PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I return to the floor of the Senate again today to ask that this body take immediate action--action needed--to address our Nation's massive baby formula shortage.

For months, American moms and dads have been scouring supermarkets and drugstores looking for baby formula. Anxiety-ridden parents are frantically checking online stores and pleading with family and friends, trying to figure out how to ship, purchase, and otherwise procure baby formula.

Still, some families must hospitalize their babies because they can't find formula. Yes, they are hospitalizing them for that reason alone.

Inexcusably, the crisis has only gotten worse. In May alone, reports show that the out-of-stock rate jumped from 43 percent to a staggering 73 percent nationally.

In Utah, my State--the State with the largest families, the most children per capita, and the highest birthrate in the Nation--reports show that out-of-stock rate to be as high as 88.9 percent.

Desperate parents are now resorting to places like Facebook Marketplace, buying from unknown sellers at exorbitant markups. The failure of the Biden administration's photo-op policy has not so much as put a dent--even a tiny dent--in this problem.

Now, initially, the White House said that parents should ``ask your pediatrician, who may have formula samples or possible alternatives,'' as if that were somehow a solution.

This hollow nonresponse was embarrassing enough, but, tragically, the administration's response has not improved with time, in the time that has passed since that statement was made. When the question came up again, the White House press secretary spent nearly 20 seconds flipping through a binder, only to respond with: ``I don't have anything new.''

That response is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the American people generally and especially for those families dealing with this inexplicably, needlessly prolonged crisis.

By failing to act, we are leaving parents in an unimaginable situation during one of the most stressful and impactful times of life. Worse, they have received no discernible answers from their elected officials. The White House's website lays the blame solely on Abbott's plant closure in Michigan ``due to safety concerns from the FDA.''

Now, this is a very limited, narrow line of thinking. The FDA regularly recalls other food products, but none of those recalls happens to result in shortages of this magnitude or this significance with such weighty consequences on the youngest of Americans.

Look, it doesn't have to be this way. There are a lot of weighty problems that we address in the U.S. Senate that are seemingly unsolvable, intractable, or, at least, very, very difficult to solve because they involve things that very often are beyond our ability to control.

This is not one of those problems. This is within our grasp. It is within our control. In fact, the government is the problem. Government caused it, and by turning certain levers, government can relieve this problem and do so in a very short period of time. This suffering is unnecessarily being prolonged by the government itself.

So the Senate can help these families, these American families struggling with this crisis, by immediately passing my bill called the FORMULA Act.

This bill responds to the crisis in three simple ways to help solve the crisis at hand and feed American babies.

First, my bill would suspend tariff collection on currently allowed formula imports. We tax imported formula at a rate of at least 17.5 percent upon entering the United States. It can roughly double to about 35 percent, depending on the circumstances of the shipment. We can help ease the skyrocketing prices and encourage companies to import as much baby formula as possible or as much as demand within the market requires by simply suspending for a period of 6 months this tariff collection.

Look, the administration has acknowledged there are appropriate times to suspend the collection of certain taxes. For example, it is currently proposing suspending the gasoline tax for a period of 3 months. Surely, it is not the Biden White House's position that gasoline is more important than feeding infants.

Second, my bill would temporarily allow formula imports from several safe countries like those in Europe. This would enable us to access plentiful formula supplies from abroad and meet our current needs with that.

Now, allowing these imports is not going to endanger American babies. The manufacturing plants in question are already approved and are already regulated by their home countries. And the only plants that operate in countries and subject to authorities that are comparable to those imposed by our own Food and Drug Administration, these are countries from which we already import pharmaceutical products.

The fact is that parents have already begun taking matters into their own hands, often with dire consequences. We are hearing reports of parents resorting to online homemade recipes for formula that they then feed to their infants. Infant hospitalizations due to malnutrition are correspondingly increasing as a direct result of these activities and the shortages from which they stem.

Doctors have voiced their concerns that homemade formulas can lead to liver and kidney issues and, in some cases, even heart failure. Some families have tried diluting the formula that they are able to access with more water, a tactic that health experts warn can lead to brain swelling and organ failure.

Some doctors refer to this shortage as ``the worst crisis they have experienced in their careers.'' They have to place dehydrated children on IV fluids, which isn't, of course, a long-term solution; it is an acute and dire response to a life-threatening emergency brought about through an artificial government constraint on the market. These short- term consequences are scary enough. They are scary enough for the moms and dads, to say nothing of the horrors the children, the infants, experience in the process. We still don't know what the long-term effects of these might be to the babies.

Those worried about the formula quality may find solace in the fact that my bill retains the FDA's authority to recall foreign formulas in the very unlikely event that these safety issues arise. Remember, these are formulas produced in facilities in countries from which we already import pharmaceutical products based on our country's trust and confidence that their safety and quality standards are as secure as, if not more stringent than, our own.

Additionally, my bill only calls for importing formula that is lawfully marketed and approved in select foreign countries. Again, private citizens are already doing this. The law already allows the personal importation of baby formula, meaning somebody can jump online and order it on their own, and parents are voluntarily choosing to do so because they have done the research and they trust that it is safe for their baby.

They understand, as we do, that babies in France and Switzerland and of the United Kingdom are not different than babies in the United States of America. Formula that works for them, that is safe and healthy for them, is proven safe and healthy and effective for them for many, many decades is also going to work with respect to an American baby. My bill would just make this easier and more affordable for parents, you see, because to be one of those parents, you have got to have a degree of sophistication to know what you are looking for. Most people aren't really aware of the fact that they could jump online and order this.

Secondly, it is really expensive to do it. They can't buy in bulk, and it requires extra shipping and handling costs that makes this prohibitively expensive for many people, even the lucky ones who become aware that it is even an option.

So my bill isn't making something legal that is currently illegal in that respect; it is simply making it more affordable. It is making it so that we no longer limit access to these foreign formulas--foreign top-quality formulas from places like France and Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They will be available to poor and middle-class families, and not just the wealthy.

Finally, my bill would allow WIC program recipients to buy whatever brand of formula is available with WIC vouchers. My bill will allow these parents to buy from available stock and feed their children and guarantees greater flexibility.

You see, the existing formula crisis has been exacerbated by virtue of the fact that the WIC formula--the WIC beneficiaries are given a voucher. Very often, that voucher limits them to procuring only that brand of formula specified on the voucher itself, which, in many instances, might be out of stock. This would eliminate that problem.

Keeping American infants fed should be one of the least controversial proposals imaginable, especially because this is something that can be done easily. We can bring about almost immediate relief to these American parents and especially to their babies, just by not causing the problem anymore or, at least, waiting for a few months before causing this problem again.

In the meantime, the hope and the expectation is that the American formula industry can retool, revamp, and get back in the practice of producing in sufficient quantities that they will be able to meet the demand, but we need 6 months in order to do that.

American babies are going hungry and the Federal Government is the problem. The Federal Government is causing these babies to starve and otherwise suffer.

My FORMULA Act will help solve the formula crisis and ensure that American babies do not go unfed.

Look, there is a reason why we see this crisis here, but not in any of our neighbor countries, not in any of our peer countries. No, the crisis exists here because this is a feature of U.S. law. We can fix this problem. We can help solve this crisis today. We can make sure Americans babies' cries do not go unanswered. We can and must pass my FORMULA Act.

So, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the always thoughtful counsel of my distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania. I always enjoy working with

him. He is a voice of reason and is a delight to work with.

