Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as if things could not get any worse under this administration, we found out last week that inflation is now at a 30-year high. This comes as Americans are worried about the cost of Thanksgiving dinner, the cost of putting gas in their cars, and even the cost of heating their homes for the winter.

Under this administration, inflation has metastasized at an alarming rate across the country. Every small town in America feels the strain of inflation. Every American family feels it. Every hardworking taxpayer feels it. Yet, this administration is too blinded by its own ignorance to figure out what is happening.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the so-called Build Back Better agenda was just a lie this entire time.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening at the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, is so rotten it stinks.

Under Democrat leadership, the NLRB has a history of bias and overreach. President Biden fired the Senate-confirmed general counsel on his first day in office, and now the Biden board is dodging ethics rules.

NLRB Democrats are refusing to follow conflict of interest standards that were weaponized by Democrats during the Trump administration. This is blatant hypocrisy and threatens the integrity of the board.

How can NLRB members Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty be conscientious arbiters on the very policies they fought against as union employees? And how can we expect board members with close ties to union activists to be unbiased when it comes to big labor cases?

Is there anything NLRB Democrats won't do to advance the interests of big labor at the expense of American workers? It is a shame what it is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Thanksgiving will be the most expensive on record, and Americans have the Biden administration to thank.

Put yourself in the shoes of hardworking families across America. Every morning they wake up and leave for work. The moment their feet touch the ground outside, inflation is already reaching for their wallets. They turn on their cars and head to the gas station where inflation is ready and waiting for them. At the grocery store, inflation is lurking within the aisles.

It is a sobering reality for so many working families, and people are rightfully angry. I share their anger.

Mr. Speaker, consider what these working families are thinking as Thanksgiving approaches. Will they be able to afford President Biden's turkey tax on Thanksgiving dinner? Will they even be able to get themselves to the grocery store in time before the shelves are empty? Will they even be able to get to the grocery store at all because of rising gas prices?

Consider this: Thanksgiving dinner this year is estimated to cost 4 to 5 percent more for American families, and that is assuming they will be able to put food on the table.

Just this morning I did an interview with a local radio station in the Fifth District. The host remarked to me that under the Biden administration we are going to have to get used to empty shelves and rising prices. I take great issue with where the direction of this country is headed under this administration.

Americans have been told to ``lower their expectations'' and to get used to doing with less. No, we won't. This is America, and we do not settle for less. We are better than meeting meager expectations, lowering the bar, and expecting less. That is just not who we are as a country, and it certainly is not who we are as a people.

Let's not forget that this administration touted an alleged savings of 16 cents for family barbecues over the Independence Day weekend earlier this year. Nobody took that claim seriously then, and it certainly does not hold up now.

From President Biden's turkey tax to rising gas prices, empty store shelves to rising costs of heating homes during the winter, everyone is feeling the squeeze of inflation. This is not a high-class problem by any stretch of the imagination.

Since President Biden took office, we have watched every month as inflation has ravaged the country. What is this administration thinking? Is it so blind to the fact that families and hardworking Americans are struggling to make ends meet?

Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is on the horizon and Americans are more concerned than ever. With Thanksgiving dinner and everyday commodities becoming out of reach now, Christmas dinner will cost Americans an arm and a leg. This is downright shameful.

Madam Speaker, the American people are wondering: What is the Biden administration thinking?

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice is negotiating a settlement that would give $450,000 per person to illegal immigrants. For a parent and child, the payout increases to $900,000.

To put this in context, if a servicemember is killed in action, their next of kin receives an insurance payment of $400,000. What this means is that the Biden administration will pay illegal immigrants more than the families of America's fallen heroes.

That fact alone is repulsive. These people broke the law by illegally entering our country, and now they are about to receive a payout from the government.

That is the kind of welfare mentality that is corrupting this country and will do nothing but encourage more illegals to try to enter our country.

Shame on President Biden and his administration.

Recognizing Military Family Appreciation Month

Madam Speaker, behind every man and woman in uniform are family members who exhibit great resilience while their loved ones serve this great country.

No matter their backgrounds or where life's journey has taken them, these families are all connected by service and their collective love for America.

Madam Speaker, November is Military Family Appreciation Month, a solemn time when we recognize the innumerable military families from all corners of America.

We recognize their support for their loved ones in uniform and the sacrifices that they continue to make every day.

I salute particularly those from the Fifth District of North Carolina and thank them for their service.

The simple truth is that every American owes them and their loved ones both at home and abroad a profound debt of gratitude.

May we never forget that.

Where is the Accountability

Madam Speaker, if I laid over 1,500 pages of text in front of you right now, would you be able to tell me quickly what is on every single page? If the answer is no, that is not surprising.

Yet, that is exactly what happened last week when the majority decided to drop the text of the massive socialist tax and spending package at a moment's notice.

Does this sound familiar? It is what happened when House Democrats passed ObamaCare, and nobody had the time to read its text either, although Republicans made an earnest effort to read every page. It is the same irresponsible tactic of passing a bill to find out what is lurking beneath its pages.

