and restricted access to critical services for survivors.

H.R. 2119 strengthens our fight in this public health crisis by updating the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act in two important ways.

First, it prioritizes equity by expanding funding to reach communities that have disproportionately high rates of intimate partner violence but limited access to services.

Second, it invests more in prevention so we can avert the physical danger and emotional trauma that survivors experience before it occurs.

These updates represent the next steps we must take not only to support the survivors who need it most, but also to prevent intimate partner violence from harming our communities.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan) who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild),

who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2119--Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of

2021--Rep. McBath, D-GA, and 83 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement

Act of 2021. Congress first enacted the Family Violence

Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) in 1984 to provide

resources to address domestic violence as a public health

issue and to support life-saving services and prevention

programs throughout the nation. FVPSA, last reauthorized in

2010, allocates funding to states and territories that

reaches over 1,500 domestic violence shelters and services

programs, as well as funding for over 240 tribes and tribal

organizations, to address and prevent domestic violence and

dating violence. FVPSA also provides funding for a network of

state and territorial domestic violence coalitions, the

National Domestic Violence Hotline, and national technical

assistance providers that provide training and capacity

building to ensure that vital services and support are

available to individuals experiencing domestic violence and

their children. Additionally, FVPSA funds the DELTA program,

which provides funds to design, implement, and evaluate

innovative domestic violence and dating violence prevention

models.

As a result of FVPSA funding, each year approximately 1.3

million survivors receive critical services such as emergency

shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, assistance in

seeking an order of protection, and assistance recovering

from financial abuse and addressing housing insecurity.

Nonetheless, research demonstrates that the need for services

continues to outpace availability and many survivors are

unable to access critical services and support. Furthermore,

the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated economic insecurity,

increased isolation, and compounded barriers faced by victims

and survivors in seeking safety and stability, particularly

for those from historically marginalized communities.

H.R. 2119 is a bipartisan bill that will authorize

increased funding to strengthen existing services while

expanding access to tribes and tribal coalitions, culturally-

specific programs, and other underserved communities. It will

also expand investments in domestic violence prevention by

increasing support for existing evidence-based, community

projects and by funding new initiatives to reach more

communities nationwide. The Administration urges swift

passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the family violence prevention working group, a coalition of national organizations working on domestic violence issues.

September 20, 2021.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have to respond to a comment about the budget. I would point out and remind everyone that since the 1960s, every Democratic President has ended an administration with a better deficit situation than they inherited, without exception. And every Republican administration has ended their administration with a worse deficit situation than they inherited, without exception. The last President was well on his way to fulfilling that trend before the pandemic.

The Build Back Better and the transportation plans are in the process of being paid for so they will not be adding to the deficit.

Madam Speaker, each person in this Chamber should agree that we must do more to address intimate partner violence in this country. The critical services for survivors under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act

have now expired, have been expired for more than 5 years, and are in urgent need of updates.

During the pandemic, many survivors have been isolated with their abusers, while the gaps in our response to domestic violence have been exacerbated. This is not the time for Congress to stand by while our communities continue to endure the far-reaching and lifelong impacts of this public health crisis. Now is the time for Congress to take action.

As we face new challenges during the pandemic, we must ensure that survivors in our most vulnerable communities have access to the support services they need. We must prioritize effective prevention strategies that stop intimate partner violence from occurring in the first place.

Madam Speaker, each of us has the responsibility to do our part to fight against domestic violence. The bill before us is an opportunity to come together and reaffirm our commitment to supporting survivors and preventing all Americans from suffering the devastating consequences of intimate partner violence.

I want to thank all the bipartisan sponsors for their leadership and for their work to pass this urgent legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 716, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, there are six amendments in this en bloc.

Mr. Kahele has offered an amendment which establishes the Native Hawaiian Resource Center on domestic violence.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has offered an amendment to amend the definition of a child to include any child under 18, including emancipated minors.

Mr. Cohen has offered an amendment to clarify grant eligibility for legal aid organizations.

Ms. Newman has offered an amendment to clarify that domestic violence coalitions may partner with mental health and substance abuse disorder providers.

Ms. Jackson Lee has offered an amendment requiring the GAO study required in the underlying bill to include information on outreach to racial and ethnic minorities.

Ms. Bush has offered an amendment to clarify that domestic violence coalitions can provide training to housing service providers.