I do feel compelled to respond to a few of his points. Now, yes, it is true, there are ambitious plans to fly formula over. They used the Defense Production Act to do that, to have the government to act. And the ambitious plans that he describes have yet to materialize. What we have to look at is the bottles that are available now, that have been flown over now, that are here now as a result of that program, is about 13 million bottles. Do you know what the average daily consumption of formula is in America? Nine million. So this buys us a day and a half of formula--a day and a half--and it is still not solving the problem. So that is not a solution.

As to the objection related to the FDA's regs, he points to the safety concerns and highlights a few adverse incident reports not necessarily linked to the formula itself but things that people experienced as they were switching formulas. A lot of the symptoms that he described--all of them, in fact, as I understand it--including lethargy, diarrhea, and some of those have been linked to babies switching formula. So, yes, when a baby switches formula, whether it is from one American brand to another or an American brand to a European brand, it is not uncommon during this transition period for babies to react that way.

Now, I wish--we wish--that it wasn't necessary for them to switch to begin with. This was unnecessary to make them switch. In fact, another point that I need to refute that he made at the outset about formula being responsible for the contamination, for the food-borne illness, it was, in fact, not the formula itself that caused it. In fact, an FDA investigation revealed that it wasn't the formula. It was a source of bottled water that had itself been contaminated, and it was that bottled water that the parents were mixing with the formula that turned out to be contaminated, by no fault of their own but also by no fault of the manufacturer. So we have got to keep straight exactly what happened here and what didn't happen.

Finally, with regard to the safety risks, I understand this, and it is important that we be safe in doing this. We have to remember these are countries from which we currently import pharmaceutical products because we trust that their equivalent of the FDA is safe and is effective. So if we don't trust them with respect to baby formula, I would submit that we shouldn't trust them elsewhere. But in fact, we can trust them in these areas. None of those adverse incident reports that were reported, to my knowledge, have been linked to a defect or a contamination in the formula itself.

Finally, it is important to remember that we have a massive health crisis faced by these babies who are unable to get formula. Children are being hospitalized because they are dehydrated. These can have lasting consequences. They are occurring at a time when the baby's brain development is on a very critical timeline. You don't want to interrupt that. You don't want a supply chain disruption to lead to a disruption in the baby's developmental growth.

So it is unfortunate that my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has objected to this very reasonable, rational, sensible response that lists the government's impediments. I wish this were not the case because this would deliver meaningful reform, unlike the 13 million bottles--the day and a half's worth of formula that has been brought over to date through the Defense Production Act efforts that he described--this would actually solve the problem. And it would solve it for at least 6 months, long enough for our domestic production capabilities to resume.

So it is unfortunate. I wish that were not the case. But in the spirit of comity and compromise, I will modify my request.

Again, the FORMULA Act would have included these three legs, a regulatory component lifting the regulatory restrictions, an import tariff restriction, and also lifting some restrictions in the WIC Program.

So I am going to counteroffer with another amendment that would remove the waiver of the FDA regulations for the imported formula. That, after all, is the concern he expressed, and so that should allow us to deal with it. It would keep the tariff and the WIC waivers from the FORMULA Act intact and therefore shouldn't raise any concerns not addressed by my friend and distinguished colleague.

And so, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; further, I ask that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I find this, too, unfortunate. I wish we could adopt all three of these reforms; again, we have a regulatory reform, an import tax reform, and a WIC reform. He has now expressed objections to the regulatory reform and the WIC reform.

So, in the spirit of comity and cooperation and compromise, I would like to modify again, and I will take out the WIC restrictions--the WIC component of the bill--and leave only the tariff waiver. That, at least, would remove some of the protectionist problems that we have got in place that is currently prohibiting people from being able to import this stuff, leaving it available really only to wealthy, well-connected parents who know how to find this stuff and can pay the higher price for it. This would at least allow people to buy it in stores if we could lift that restriction and do so in larger quantities while adhering to the labeling and other regulatory requirements.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; further, I ask that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I find it most unfortunate that, as American babies are starving and are literally being admitted to hospitals for dehydration and malnutrition because of a

government-created problem, we can't get to a solution here.

I am determined to find one, and I am determined not to take no for an answer. We have to get to yes on that. To that end, I would like to modify my last request and shorten it down from 180 days--a 6-month suspension--to a 90-day suspension. This is the exact timeframe that mirrors the Biden administration's proposed time window for gas tax alleviation. The President has raised this and has asked us to act on that immediately. Look, I happen to think baby formula is a whole lot more important and urgent than gasoline. We can at least do this. So I am going to modify my request to move it down to just 90 days. We should be able to do that for 90 days. I am certain that we can.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; further, that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughts expressed by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania. I share this concern and this desire to see this worked out and worked out on a bipartisan basis. I think it is important.

It is true that people have been working on it. They have been working on it now for the better part of a month and a half. Yet nothing has happened. Now, I understand that Rome wasn't built in a day. Significant legislative reforms are not usually enacted very quickly. Well, they are in some places, and we are experiencing some of that this week, but that is a different issue altogether. I understand that it takes time, on many occasions, to develop a legislative solution. This is not one of those issues. This is just not that complicated.

I appreciate the fact that people are considering it. I appreciate the fact that my friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, is willing to try to clear this on the Democratic side. I hope and expect that one of the four alternatives that I have proposed today-- each in the spirit of comity and compromise and as something that should be acceptable to both political parties--has got to get there.

There are issues on which we are always going to struggle to find solutions. This one isn't hard. We can do this. We can fix this. American babies are going hungry because of the mismanagement within our country.

Yes, I share the Senator's belief that we have got to hold the FDA accountable, but I feel like we are in the same position as the unarmed English bobby--but with the FDA lately. The unarmed English bobby, being unarmed and upon seeing the commission of a crime, shouts, in a charming British accent, ``Stop or I will yell `stop' again.'' We need to actually do something to force this issue because people are going hungry--babies are going hungry--and there are dire, long-lasting consequences.

I hope and expect that we will solve this before the end of the week. This issue is not going away, and neither am I.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3110.

This act puts overly burdensome, one-size-fits-all requirements on businesses.

While I believe empowering women in the workplace is important, we must not saddle businesses with rigid policies that will open them up to legal action. We, instead, must support flexible policies that allow women to thrive in the workplace.

This bill's flawed scheme and expansive mandate do more harm than good and will further bog down businesses that are already struggling to recover from the pandemic. During this difficult time, the last thing small businesses need is more sweeping mandates.

More than 2 million women left the labor force in 2020. Now more than ever, we need to advocate for flexible workplace policies that improve conditions for, and empower, working mothers.

I fully support women who wish to enter and return to the workforce, and I understand the challenges that can come with this, especially for nursing mothers. Yet, I don't believe one-size-fits-all mandates are beneficial, not for women and not for employers.

Workplaces are as varied as the people they employ. Putting every workplace under the same standard, despite a job creator's needs or ability to meet that standard, will ultimately be bad for the American worker.

Airlines are just one example of an industry that will be negatively impacted if this bill is signed into law. Under this bill's rigid requirements, airlines may have to rethink plane designs or modify aircraft to provide a private space, other than a bathroom, for nursing mothers to pump, as required under the bill.

The rigid break requirements in the bill are also inappropriate for airlines because flight crews have varying responsibilities in preparation for and throughout flights, which ensure the safety and security of passengers.