Madam Speaker, this process is making a mockery of the people's House, and it is downright shameful. It is time to stop it.

Madam Speaker, Americans are seething over the price of gas every time they visit the pump.

Yesterday the national average for a gallon of gas reached $3.39. That is more than a $1.24 jump since last year.

Americans have not seen gas prices this high since the Obama-Biden administration. Do we see a pattern here?

Not to mention that in some parts of the country, the price for regular gas is over $7.50 a gallon.

Madam Speaker, this is yet another crisis that President Biden can tack on to his growing list.

Since his first day in office, President Biden's actions, and especially his policies, have brought America a first-class ticket to economic ruin.

Madam Speaker, it is sobering to know that American exceptionalism is only a few degrees away from extinction. It should never be that way.

One of the greatest threats we face as a Nation is the creation of a welfare state and, subsequently, the mentality that is bred by one.

It seems that many have forgotten the simple principle that Americans have always abided by: Here, we work to earn our keep. Over the course of the last 9 months, that principle has become lost.

It is evident that America is no longer slouching toward socialism; we are standing on its doorstep. We are much better than this as a country.

The welfare-without-work expansions that are being proposed by the majority are dangerous. One of those expansions is the child tax credit that bears no work requirements for recipients.

Twenty-five years ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to reform America's welfare system. It was a bipartisan effort through and through. But if you fast-forward to today, the majority has ignored the spirit of that agreement in favor of their own distorted agenda.

Simply put, the majority has turned the child tax credit into a cash- for-kids handout. Remember, the recipients of this handout are not required to work to receive it.

Just last week, President Biden admitted during a CNN townhall that he opposes a work requirement. Keep in mind that members of the President's own party, such as Senator Manchin, are advocating for a work requirement.

The University of Chicago recently published a study showing how expanding the child tax credit disincentivizes work. In fact, it would lead to an exodus of 1.5 million workers from the workforce. America simply can't afford that.

When you consider the loss of 1.5 million workers and the abysmal jobs reports that have come out this year, it is clear that something is wrong. The labor force participation rate plummeted last month to 61.6 percent. The last time the labor force participation rate was 61.6 percent was in April of 1976.

There are roughly 3 months left in 2021, and at this pace America is on track to fall right off the cliff and onto the rocks below. That is the cost of government dependency. That is the cost of providing a steady stream of other taxpayer checks that pay more to sit at home than to work.

Pitting Main Street businesses against government-led benefits won't build the economy back. It won't get Americans back to work, and it certainly won't steer our great country to brighter and better days.

American exceptionalism is not built by welfare or sitting at home collecting a check. It is built by everyday people who show up at work and get the job done. If that fundamental principle is lost, then America will be lost as well.

There is no denying that America is standing on socialism's doorstep. Look at the state our country is in because of the majority's failed policies and what could come down the line.

Government dependency robs this great country and its citizens of unparalleled opportunity. The majority has steered us in that direction, and the American people should be downright fearful.

Madam Speaker, the Federal Government needs to stop sticking its noses in places it does not belong.

For the past 9 months, the size and scope of the Federal Government have expanded like a balloon being inflated with helium. Look no further than a provision in the Democrats' budget reconciliation package that allows the IRS to monitor the bank accounts of every American. If you made a deposit or withdrawal of more than $600 cumulatively, the IRS would be the first to know. That is $28 a day.

Madam Speaker, the American people are fearful of more government control, and I share their fear. America should never find itself standing at socialism's door, and this dangerous provision puts us one step closer to doing so.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act.

A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimated that one-third of all men and women are victims of domestic violence at some point in their life. In 2018, approximately 40 percent of female homicides in North Carolina were related to intimate partner violence. The 2020 statistics aren't any better.

COVID-19 and President Biden's failed economic policies have dealt our Nation government-mandated restrictions and economic challenges. It appears those negative outcomes have snowballed to exacerbate an even worse fallout.

Evidence suggests that in this pandemic environment, stress due to work, school, substance abuse, and financial struggles have added to more violence in the home. Especially hard-hit appear to be rural areas where job opportunities can be hard to find. Recent statistics show that domestic violence-related homicides have increased in my home State of North Carolina.

Domestic violence in any form is an evil that demands a strong response. That is why, in 1984, Congress enacted the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, FVPSA, which authorizes programs to support victims of domestic violence and their dependents. These programs include grants to support domestic violence shelters and services and a national domestic violence hotline.

Additionally, FVPSA funds the CDC's DELTA program, which provides funding to State domestic violence coalitions to develop, test, and coordinate local prevention and education programs. Since FVPSA's enactment, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the bill. Sadly, Democrats are now using it as a vehicle to push left- wing priorities. This is disappointing.

Committee Republicans wanted to support a bipartisan bill. I strongly believe that FVPSA's history of bipartisanship must be continued. However, the Democrat bill before us puts special interest groups ahead of victims of domestic violence.