These amendments make meaningful improvements to the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendments en bloc No. 1, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Madam Speaker, again, these amendments included in the amendments en bloc make meaningful improvements to the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on en bloc No. 1, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 716, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, there are two amendments in this en bloc. First, as it has been explained, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) has offered an amendment to reinstate the State match requirement, and the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow) has offered a substitute amendment, leaving out the majority of the programming improvements in H.R. 2119 and adding a problematic provision regarding abortion.

These amendments undermine the bipartisan, bicameral progress included in H.R. 2119 and neglect to make any changes or enhancements to FVPSA programs.

These amendments en bloc fail to meet the moment. There are a number of things they do:

They halt the creation of a new resource center on disability and domestic violence needed to counter the disproportionate rates of intimate partner violence among people with disabilities.

They prevent Tribal governments from getting the resources they need to combat domestic violence, which occurs at alarming rates in Tribal communities.

They strike grants that support survivors from racial and ethnic minority groups. Communities of color face disproportionate rates of domestic violence and sexual assault and often experience barriers to accessing services.

They remove the addition of new prevention grants to ensure prevention funding goes to every State, Tribe, and territory, despite the fact that currently only 10 States receive funding to do any prevention work, and this amendment maintains that status quo.

These amendments would also reinstate State matching fund requirements. Particularly during the ongoing pandemic and economic crisis, this would create significant operational challenges for service providers. For example, nonprofit organizations do not have the benefit of guaranteed funding and may struggle to meet match requirements. Ultimately, this means fewer services available for survivors.

The amendments en bloc also include a partisan attack on abortion, undermining a comprehensive reauthorization that can meaningfully improve the lives of survivors of intimate partner violence.

These amendments inject needless political controversy into this debate, undermining the hard work we have done to develop a comprehensive reauthorization. Instead of acknowledging the complexities of medical decisions for both women and their providers, abortion opponents use these bills and amendments like these as a distraction.

These amendments threaten the progress we have made on the bill, and therefore I urge a ``no'' vote on amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, again, the amendments included in this en bloc weaken the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on en bloc No. 2. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing

outstanding leadership to this issue. And I thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for her outstanding leadership on helping to reauthorize this very important legislation that really saves lives.

In my own district, we lost a heroic Sergeant Preston of the Houston Police Department for one of the most dangerous calls that police get, domestic violence. He was killed. The 11-year-old son was shot, but, thank God, he survived. What terrible, senseless violence.

We know that in this program, more than 76,000 people a day are helped. It is important to take note of the fact that intimate partnership violence is a crucial element of this legislation. To be able to reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act is to save lives.

In addition, it is important to take note of my amendment that has been accepted. I look forward to debating it on the floor and the $2 million extra that the State of Texas will give.

But the most important part of it is the recognition that we will save lives and help to bring families together and to unify the Nation.

As indicated, 76,000 victims of domestic violence are helped, but 11,000 are unable to get help because of the lack of funding.

It is important, as well, to note that, on average, more than one in three women and one in four men in the United States will experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner.

It is also important to relieve the regulations, the strangulations that were on this bill before. It now opens it to up provide more to individuals who are suffering.

What we want to do is to end family domestic violence, and what we want to do is to end that intimate partner violence and bring families together, protect children. I am supporting this legislation, and I believe it is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, which makes a good bill even better.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath of Georgia, for introducing this important legislation which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence.

The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill by requiring the Comptroller of the United states to produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minority communities.

Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity.

FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs.

Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities.

I thank the Rules Committee for including my amendment, because this amendment is straightforward and makes this important bill even more effective than it already is.

We must recognize that not all survivors are a monolith.

Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence.

That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations.

Such provisions include:

1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities;

2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and

3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority.

These are laudable initiatives, and my amendment goes a step ' further to sustain this commitment by adding a requirement that the Comptroller of the United States must produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minorities.

Specifically, my amendment requires the Comptroller General to include in the study and report described in Section 19 the results of outreach efforts conducted pursuant to section 308 to certain groups-- including racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, tribal populations, and individuals who are geographically isolated-- regarding increasing the availability and ease of access to services.

Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors.

It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help.

In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population.

The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population.

Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics.

With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much for his work, and again let me thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath, a member of the Education and Labor Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support my amendment, and all of the other amendments, which in particular my amendment provides an outreach that I think is extremely crucial to providing an outreach to populations that have been unnecessarily victims of domestic violence.