Exposing airlines and other businesses to such inflexible requirements will hurt struggling businesses.

Further, not all nursing mothers have the same needs. Pretending that they do might be convenient, but it also demonstrates ignorance about the diverse circumstances that mothers are in.

I wholeheartedly believe that it is possible to provide women with a healthy environment in which to work and simultaneously to allow businesses flexibility in providing accommodations.

When I first entered the workforce, nursing-accommodation requirements for women in the workplace were not even on the horizon. Countless workplaces now provide such accommodations, and rightly so. Current law provides accommodations for hourly workers.

Creating a healthy place for women to thrive is important to us all, but there is a right way to go about this and a wrong way. H.R. 3110 is the wrong way.

Most employers have their employees' best interests at heart, but H.R. 3110 treats our job creators as if they are out to harm the very women they depend on to keep their businesses running.

Again, this is the wrong way to go about empowering women in the workplace.

This bill's excessive penalties, expansive mandate, and lack of clarity will create a perfect storm for frivolous lawsuits. Unfounded lawsuits cost businesses billions every year in the United States. We should do all we can to prevent opening businesses up to harmful legal action.

I would like to remind my colleagues that Representative Miller-Meeks submitted her bill, the Supporting Working Mothers Act, to the Rules Committee as an amendment to provide a commonsense alternative to the PUMP Act.

That is a sensible amendment that meets the actual needs of nursing mothers without forcing overly burdensome regulations on our job creators.

That amendment, unlike the PUMP Act, expands access to nursing accommodations in the workplace without

relying on punitive mandates that expose businessowners to costly litigation.

The Supporting Working Mothers Act adds nursing-accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional employees, ensuring that over 80 percent of currently exempt women are covered.

That amendment also includes a fair and workable process to ensure accommodations are provided for nursing mothers by encouraging collaboration between workers and employers to identify and make improvements when accommodations are insufficient.

Representative Miller-Meeks' commonsense amendment serves nursing mothers in the workforce without sacrificing the well-being of our job creators. This is the right way to empower women.

I am extremely disappointed that the Democrat majority refused to make the amendment in order. Democrats chose to stifle debate on this commonsense approach to nursing accommodations in favor of a flawed mandate.

Because the bill is impractical and overly punitive, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 leaves a whole host of unanswered questions for employers regarding their obligations under the bill as written. H.R. 3110 threatens job creators with disproportionate penalties for technical or unintentional violations of the FLSA's accommodation requirements.

For example, are employers required to build a separate room to provide these accommodations?

H.R. 3110 fails to answer this question or the circumstances and specifications an employer would need to know to comply with such a requirement, or how such requirements would interact with other Federal laws.

For instance, the bill does not clarify whether the space must be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, accessibility requirements, or how it will fit in with the ADA requirements, such as clear path of travel. Nor does the legislation give appropriate guidance as to whether the space must be permanent or temporary. In addition, the remedies in H.R. 3110 go far beyond what is recoverable with respect to other proven wage-and-hour and break violations under both Federal law and State laws.

The expansion of remedies in the bill will increase litigation and result in a financial windfall for trial lawyers. But these penalties do not address the employees' main interest in obtaining appropriate break time and space. Expanded monetary damages will undoubtedly lead to more litigation and the additional delays that litigation brings in already overburdened courts. It also should be noted that the Department of Labor is better suited to enforce technical violations of the FLSA quickly and effectively; litigation is no solution.

DOL has institutional knowledge of Federal labor laws, including the FLSA, and is equipped to provide accurate guidance to employers.

To understand the implications of H.R. 3110, one only needs to look at the proliferation of lawsuits for ``gotcha'' technical violations throughout various Federal and State wage-and-hour laws or the ADA to recognize that costly litigation will follow and positive results for employees will be delayed.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 3110 claim the bill merely fills unintended gaps in the nursing-accommodation requirements signed into law in 2010, but this description is not accurate.

H.R. 3110 imposes a flawed scheme full of unreasonable expanded mandates, including overly-broad coverage coupled with gratuitous and disproportionate penalties. The bill expands the Fair Labor Standards Act's coverage of break time for nursing mothers to all 143 million employees covered by the act. As a result, H.R. 3110 will require one- size-fits-all nursing accommodations and impose substantial compliance burdens on a wide variety of workplaces and industries.

Admitting this problem in the underlying bill, the manager's amendment attempts to mitigate the bill's requirements so that they are compatible with ensuring safety and security for airline passengers and flight crews.

H.R. 3110 requires that airline employees have access to an enclosed area for pumping breast milk, even though aircrafts designs are regulated by the FAA for safety, security, and reliability, with limited ability to add additional enclosed space. Remote and rural airports also face unique challenges because of the smaller planes in use at those airports. It is even more challenging to provide a private space in a commercial aircraft other than a bathroom, as mandated by

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

Madam Speaker, consideration of H.R. 3110 marks the latest in a series of affronts to small businesses perpetuated by House Democrats throughout the 117th Congress. Last month, Democrat members of the Committee on Education and Labor voted to increase drastically the penalties on employers, including a 512 percent increase in Occupational Safety and Health Act penalties and a whopping 900 percent increase in Fair Labor Standards Act penalties on job creators, including small businesses.

Democrats also voted to authorize the National Labor Relations Board to levy $50,000 and $100,000 fines on small business owners for business activities that are currently lawful.

Republican Members offered several amendments at the committee's reconciliation markup to exempt small businesses from the devastating impacts of those provisions. However, these commonsense amendments were voted down by committee Democrats on party-line votes.

The bill we are debating today was reported out of committee with disturbing implications for smaller employers. Currently under the FLSA, businesses with fewer than 50 employees may demonstrate that the FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirements would impose an undue hardship. The FLSA's unique hardship provision is an affirmative defense to claims that small businesses must demonstrate in court.

Committee Democrats chose to cut the undue hardship exemption in half to fewer than 25 employees. While this Democrat affront to small business was corrected in the manager's amendment, more changes are necessary to protect small businesses fully.

H.R. 3110 imposes excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirement, while failing to anticipate workplace realities in providing accommodations. These excessive penalties, combined with the high probability of minor or unintended infractions related to compliance with a complex mandate on hundreds of thousands of new businesses, will lead to a proliferation of expensive and protracted lawsuits, resulting in delayed accommodations for workers.

In contrast to the shortcomings of H.R. 3110, Dr. Miller-Meeks submitted a responsible substitute amendment for consideration, which implements commonsense and workable alterations to the FLSA's nursing- accommodation requirements. The Miller-Meeks' amendment adds nursing accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional employees while preserving FLSA treatment of unique and disparate workplaces.

Her amendment also preserves the Secretary of Labor's FLSA enforcement authority to address shortcomings in workplace accommodations through injunctive relief or levy civil monetary penalties against repeat and willful violators.

Dr. Miller-Meeks' amendment would not only ensure that the needs of small businesses are protected, but would also update FLSA nursing- accommodation requirements in a way that meets the needs of both mothers and employers.

It is disappointing and unfortunate that the Democrat leadership prevented the Miller-Meeks' amendment from being considered today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 is not the right way to empower women in the workplace.

I support expanding flexible nursing accommodations in the workplace for women, but not in such a way that will unnecessarily increase liability for employers without helping nursing mothers.

Furthermore, this bill levels excessive penalties for minor technical violations, opening our job creators to expensive and spurious lawsuits.

Dr. Miller-Meeks' Supporting Working Mothers amendment is a responsible alternative. It expands nursing accommodation coverage to a variety of workplaces but also maintains exceptions for unique workplaces.

That is the kind of flexible pro-woman and pro-jobs solution we need. We have had enough of Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach and overly broad mandates that hurt the very job creators we are relying on to help our economy recover from this pandemic. It is very disappointing that the majority denied debate on a practical alternative that will meet the needs of working mothers.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110. This bill would do much more harm than good. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, this amendment does nothing to address the shortcomings of H.R. 3110. We do not need a GAO report to know that employers will face numerous challenges in complying with the sweeping requirements imposed by H.R. 3110.

The Fair Labor Standards Act ensures that hourly workers have access to time and space to pump breast milk, while exempting certain professions and industries with unique operating environments.

Working mothers deserve proper accommodations to nurse in a clean and safe environment without fear of losing their jobs, but failing to account for differing workplaces, as H.R. 3110 does, is not the way to help women.

The bill imposes one-size-fits-all treatment on a wide variety of businesses and industries without providing feasible compliance options.

H.R. 3110 would also impose new and excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the FLSA's nursing accommodation requirement. These unrealistic penalties, combined with compliance challenges resulting from the bill's mandate, will lead to a proliferation of costly and protracted lawsuits. The result will be delayed accommodations for workers.

A report which acknowledges the complexities and liabilities inherent in H.R. 3110 and is released 2 years after the bill takes effect will do nothing to mitigate the bill's failures.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a unique situation here this morning with two Representatives from North Carolina who have totally different opinions of this bill and this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. We can do better. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment; it is a day late and a dollar short. We should know what these things are in advance and not after the fact. It is what some of us might call a run-on amendment. We should have had the GAO study earlier to get a better feel for what this bill would do to working mothers and to businesses in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 exposes a sweeping, one-size-fits-all mandate on businesses of all sizes that is unworkable and unreasonable. The bill treats all nursing mothers and workplaces as if they are the same, despite known differences in employees' needs, industry-specific challenges, and employers' abilities to meet the requirements.

This amendment calls for a Government Accountability Office study on racial disparities with respect to access to workplace accommodations to pump breast milk and for GAO to submit recommendations to Congress-- after the bill becomes law.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear, crystal clear. I abhor any type of discrimination. There should be no place for discrimination in our country, in our employment, or anywhere.

A study of this kind, however, should have been commissioned before the committee debated far-reaching legislation to impose a flawed mandate on all businesses in the United States. Instead, H.R. 3110 was rushed to a committee markup within 2 weeks of introduction. Democrats often put the cart before the horse, and this amendment does nothing to remedy the shortcomings of this legislation.

Nursing women are not a monolith. They have unique needs that this legislation ignores. H.R. 3110 is reductive and, working women deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate again: I have no tolerance whatsoever for any type of discrimination in the workplace or anyplace else. However, if we are going to do a study about potential discrimination, it should be done before a bill is drafted, introduced, and voted on.

This amendment does not improve the very bad underlying bill, H.R. 3110. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, there are several contributing factors to why nursing mothers may choose not to breastfeed and pump milk when returning to work. They include inflexible work schedules that make nursing and pumping breast milk regularly difficult; the lack of accommodations to pump and store milk; and concerns regarding support from supervisors and colleagues to pump milk.

In addition to these factors, women of color and low-income women often experience the need to return to work shortly after giving birth, in many cases earlier than 12 weeks, and they face additional barriers such as racial discrimination and bias whether intentional or not.

This is why I am proud to offer my amendment to H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the underlying bill that protects vulnerable workers by expanding access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace.

This important piece of legislation advances our goals of equity in the workplace, and my amendment seeks to strengthen this bill by directing the GAO to conduct a study on the racial disparities that exist in access to pumping breast milk in the workplace.

This amendment will also require that GAO submit a report to Congress on the results of this study with recommendations to address any disparities.

Employers can begin to address these barriers by offering private lactation rooms, or nursing rooms, for both breastfeeding and pumping with proper cleaning and storage facilities such as a table, sink, and small refrigerator, providing employees with adequate pump breaks, allowing flexible work schedules, and guaranteeing paid family leave.

In fact, we can look to my home State of Washington as a prime example of how to lead on this issue. In 2019, the State legislature passed and signed into law House Bill 1930, which goes one step further than the current Federal law by expanding pump break rights to include both salaried and hourly employees, requiring employers to provide a private space for pumping that isn't a bathroom, and allowing mothers to get pump breaks for up to 2 years after birth. Washington is also one of the very few States that provides people with up to 12 weeks paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child.

Yet, despite current Federal law, strong State-level protections such as the ones in Washington, and the gains that have been made in this area by employers in different sectors across our Nation, racial disparities in the workplace still exist for women wishing to pump. My amendment aims to close this gap and equip Congress with the data it needs to create meaningful solutions.

We must ensure that women and mothers everywhere and from all backgrounds have the support they deserve in the workplace.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from A Better Balance.

September 23, 2021.

Re The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).

Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write

to express our strong support for the PUMP for Nursing

Mothers Act (``The PUMP Act''; H.R. 3110) because no one in

this country should have to choose between feeding their baby

and earning an income for their family. The PUMP Act will

mean millions of workers, excluded under current law, will

have adequate break time and space to express milk at work.

The PUMP Act will further the health of our nation's parents,

babies, and economy. Affording protections to workers so they

can pump milk to feed this country's children should be a

priority for every member of Congress. We urge every member

to support this bipartisan legislation and vote yes on the

PUMP Act.

A Better Balance is a national legal advocacy organization,

using the power of the law to advance justice for workers, so

they can care for themselves and their loved ones without

risking their economic security. We founded A Better Balance

fifteen years ago because we recognized that a lack of fair

and supportive work-family laws and policies, or more

broadly, a ``care crisis'' was harming a majority of workers,

particularly women, especially Black and Latina women, in

low-

wage jobs. In the case of nursing parents, too often, parents

return to work without the supports they need to continue

expressing milk at work and are forced to choose between

giving up breastfeeding and maintaining their employment.

As I shared with the House Education and Labor Committee in

my March 2021 testimony:

We hear over and over again on A Better Balance's free

legal helpline, new mothers returning to the workplace face

unfair treatment because their employers refuse to provide

them with the time and space needed to express breast milk,

forcing them to choose between a paycheck and providing

breast milk for their child. Some workers reduce their

schedules, are terminated, or are forced out of the

workplace, foregoing vital income and familial economic

security because their workplaces are so hostile to their

need to express milk. Others simply stop breastfeeding

altogether, sometimes even before entering the workplace,

perceiving (typically correctly) the challenges as

insurmountable. Too many who continue in their jobs struggle

with harassment, health repercussions, and dwindling milk

supply to feed their babies. These challenges face many new

working parents, but disproportionately low-wage working

mothers of color. These harsh workplace conditions for

breastfeeding parents represent a fundamental unfairness and

inequity in our legal system--and reinforce the stereotype

that motherhood and employment are irreconcilable.