I do want to, again, emphasize the issue of Sergeant Preston, who died in the course of a police encounter with a domestic abuser with a gun, and to emphasize that an average of 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States; more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year. Nearly 3 in 10 women, or 29 percent, and 1 in 10 men, in the U.S. have experienced physical violence and/or stalking.

This reauthorization is long overdue. Just under 15 percent of women, 14.8 percent, and 12 percent of men in the U.S. have been injured as a result of intimate partner violence that included rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner. More importantly, how many of them have been killed?

In my own district, we had a circumstance of a domestic violence incident where the woman was killed in the bed, and laying next to her was her newborn infant. The stories are without comparison.

When you talk to women's shelters, the great need that they have and the funding that is going to come from this particular effort is $2 million to the State of Texas alone. The effort that is most important is vulnerable women, women of color, and Native Americans. The Tribal dollars that are in here are crucial as well.

The Violence Against Women Act, I hope that we will see its passage in the Senate, along with the reauthorizing of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act as well, because we, too, address the question of Tribal women.

Madam Speaker, Tribal circumstances are an enormously difficult circumstance to be engaged in. The abuse in the Tribal areas, and the utilization of vicious acts then coming out and not being prosecuted is really unseemly.

But this is going to be intervention. This is going to be saving lives.

I would just offer, as I close, a comment on who we should expand this to: the LGBTQ community, the transgender, individuals who have to deal with the remnants of a rape. That is, of course, a pregnancy that my State, the State of Texas, has now violated all human dignity with their abortion bill that not only stops women from engaging with their faith leader, their family members, and their doctor, but it also stalks women and sends people out for a bounty to get $10,000.

So this is the kind of uplifting legislation, reauthorization after 10 years, that is going to address the question of women who are desperately in need and also protect law enforcement officers as well.

Madam Speaker, this is also going to protect law enforcement officers as well. In tribute and memory to Sergeant Preston, a veteran of the HPD, the idea of being able to go and help and come back with your own life and protect those who are being victimized. The less we have of that and the more intervention that we have, the more we can save lives.

So I want to claim that this particular legislation is lifesaving. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is, in essence, attempting to get more resources, more information, and support the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence.

I would like to thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for championing this important legislation and shepherding it to the floor.

Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity.

The FVPSA supports life-saving services throughout the country via grants to states, tribal governments, and territories through three primary sets of activities, all of which are administered by HHS.

First, the FCPSA funds a national domestic violence hotline that receives calls for assistance related to this violence. The hotline provides crisis intervention and counseling, maintains a database of service providers, and provides referrals for victims and others affected by domestic violence.

Second, FVPSA funds efforts to prevent domestic violence through a program known as Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies (DELTA).

Third, FVPSA supports direct services for victims and their families. Most of this funding is awarded via grants to states, territories, and tribes.

FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs.

FVPSA provides base core funding to support more than 1,600 local public, private, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations and programs in their response to the urgent needs of over 1.3 million domestic violence victims and their children.

In 2020, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) found that in just one day, FVPSA-funded programs helped 76,525 victims of domestic violence.

However, over 11,000 people were unable to be served due to a lack of funding.

This shortage of funding is especially severe with shelters serving rural and marginalized populations, and increased funding and culturally-specific programs are essential to addressing the needs of these communities.

FVPSA was first passed in 1984 and was most recently reauthorized in 2010. Its authorization expired in 2015.

Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities.

Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence.

That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations.

Such provisions include:

1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities;

2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and

3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority.

Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors.

It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help.

In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population.

The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population.

In addition to addressing the special needs of minority communities, there is a litany of other exciting provisions in this bill that build upon the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, such as:

1. Increasing the funding authorization level to $253 million to address chronic underfunding that resulted in 11,000 people not receiving services in a single day.

2. Technologically updating the National Domestic Violence Hotline and improving hotline services for underrepresented populations.

3. Authorizing funding for tribal coalitions, which provide support to tribal domestic violence programs but are not currently authorized by statute to receive FVPSA funding.

4. Authorizing new grants of up to $150,000 to each state, territorial and tribal coalition to prevent domestic violence.

A bill of this nature is incredibly important for my home state of Texas, where it is estimated that 1 in 3 Texans will be a victim of domestic violence during their lifetime.

Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics.

With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

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.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is our debt. It is America's debt.