One worker who recently called A Better Balance's helpline,

Sarah, is a certified medication assistant at a large long-

term care facility in Kansas. Despite having thousands of

employees, her employer disparaged her and put up roadblock

after roadblock when she needed to pump at work, telling her

once ``I gave my baby the bottle--I couldn't imagine having a

baby attached to me.'' After her supervisor berated her for

needing to pump, and she attempted to find a space in the

office to pump to no avail because a co-worker walked in,

told her to ``hurry up'', and refused to leave the room,

Sarah resorted to pumping in her car just once a day. Even

then, her supervisor came to the parking lot to try and stop

her from pumping. Because she was only allowed to pump once a

day, she frequently became engorged and suffered painful

clogged milk ducts. Meanwhile, at least of six Sarah's co-

workers took smoke breaks multiple times a day without

comment or issue. The contrast is startling and deeply

upsetting.

Sarah is not alone in her struggle. I also shared Izabel's

story with the committee:

Izabel, a dental assistant in North Carolina, was fired

shortly after submitting a doctor's note requesting three 15-

minute pumping breaks during her shift. Prior to submitting

the note, she had requested pumping breaks and her employer

told her she could only pump once per day during her lunch

break--which did not medically meet her breastfeeding needs--

even though there were roughly three other dental assistants

working in the office who could have helped her with her job

duties while she took breaks. Although likely covered by the

2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act, because of the law's

limited enforcement, Izabel's ability to get her job back or

be made whole were extremely limited.

Beastfeeding Has Myriad Benefits for Parents & Babies But, As We Know

Firsthand, Too Many Workplaces Lack Adequate Protections for Workers

Breastfeeding is increasingly common among American

parents. According to a recent study by the United States

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey, more than

84 percent of infants born in 2017 were breastfed for at

least some amount of time. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for

Americans and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend

exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, and continuing

breastfeeding while introducing complementary foods until a

baby is 12 months old or older. At the same time, more than

half of working parents return to their jobs before their

babies are three months old; twenty-five percent of workers

return within just two weeks of giving birth. This means that

working parents who wish to continue breastfeeding will need

to pump milk on a regular basis upon returning to work in

order to continue feeding their children and to avoid serious

health consequences. However, many parents returning to work

find it incredibly challenging to pump because they are not

provided with adequate break time or space to do so. This may

explain why, although 84 percent of infants born in 2017

breastfed for some period of time, only slightly more than 58

percent were still breastfeeding at six months.

The health benefits of breastfeeding are numerous. As I

outlined in my testimony:

Research shows that breastfeeding has substantial health

benefits for both mothers and babies. Breastfeeding protects

babies from acute illnesses, such as infections and diarrhea,

which can be serious especially in very young and vulnerable

babies like those born preterm, as well as from longer-term

conditions like childhood obesity and asthma. Likewise, as

Nikia Sankofa, the Executive Director of the U.S.

Breastfeeding Committee, made clear in testimony before the

House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in January

2020, the health benefits for mothers who breastfeed are

significant, and include lower risk of breast cancer and

heart disease. Medical consensus urges breastfeeding infants

for at least their first year of life in order to achieve

these health benefits.

Current Federal Law Leaves Behind Millions of Lactating Workers

In 2010, Congress passed the Break Time for Nursing Mothers

Act as part of the Affordable Care Act. The law amended

section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.

207) and affords workers ``reasonable break time for an

employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1

year after the child's birth each time such employee has need

to express the milk'' and ``a place, other than a bathroom,

that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from

coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to

express breast milk.''

While groundbreaking, the 2010 law has three critical

problems: 1) it excludes millions of workers; 2) it has

inadequate remedies for employees whose rights have been

violated; and 3) it lacks clarity around breaks and

compensation.

1. Current law excludes millions of nursing parents. The

2010 law is housed in the overtime provisions of the Fair

Labor Standard Act (``FLSA'') which means that those workers

exempted from overtime--nearly nine million women of

childbearing age--are also excluded from the law's

protections. These millions of workers, including

transportation workers, executive, administrative and

professional workers, and many others, have no federal right

requiring their employer to provide them break time and space

to express breast milk. As I emphasized in my testimony,

``There is no principled reason why these employees should be

denied the law's protections: each industry is fully capable

of standard or innovative solutions to ensure their employees

do not have to choose between breastfeeding and their jobs. .

. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on

Women's Health maintains an extensive and detailed website

describing how various industries, such as restaurant and

retail, can provide lactation break time and space, including

video testimonials, employer best practices examples, and

other resources. In 2021, there is simply no excuse not to

meet the needs of breastfeeding workers.''

2. Current law has inadequate remedies for workers who

experienced violations. Given the current law's placement in

the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the remedy for

violations of the Nursing Mothers law is misaligned.

Currently, the available remedy is to pay a worker any

overtime owed to them. As I explained to the Education and

Labor Committee in March,

``Such a remedy makes sense in the context of overtime: an

employee who works forty-five hours in a week without

overtime pay should be compensated with the missing payment

to be made whole. For a breastfeeding worker who has been

denied time and space to pump, however, this remedy is

nonsensical. A breastfeeding worker who is told she cannot

clock out to pump has been denied an unpaid break. Therefore,

she has no entitlement to payment and the law's contemplated

remedy--compensation for wages--is meaningless to her . . .

These weak enforcement mechanisms are antithetical to the

goal of ensuring that breastfeeding workers can get the

timely accommodations they need to continue breastfeeding and

keep their jobs''

3. Current law lacks clarity regarding pumping breaks and

compensation. Under current law, pumping breaks that are not

taken during a paid break do not need to be paid. However,

often, workers who are pumping may clock out but will still

take phone calls, emails, or other work requests while

pumping, and are then denied compensation for their time

worked while pumping. Because the language in the law says

that breaks may be uncompensated, confusion persists and

violations can occur when employers continue to require

employees to work while taking an unpaid pumping break.

The PUMP Act Would Close Gaps in the Law, Provide Appropriate Remedies

for Employees, and Give Clarity Around Compensation. Alternative

Proposals Fall Well Short of This Goal

The PUMP Act will close the gaps in current law and extend

the 2010 law's protections to nearly nine million employees

who are currently uncovered, including nurses, teachers, and

software engineers. Corporate leadership, coupled with

employees, advocates, and government agencies, have already

devised innovative, affordable, and flexible solutions for

nearly every workplace environment. In addition, the

Committee on Education & Labor also added language at the

bill markup requiring the U.S. Department of Labor to work

with the Department of Health and Human Services to build out

guidance for employers.

The legislation will also provide employers additional

clarity as to when break time can be unpaid, and will provide

remedies that are already available for other FLSA violations

if a worker's rights are violated. At the Education & Labor

Committee mark-up of the bill, the Committee also added

language ensuring fairness for employers by requiring

employees to inform their employers about inadequate space to

express breast milk 10 days before they file suit for

violating the requirement. The PUMP Act will benefit workers

and business alike, as there are well-recognized bottom-line

benefits for employers

in providing break time and space for lactating employees,

such as reduced absenteeism, lower healthcare costs, and

greater recruitment and retention. This is why the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation.

At the Committee markup, the minority introduced an

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, and subsequently, a

bill which mirrored that substitute amendment. Now, there is

an attempt to include this language again as a substitute

amendment to this bill. Although encouraging to see members

voice support for break time and space, this substitute

amendment does not afford the protections that breastfeeding

parents need because it does not address the two main

problems that the PUMP Act is addressing. The alternative

bill continues to exclude millions of workers from break time

and space protections and continues to leave workers with no

meaningful remedies. Supporting the alternative bill and not

the PUMP Act is hollow at best and offensive to working

parents who need real protections.

The PUMP Act will finally close the gaps in the law that

have left too many working parents without the ability to

pump at work and thrust into the painful position of choosing

between breastfeeding and their job. Congress has the

opportunity to right a fundamental wrong and pass the PUMP

Act. We urge you to support nursing parents in a meaningful

way and pass the PUMP Act.

Sincerely,

Dina Bakst,

Co-Founder & Co-President,

A Better Balance.

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

In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment that benefits all of us regardless of our political affiliation. This is a bipartisan bill, it deserves our support as well as the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, on June 12, a bipartisan group of 20 Senators announced an agreement on legislation to protect our children and communities from the epidemic of gun violence. In the days since then, this bipartisan group, led by Senators Murphy, Cornyn, Sinema, Tillis, and others, have worked to move this agreement forward.

We took a test vote last night--our first Senate floor vote on the package. It was a strong bipartisan rollcall. Let's be clear: This bill is a compromise. In a 50/50 Senate, we expect nothing less.

It doesn't accomplish everything I want. It certainly doesn't accomplish everything which the Republican colleagues who voted for it want either, but the reforms and investments made in this bill represent an important step toward making our Nation safer.

It won't end gun violence, but it will help to reduce the number of shootings and killings which number 100 Americans each day, and it will end, perhaps, guns as the leading cause of death among our children.

Let me highlight a few important provisions: $250 million in grants for community violence intervention programs which have shown great promise in communities in my State. This

would double the current annual Justice Department funding for these programs. The bill makes dramatic investments in mental health infrastructure, providing billions of dollars in school and community mental health grants and behavioral health clinics. It gives an additional $28 million to fund the trauma support in school program at HHS. This is a program that Senator Capito--Republican of West Virginia--and I created in 2018 to help break the cycle of trauma and violence.

The bill also provides three-quarters of $1 billion in Byrne/JAG grants to help States administer crisis intervention programs like the extreme risk protection order laws in Illinois and 18 other States.

The bill takes significant steps toward closing the boyfriend loophole: keeping guns out of the hands of dating partners who have been convicted of domestic violence offenses.

It creates a new Federal offense for the crimes of straw purchasing and gun trafficking. This will crack down on the illicit flow of guns into cities like Chicago.

Again, this bill is a compromise. There are provisions I would rather change and some I would rather do without; but, overall, it marks the most significant gun violence reduction legislation in nearly three decades. I commend the bipartisan effort that led us to this point, and we should pass this bill without delay.

I want to call particular attention to two sections of this bill that I mentioned.

One is to stop straw purchases. Straw purchases are when a person with a clean criminal record or with no criminal record goes to buy a gun for the sole purpose of giving it to another individual who has a criminal record and couldn't legally purchase a gun himself. That happens. It happened last year in Chicago. There was a straw purchase of a gun, and the gun was handed to a felon who turned around and used it to kill a Chicago policewoman named Ella French.

Ella French was 29 years old. She was a remarkable young woman. She had a great future ahead of her. She was, unfortunately, shot--gunned down--with a straw purchase gun. The same gun was used against her partner in his police vehicle. He lost his sight in one eye. He survived. But that just shows you that these straw purchase guns are being used by people against police and innocent people on a regular basis.

Straw purchasing--buying a gun with a clean record to hand over to someone who has a felony conviction--should be treated as a serious violent crime. This bill does that.

The second thing that we desperately need is to deal with counseling. Now, I know there is a traditional political argument where Republicans say: Guns are not the problem--it is mental health or other issues--and Democrats say: It is guns, and if you don't include guns in the package, you are not going to get the job done.

In my view, it includes both. You have to believe if half of the gun deaths in America each day are suicides, that the people who are the victims of those suicides needed, at least at some point in their lives, mental counseling. This bill provides counseling, and I hope it comes in the nick of time for people to turn their lives around and to restore hope in their futures so that they don't resort to the desperate decision toward suicide. Mental counseling, for them, is important.

Secondly, of course, we read about the mass shooters in theaters and in supermarkets and in schools, and we realize that they, too, should have been counseled at some point in the hopes that you could try to divert them from this vicious path that they are about to follow. That is an important issue.

The third group is one that I am more familiar with. They are those people who are involved in gun violence in our cities like Chicago and St. Louis and in so many other cities. These are young people who have diverted their lives away from what we consider to be normal because of a traumatic experience.

Now, trauma is more than physical trauma. It can involve types of posttraumatic stress that really lead to fight-or-flight syndromes and an involvement in gangs and the use of guns without having the feeling of guilt toward anyone you hurt.

These people need help. If we can reach them at an early age in schools, we might be able to turn their lives around. If we don't try, unfortunately, the violence will only continue on our streets. This bill that we are considering--this community safety bill that we are considering--provides resources to school districts to counsel young people.

I think it is long overdue and is desperately needed, not just for those who have been through serious trauma in their lives, but for those facing other mental challenges. Our kids who have gone back to school after COVID may need a helping hand and someone they can counsel with. This bill starts providing those valuable resources. I believe it will make an important difference in the future of our country.

Inflation

On another topic, Mr. President, ``inflation'' is the word on everyone's mind. We see proof of it plastered on gas stations throughout the country and in the aisles of our grocery stores. Too many families are struggling to pay bills. Just last week, the Federal Reserve launched its most forceful broadside against inflation, the largest increase in interest rates in nearly 30 years.

As lawmakers, we owe the American people an honest, sober assessment of how we can start to bring down prices and help alleviate stress at the checkout lane; but, sadly, the inflation conversation has been twisted with dishonesty and deflection by some political critics.

Instead of passing legislation to help reduce the cost of essential goods and services like prescription drugs and childcare, many are pointing the finger of blame at the Biden administration as if he invented inflation or isn't doing his best to end it. Despite the fact that it was former President Trump who urged the Federal Reserve to keep the money printer running at the start of the pandemic and that the Republicans oppose a bill that would prevent big oil companies from price gouging, we see arguments that are made totally on a political level.

The bad-faith arguments we have heard from across the aisle ignore the essential truth: Inflation is not just an American problem; it is a global problem. It is happening in advanced economies like in the UK and France. That is largely due to disruptions in the supply chain.

The phrase ``supply chain'' didn't mean much to America a few months ago, but now, we know it is an important part of our challenge. This began 2 years ago with the pandemic, and it has been aggravated by Vladimir Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine. It has caused the cost of everything from food to energy to spike.

In the words of one conservative commentator at the Wall Street Journal:

War in Ukraine Fans the Flames of Global Inflation.

Immigration

Mr. President, it is crucial to recognize the United States can't solve these global drivers of inflation on our own, but there is one driver of inflation that is within our control: labor shortages. We have twice as many jobs that need to be filled in this country as unemployed people to fill them.

What can we do?

The chart tells you part of the story. This chart indicates that, under the policies of the previous administration and due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, as well as lengthy backlogs, America has experienced a marked decline in immigration that has had a direct and detrimental impact on working families.

According to EconoFact:

[N]et migration to the United States . . . has

significantly declined over the last five years due to

policies of the Trump administration, processing backlogs,

the pandemic, and other factors. This slowdown has

implications for the number of workers available and for

fiscal sustainability.

By the end of 2021, there were 2 million fewer working-age immigrants in America than there would have been if the pre-2020 migration trends had continued.