Now, I agree with the chairman of the Rules Committee that some of this debt clearly accumulates from tax cuts, cutting our revenue before we cut our spending. And some of it relates to greater spending promoted by both sides of the aisle.

For any one of us to get up and say it is your debt--it is America's debt, and America pays its bills.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have faced this question of raising or suspending the debt limit 49 times. This will be the 50th time since I was first asked to vote on this question when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

Now, the gentlewoman is talking, Mr. Speaker, to her staff, but I want to say that the argument that she offered with references to why it is our debt is specious, and I emphatically deny that assertion.

It is our debt. We have different priorities, different perspectives, different mandates. But every time we cut revenues or we approve spending, we raise the debt limit.

And by the way, the gentlewoman was not here in the last Congress, but we accumulated $5.4 trillion in debt. And the gentlewoman may be reminded that they were passed in a bipartisan way to meet a crisis that we thought justified those expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends across the aisle have been asked to take this same vote many times as well, and they have voted ``yes'' on some of those occasions and ``no'' on others.

Nobody has clean hands when it comes to the debt limit. We all tend to rationalize that it is somebody else's debt. Let me repeat: It is our debt, America's debt.

And I will tell you this: I would hope that if only one of us of our 435, if only one of us had the decision to make as to whether we increase the debt limit or not, I hope that not a single one of us would say no.

Now, collectively, we apparently can rationalize saying no because somebody else will get it done. Somebody else will take the responsibility. Somebody else will act responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Speakers, I am sure although not here, perhaps have followed politics relatively closely. I have been here for a number of administrations. Ronald Reagan asked us to increase the debt. George H.W. Bush asked us to increase the debt. Bill Clinton asked us to increase the debt. George W. Bush asked us to increase the debt. Barack Obama asked us to increase the debt. Donald Trump asked us to increase the debt.

And now Joe Biden asks us to do the same. Why? Because the catastrophic alternative is unacceptable. Perhaps nobody is listening. But every Secretary of the Treasury, Republican and Democrat, has risen to the Congress of the United States and the American people and said: You must raise the debt or we will invite recession or perhaps depression and global chaos in the fiscal marketplace.

I don't see any animation from those who listened to that number or that assertion, and I am glad to have any one of them get up and try to deny that every President over the last 40 years that I have been here has asked us not to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

Fifty times in 40 years. Every time we have made a determination, every time--Democrats and Republicans often together in common cause-- that the full faith and credit of the United States must never even be questioned. The 14th Amendment says that, Mr. Speaker. It has been our shared determination as responsible parties loyal to Constitution and country that the costs we have incurred on behalf of the American people must be paid.

And so many of the Republicans will vote today not to do that. And they will use some rationalization that they don't like the rest of the rule or this bill or that bill. Vote against them. But don't vote against your country's full faith and credit. Don't vote against your country's credit.

Preventing a default was the obligation of Members from both parties together. That is what all the Secretaries of Treasury have said. Sometimes a number of us on one side or the other would vote against it to lodge our concerns about fiscal policies of the day as long as it was clear that somebody else would get it done.

Together, Democrats and Republicans would make sure the debt limit was raised or suspended when needed and that default was never a possibility.

I want to thank Representative Foster and Representative Boyle and others who have introduced legislation

that would eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. It is a phony issue. It is a fraud. It is fake news. And to think otherwise is intellectually not correct.

We ought to think about eliminating this debt limit because all it does is have a threat to global instability; something we ought to consider very seriously given how the debt limit has in recent years been dangerously weaponized by one party to hold the country hostage.

Republicans first did that in 2011, even though they were in the House majority, and the result was the first-ever downgrade of America's credit rating. Of course, that same party sang a very different tune when it was in the White House. When Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office, Democrats were asked three times by your party to help not default on the debt, and three times Democrats overwhelmingly responded.

Now President Biden has asked us to do the same thing, take action on the debt limit to ensure that a default does not happen in the coming months.

I don't like this deal that the Senate sent us. If I were voting on the merits of this deal, I would vote ``no.'' It is a lousy deal. It holds hostage the debt and credit of the United States for another 2 months, and then we are going to play this game one more time; a despicable and irresponsible act for adults who know better.

While it is a relief to so many American business workers that the threat of default has now been pushed back just a little bit, that relief will surely be short-lived because we will find ourselves here again in a month's time faced with the same situation in which we found ourselves these past weeks.