Now, perhaps your first instinct is, Well, that is a good thing; that means more jobs for American workers.

But the reality is not that at all. This decline in immigration is hurting working Americans and is contributing to inflation. There are a number of industries in America that rely on foreign-born labor to provide affordable goods and services to our country--industries like construction, agriculture, transportation, to name just a few.

Consider the healthcare industry. Nursing homes depend on a reliable supply of immigrant workers to provide care to the elderly and disabled, but since 2019, nursing homes have lost more than 15 percent of their workforce. Today, nearly every nursing home in the country--99 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal--is experiencing staffing shortages. As a result, many of them have had to limit the number of new clients they accept.

In the words of one leader in the industry:

We're just looking for people to fill the roles that we

need. And time and again, we find it is the immigrant

population that tends to respond to us.

So it is our grandparents who end up paying the price for the shortage of working-age immigrants, and they are not alone.

If you are in the market for a new home, you may have noticed prices are prohibitively high, and these skyrocketing costs aren't just hurting potential home buyers; they are hurting renters as well. The cost of rent is actually outpacing inflation in America.

One obvious way to bring housing costs back down to earth is by expanding the supply of homes in America. There are plenty of homebuilders who are willing to help fill the void, but they have got a problem: not enough workers.

Down in Dallas, TX, one homebuilder named Joshua Correa has been forced to delay home construction projects for months because he can't hire field crews.

In his own words:

Immigration is very important for our workforce in the

United States . . . We're feeling [the shortage of workers] .

. . and if we're feeling it at the end of the day as builders

and developers, the consumer pays the price.

From building new homes to providing healthcare in our homes, we rely on immigrants to fill critical roles; and in the absence of immigrant workers, we as customers end up paying higher prices.

If we want to solve America's worker shortage, we need to drastically increase the number of immigrants we welcome into this country. Don't just take it from me. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of America has called for doubling the number of legal immigrants into this country.

In her words:

If we can alleviate the worker shortage, it might be the

fastest thing [we can] do to impact inflation.

And that is just a short-term benefit for fixing America's broken immigration system. In the long term, comprehensive immigration reform would drive America's economic growth for years to come.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, undocumented immigrants already pay nearly $12 billion in State and local taxes annually, but many of them are not on the books. By providing them with a path to legal status, we can double the amount of Federal tax revenue our Nation collects from this group. That is money that will fund the construction of roads and bridges and which will make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments. That is especially important when you consider the growing number of senior citizens in America who rely on these programs. By the end of this decade, more than a fifth of our population will be over the age of 65. These Americans need a reliable, working-age tax base to support them.

A path to legal status for undocumented immigrants also would boost our Nation's GDP by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Passing immigration reform will also help keep America on the cutting edge of innovation. Despite our former President's destructive immigration policies, America is still one of the top destinations in the world for innovators and entrepreneurs. In fact, more than half of our Nation's billion-dollar startups were founded by an immigrant. Let me repeat that. More than half of our Nation's billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Every day that we fail to enact immigration reform, we are allowing a generation of potential innovators and skilled workers to fall through the cracks.

I want to briefly share the story of one amazing person who almost fell through the cracks. His name is Dr. Alfredo Quinones, but he is more commonly known as Dr. Q. Today, Dr. Q--listen to this--is the chair of neurologic surgery at the Mayo Clinic.

Decades ago, when he first arrived in the United States as a teenager, he was an undocumented farmworker. He earned little more than $3 an hour picking crops in the San Joaquin Valley in California. Eventually, he began working as a welder for a railroad. One day, he suffered a bad injury after falling into an empty petroleum tank. When he woke up in the hospital, Dr. Q decided to pursue his passion.

He enrolled in the University of California at Berkeley and wrote his honor's thesis on neuroscience. That caught the attention of admissions officers at Harvard Medical School, where he was accepted as a student. He studied hard and discovered his calling: neurosurgery. Today, he removes about 250 brain tumors every year. Outside of the OR, Dr. Q devotes countless hours to pioneering research. He has a very modest goal--curing cancer--and is exploring novel methods, like using human fat cells to fight brain cancer.

How many other Dr. Qs are out there, hiding in the shadows of our immigration system? Isn't it time we found out?

In the meantime, I would like to pose a simpler question to my Republican colleagues: If you are genuinely interested in addressing inflation, will you help us move forward on this issue before the election?

Your willingness to work on immigration reform will reveal the answer. It is one of the most consequential steps we can take to combat inflation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about this Joe Biden-caused economic crisis that is impacting our country.

Last week, Joe Biden said his spending is ``changing people's lives.'' Well, for once, I am in complete agreement with Joe Biden because I have been traveling the State of Wyoming this past weekend, talking to a lot of people, and Joe Biden's policies have been changing people's lives. Joe Biden's inflation is changing people's lives for the worst. It is costing American families about $5,000 more this year than it did last year just to break even. Joe Biden's inflation is driving families to the breaking point. Right now, working families all across this country are hoping for a summer break. This year's summer break might just break working families.

Inflation remains at a 40-year high. Prices are going up everywhere-- gas station, grocery store, and even paying rent. Household staples like ground beef and chicken--highest prices ever. Inflation for eating at a restaurant--highest ever recorded. Families are paying $100 a week more than they did just a year ago just to stay afloat.

According to a study from the University of Michigan, this is the biggest decline in disposable income since Herbert Hoover was President--Joe Biden; Herbert Hoover. Families' savings accounts are depleted. We now have the lowest savings rate since the great recession. Household debt is breaking records. Families are being forced to cut back in ways they didn't think possible.

The fastest inflation of all, of course, has been on energy. Overall, inflation has been nearly 9 percent, but inflation for gasoline under Joe Biden is more than double--over 100 percent. The price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled since Joe Biden walked into the Oval Office. High energy costs mean high costs for everything else. High gas prices mean it is harder to get goods to the market. Diesel prices are also at record highs. Americans depend on farmers, and farmers depend on diesel. That is just a fact of life. That is why America needs energy now more than ever, in spite of the policies of Joe Biden.

Rather than producing more energy, what does Joe Biden do? He is producing one excuse after another. He

continues to tighten the stranglehold on American energy, making it harder and harder to produce American energy, which is making American energy even more expensive.

Last week, Joe Biden, President of the United States, sent a threatening letter to American energy companies. Now, he claims he wants more energy, but his actions speak much louder than the words he writes or speaks because Joe Biden has done just about everything possible to keep American energy buried in the ground. He has blocked so many different ways to get American energy out of the ground and to refineries and to export or to production. In fact, his Secretary of the Interior explicitly made that a campaign promise when she was running for Congress. The Secretary of the Interior--confirmed by the Democrats, opposed by me--promised to keep American energy in the ground. Well, that is exactly what Joe Biden is doing and having her do.

By one estimate, Joe Biden has taken more than 100 actions, since he has been President, restricting American energy. It all started his first day in office. In the first few hours as President, Joe Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline--killed it flat--and then bragged about it. The Keystone Pipeline would have meant 800,000 barrels of oil delivered to this country each and every day, coming in from Canada.

But that wasn't enough, no. A few days later, Joe Biden made another announcement of his anti-American energy policy. He announced he was going to put a pause on all new oil and gas leases on Federal land. Bragging about Keystone, announcing a pause on leases on Federal land, and now here we are after 17 months in office--none. But Barack Obama by this time had done 44 Federal energy leases. Not a single one by Joe Biden--no, not one.

He has also shut down energy exploration near the Arctic. All you need to do is talk to the senior Senator, whom I share time with on the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, about what is going on there, and she will tell you how Joe Biden has shut down energy in the Arctic. He has kept more than 4,300 drilling applications collecting dust on his desk.

His energy agenda is far, far to the left of any previous American President. His energy agenda, amazingly, is far to the left of Hillary Clinton's agenda when she was running in 2016--further to the left than Hillary. This is the most anti-American energy agenda in American history, and Joe Biden owns it.

When he says he wants us to produce more, no one believes him. No one believes this President. You look at any poll numbers--people do not believe Joe Biden when he speaks, and people have stopped listening to him. The American people believe with their own two eyes and their empty wallets. They drive by the gas station, look at the price up there, and say: It is only going up.

If you want to know what Joe Biden really thinks, just look at what he does; just listen to the people he has surrounded himself with. His anointed climate spokesman--and I mean anointed--is one John Kerry.

John Kerry said last week: ``We absolutely don't'' need more oil, gas, and coal--``absolutely don't'' need. That is the position of this administration and the President of the United States. He is happy with high prices. John Kerry thinks we can just get rid of fossil fuels immediately.

These people are living a fairy tale. They are in a cocoon of self- delusion. That is what is going on at this White House. Joe Biden's fantasy of ending oil and gas is just that--a fantasy.

He wants every American in an electric vehicle. There are not enough batteries; don't have enough charging stations; don't have enough of these vehicles. Even the Secretary of Transportation--he bought one of these. He bought it from Mexico, according to the news reports, and it got recalled, along with 49,000 other electric vehicles, because the battery didn't work. The battery was not reliable. Pete Buttigieg-- Mayor Pete--went from filling potholes in a small town in Indiana to becoming the world's highest paid salesman of electric vehicles, but yet his own one failed him.

The Biden administration is convinced they are making an ``incredible transition.'' This isn't science; this is science fiction.

Last week, Joe Biden's Press Secretary was asked why the President wasn't going to ``drill more here at home.'' After all, that is what the American people are calling for. That is what the economists say is a problem. Why aren't you drilling more at home? She says: Oh, ``[w]e don't need to do that.'' They don't seem to care how high energy prices go, what the cost of gasoline is, because they live in a pure level of electric vehicles.

Earlier today, the President requested a pause on the gas tax until right before the election. This is the tax that funds our Federal roads and bridges. As a former member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I know how important the highway trust fund is. It helps repair roads, bridges, and builds highways. Joe Biden doesn't seem to care about that part of it. He said: Oh, let's just call a pause of 18\1/2\ cents a gallon. It is a gimmick. It is a gimmick that won't have very much effect on gas prices because gas prices would still be double what they were when Joe Biden took office even if you take off 18\1/2\ cents.

Let me remind the American public that today gasoline prices on average are $4.95 a gallon. It is more than double what it was the day he took office. We are up about $2.50 for each and every gallon, and Joe Biden thinks: Well, you remove 18 cents, and we will call it good. What a fantasy.

Democrat economist Larry Summers has called this idea by the President of the United States--and let me point out that Larry Summers was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, economic adviser to Barack Obama, and president of Harvard University, and he says that what Joe Biden is doing--he called it ``shortsighted, ineffective, goofy and gimmicky.'' That is about what we are getting from this President of the United States--goofiness and gimmicks.

Back in 2008, even President Obama said the idea was a gimmick. He ought to have credibility with the Democrats. You would think Joe Biden might have listened to him; he was his Vice President. President Obama said: This idea isn't ``designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them through an election.''

What about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi? She is a big Joe Biden fan. This is what she said of the idea. The thing the President proposed today, she said, is ``very showbiz''--``very showbiz.'' She said: It looks like you are doing something, ``[b]ut it is not necessarily landing in the pocket of the consumer.''

So Joe Biden wants to look busy. It is not what the American people are seeing, and in so many ways, they have tuned him out. The American people see the price of gasoline. They see it every time they drive by a gas station. At the same time, Senate Democrats want to raise taxes on American energy. That is what we hear from the Senate Democrats.

What is your solution?

Well, we are going to raise taxes on American energy.

Oh, sounds good.

Higher taxes mean higher prices--it is that simple. Higher taxes on producers of oil and gas ultimately get passed on to the consumers. I am not sure what people don't understand about that.

Nancy Pelosi admitted that as well. A few months ago, she admitted that ``a tax on production . . . the consumers [will] pay for that.''

Look, Democrats are so desperate to try to do something, throwing one Hail Mary pass after another, they are now denying the laws of supply and demand. The Senate Democrats act like these prices come out of thin air. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Right now, the supply is too low to meet the demand of the American people. If you want lower prices, you have to increase the supply, and we can do that by producing American energy.

High energy costs are driving up inflation all across the country. It is triggering a cascade of crises. The stock market is down 20 percent. Seniors and retirees are watching their savings evaporate, melt away.

Last week, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the third time since March. Each increase has been larger than the last one. This latest increase is the largest increase in the Fed rate in 30 years.

Oh, there is no question this is going to slow down the economy. So why is

the Federal Reserve doing something that is going to slow down the economy? Well, there is one reason: inflation under Joe Biden and the big-spending Democrats. That is the reason inflation is running rampant. There were trillions of dollars thrown onto the fire of inflation--inflation denied by the President, ignored by the President, dismissed by the President for month after month after month, and now the American people are living with inflation they cannot escape.

So the Federal Reserve has only one choice. It is throwing on the emergency brake. It may still be too late to prevent a crash. The economy is barreling toward recession. Economists on both sides of the aisle say that, and Joe Biden the other day said, oh, he wasn't worried about that coming along.

A recession is a complete halt to economic growth for half a year. If you have a recession, you still have higher prices with lower economic growth. We would still have higher prices, and people won't have the money to pay them.

Right now, the Federal Reserve is taking desperate measures to counteract what Democrats have done. As a result, mortgage rates have already doubled this year. Mortgage applications have been cut dramatically. Older Americans are delaying their dreams of retirement. Younger Americans are giving up on their dreams of owning a home.

It is no wonder consumer confidence in Joe Biden in the Nation right now is at an alltime low. Joe Biden, who earlier had been compared to Herbert Hoover in terms of what people are saying about both of them, has an even lower approval rating on inflation than did Jimmy Carter.

Joe Biden wants to blame everybody but himself. Yet the American people are right when they point the finger and blame Joe Biden. With record inflation, record debt, and looming recession, now is not the time to do what the Democrats want to do, which is raise taxes. Democrats need to reverse course, stop the reckless spending, and above all, unleash American energy.

Joe Biden should rip up his letter to energy companies and get to work: hold energy lease sales, approve the 4,300 drilling applications still sitting in limbo in the Biden White House, approve more pipelines, speed up the approval process. The American people, right now, are feeling stuck and stressed and squeezed, and the best this President can do is say: Let's take a holiday from gas taxes for 3 months--when prices are up over $2.60 a gallon from the day he took office. And he wants to alleviate 18 cents of the pain.

It is time for the Democrats to reverse course. We will see if Joe Biden listens. The Democrats are refusing to listen. Americans are paying a very high price today, and the Democrats, across the board, are going to pay a very high price in November when people go to the polls.

I yield the floor.