That did not happen during the Trump administration because this side of the aisle was responsible. This side of the aisle knew the truth. This side of the aisle was not very happy with the President of the United States, but happy with America's creditworthiness. One party has played partisan games with the full faith and credit of our country, refusing to act responsibly as we all have so many, many times before.

Mr. Speaker, between now and December 3, America will be watching Leaders McCarthy and McConnell to see if they will lead their party down the responsible path or continue to play the game that has already pushed us to the brink of default. Let me be clear, I will urge my colleagues on my side of the aisle not to play that game in this administration or future administrations.

This is not about politics. This is about responsibility. This is about our country. This is, indeed, about the global fiscal health. We will continue to do the responsible thing and urge a longer term suspension of the debt limit so that we can get our country through the pandemic's economic crisis and build back better.

Even the possibility of a default, Mr. Speaker, risks harming our economic recovery. 194 sitting Democratic Members of this House, myself included, answered the call to help suspend the debt limit under President Trump. Apparently, you don't care about that. You think, well, yes, that was the responsible thing to do because we had a Republican President, but not now when we have a Democratic President. I hope the voters of America think that hypocrisy is not acceptable.

Others in our caucus who were not here at the time to take those votes, surely would have acted the same under the circumstances. 194 of us, not some few of us, but 194 of us voted for it.

The roll is going to be called, and not up yonder, but here. And I hope so many of you are there when that roll is called. Leader McConnell knows it is the right thing to do. These are Senator McConnell's words: ``Let me make it perfectly clear.''

Hear me, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully our people, Mr. McConnell, the minority leader in the United States Senate, the Republican leader: ``Let me make it perfectly clear,'' he said, ``the country must never default. The debt ceiling will need to be raised.'' He didn't say unless you stop pushing your policies, Democrats, that you ran on to help people, to help children, to help businesses. He didn't say that. He said, the debt limit must be raised.

In 2015 when Republicans were in the majority and asked Democrats to join them in voting to address the debt limit, he tweeted again--this is Senator McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party on the Senate side, ``When the United States makes promises, it keeps them, which is why the House voted today to avoid the threat of a debt default,'' with the overwhelming majority of us joining in that responsible action.

I hope Leaders McCarthy and McConnell and their House and Senate Republican colleagues will reject hypocrisy and embrace responsibility by joining with Democrats before December 3 to eliminate the threat of default this time and before December 3, after this bill passes, to ensure that our country pays for what it has already bought.

Now, I would simply add to the observations of the Rules Committee chairman, for whom I have not only respect but affection, I say to Mr. Chairman: We both went into that restaurant. We both got a steak. Neither one of us ought to leave without paying the bill. It wasn't just you that went and got the steak. We got a steak, too. And we both have the responsibility to pay for that steak. That is what this vote is about.

Do not hide behind some differences you may have on the three bills, as the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, referred us to. Don't hide behind that. This is about whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible or not. And you can vote against those bills when they come to the floor--and I am going to bring all three of them to the floor. I will tell you that--and you can vote against them.

But do not vote against the good faith and credit of the United States of America, our country. Don't hide behind some facade that somehow we created the debt and you had no responsibility. Don't hide behind some facade that somehow we are going to offer something that has a whole lot of money coming to it because, very frankly, if that had been the case, Democrats would not have joined you under Donald Trump and raising the debt limit so we did not default.

Vote as an American; not as a Republican or Democrat. Vote as a responsible human being sent here by your neighbors and friends to do the right thing. You know in your hearts the right thing is to not allow this country's full faith and credit to be compromised in any way.

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 716, I call up the bill (H.R. 3110) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

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

Madam Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass H.R. 3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, a bipartisan bill that would strengthen workplace protections for nursing mothers.

Nursing mothers should have a clear right to break time and a clean, private space to pump breast milk at work. As we have heard from health experts and worker advocates across the country, these basic accommodations ensure that nursing mothers can balance their work, their health, and the health of their babies.

Regrettably, many nursing mothers still do not have these protections. Under current law, millions of workers--including farmworkers, transportation workers, and teachers--are currently excluded from Federal protections for nursing employees.

The nursing mothers who are covered by existing law have limited recourse when their rights are violated.

To close these gaps, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act expands existing protections for nursing mothers for nearly 9 million employees who are currently left out. It provides nursing workers with access to meaningful remedies when employers fail to provide appropriate time and pumping space.

Importantly, this bill includes an amendment to clarify that congressional employees are covered by these protections and to address safety concerns by including airline crew members break time to pump during a flight.

No working American should be forced to choose between going to work and staying healthy, so we must take this urgent step to support nursing workers and strengthen our economy.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in support of H.R. 3110.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3110--PUMP FOR NURSING MOTHERS ACT--Rep. Maloney, D-NY, and 8

cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for

Nursing Mothers Act. No new mother should face unfair

treatment in the workplace because their employer refuses to

provide them with reasonable break time and private, clean

space needed to adequately express breast milk while at work,

forcing them to choose between their health and the health of

her child, and earning a paycheck. Yet millions of new

working mothers, disproportionately working mothers of color,

face this challenge every day.

Congress recognized the importance of ensuring that workers

are able to have the time and space they need to express

breast milk by passing section 4207 of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care Act, also known as the 2010 Break Time

for Nursing Mothers Act. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

would ensure that millions of working mothers previously

excluded from the 2010 Break Time law are protected. By

closing this gap, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will

ensure millions of nursing mothers have a clear right to pump

at work. Without these protections, nursing mothers face

serious health consequences, including risk of painful

illness and infection, diminished milk supply, or inability

to continue breastfeeding.

H.R. 3110 is a bipartisan bill that would also require

employers to pay an hourly employee for any time spent

pumping if the employee is also working. The legislation

would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies

available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards

Act. Finally, the PUMP Act also gives employers flexibility

to identify solutions that work for their specific business

environment. For example, the bill requires employees to

inform their employers about inadequate space to express

breast milk 10 days before filing suit for violating the

requirement.

The Administration encourages the House to pass this

bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to

working with the Congress to fill the gaps in the law so that

all new mothers who choose to breastfeed are guaranteed the

workplace protections they deserve.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chair of the Oversight and Reform Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the co-chair of the Maternity Care Caucus and the lead Republican sponsor on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), the co-chair of the Black Maternal Health Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the co-chair of the Maternity Care Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill from the AFSCME and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, October 21, 2021.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members

of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to vote yes on the PUMP for

Nursing Mothers Act (R.R. 3110). This bill prioritizes both

the physical and economic needs that new mothers must balance

upon returning to work. It strengthens federal employment

standards that protect working women who need break time and

a private space, other than a bathroom, to express breast

milk.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) currently requires

employers with more than 50 employees to provide a space for

mothers to either nurse or express breast milk. Covered

employers must also provide reasonable breaks for workers to

nurse. An estimated 8.65 million women of childbearing age

are excluded from these nursing mother protections because

they are not covered by wage and hour standards under the

FLSA. Current law also lacks broader enforcement mechanisms

for workers denied these protections.

H.R. 3110 improves current protections by:

Expanding the number of nursing workers protected by the

law.

Extending the duration of the protections from one year

after the child's birth to two years after the employee gives

birth or begins providing breast milk for a nursing child.

Limiting undue hardship exemption to employers with fewer

than 25 employees, rather than employers with fewer than 50

employees under current law.

Clarifying that banned workers can seek legal and equitable

relief for their employer's failure to provide them with the

needed break times and private space to express milk.

We urge you to stand with working women and their families

by voting to pass H.R. 3110.

Sincerely,

Bailey K. Childers,

Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it has now been more than a decade since Congress passed critical protections to guarantee nursing workers break time and private space to express breast milk at work.

As we have heard today from Members on both sides of the aisle, these protections are essential to protecting the health of nursing workers and their

families, yet nursing workers are continuing to suffer from gaps and weaknesses in the Federal law.

The need to address these gaps is even greater today as our economy recovers from COVID-19. Millions of workers, particularly working mothers, are looking to re-enter the workforce after being forced out of their jobs during the pandemic.

The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would provide workers with the peace of mind that they will not have to choose between returning to work and protecting themselves and their babies.

Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to deliver on our promise to help all workers recover from the pandemic, stay safe, and succeed in their careers. This legislation will strengthen existing law, improve the lives of nursing workers across the country, and help our economy get back on its feet.

We know this program works because the provisions in this bill are already law on the Federal level and in several States, without the kind of problems that have been suggested that might happen--those have not occurred under present law--and without any explosion of lawsuits. These provisions are already law, and there have not been lawsuits.

The substitute offered by the minority does not expand to as many mothers as this bill does, and it would actually roll back some protections they already have.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler) for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.