H.R. 2119 paves the way for taxpayer-supported abortions. Forcing the public to pay for abortions is morally repugnant and should not be allowed to

stand in this bill or any bill. Previous reauthorizations of the law included a prohibition preventing reimbursement for healthcare services, but this bill drops that prohibition.

The bill also tramples the rights of faith-based providers by forcing organizations to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs or give up helping victims through these programs, meaning that fewer victims will be able to access vital services and care. Faith-based providers who offer critical care to survivors of domestic violence should not be obstructed from operating.

Additionally, this bill lacks commonsense accountability that is needed after years of Congress ignoring this program. We need to know what is going on with the program and the Republican substitute would ensure we have that information.

FVPSA is not an instrument for partisan policies, or it should not be, especially those that threaten religious liberties. That is why Republicans offered an amendment that includes a carefully focused set of reforms that act in the best interest of victims of family violence and the people who serve them. Specifically, it improves current law, ensuring that funds are focused on life-saving supportive services. Democrats opposed it in committee, and I am guessing they will oppose it on the floor.

Republicans recognize the importance of supporting survivors of domestic violence. We must understand that dealing with this issue is best done at the local level and government cannot always provide the answers. Local civic groups and faith-based providers are best positioned to provide aid and deliver it effectively.

Congress should support best practices and protect the providers closest to the victims seeking help. Pushing faith-based providers out of this important work--as the Democrat-led bill could do--does nothing to help continue the delivery of locally-driven support services for victims of domestic violence.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2119, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), who is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, currently the Secretary of HHS has unimpeded authority to create resource centers under FVPSA that are meant to provide victims of domestic violence with help. Unfortunately, the number of resource centers has grown in recent years without the public's knowledge. A brief look at the websites of these organizations reveals that a number of these centers are using taxpayer money to promote a progressive ideology on gender and sexuality instead of simply supporting victims of domestic violence. Taxpayers deserve to know the mission and purpose of these resource centers and whether they are effective.

The Republican substitute requires the Secretary to provide notice to Congress before creating additional resource centers. Additionally, it requires the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on the effectiveness of these resource centers and provide recommendations for improvements on how they can do a better job delivering services to victims.

Madam Speaker, money is scarce and getting scarcer, and we need to know that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, victims of domestic violence should not lose important faith-based assistance simply because bureaucrats in Washington don't share the same beliefs. Our freedom of religion is the number one freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights, and yet our friends often on the other side of the aisle seem to forget that and want to trample on that right. Faith-based providers have helped victims of domestic violence for years, and they should not be forced to abandon their mission because progressives want to use taxpayer resources to promote a progressive ideology on gender and sexuality.

As we learned from our witness at a hearing on this program, sometimes victims need to hear from faith leaders to feel really safe and able to get help. We should not jeopardize that lifeline.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the Democrats' bill strikes a current law provision that requires certain grant recipients to provide a non-Federal match for the taxpayer dollars they receive under FVPSA.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues who have indicated that funding for domestic violence is not a Federal responsibility. It is a State and local responsibility. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution said if their responsibilities were not outlined in the Constitution for the Federal Government to do, then those responsibilities were left to the States and to the people themselves.

However, I am a realist. The Federal Government stepped into this space, in a bipartisan manner, many, many years ago. So, taxpayers paying taxes at the Federal level have been supporting these programs for a long time. However, it is appropriate that there be a local match for this to show that local people have an interest in these programs and believe they should be supported.

Furthermore, Democrats are refusing to acknowledge that we are nearly $30 trillion in debt and going up in debt quickly, going down the tubes quickly. Their radical taxing and spending spree is intended to create the largest Federal Government expansion since the New Deal. Frankly, many of them brag about this, which is unbelievable to me.

But Republicans are committed to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively. That is why the Republican substitute amendment and my amendment ensure the important non-Federal match provision under FVPSA remains in place. We need some local skin in the game.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill contains a number of provisions that are well-known poison pills for Republicans. Democrats can't claim this is a bipartisan bill when it takes far-left positions on multiple social issues that are unrelated to FVPSA's purposes.

This bill was rejected on a party-line basis at a committee markup. Democrats ignored the long history of bipartisan reauthorizations and included poison pills and not moving forward.

The Senate was able to leave politics at the door, and there is no reason for the House not to do the same.

Madam Speaker, the majority of Americans oppose using their hard- earned money to pay for abortions. A Marist Poll conducted earlier this year showed that as many as 58 percent oppose using tax dollars to fund abortions.

We have repeatedly seen Democrats attack the lifesaving Hyde amendment. This, along with the removal of a longstanding prohibition on using FVPSA funding to reimburse for healthcare services, would risk forcing taxpayers to fund abortions under this program.

FVPSA dollars are meant to offer hope and healing to victims of domestic violence, not bring harm to innocent lives.

Madam Speaker, victims of domestic violence deserve access to the expertise and resources necessary to aid them in their time of crisis, free from political interference. The Democrats' partisan proposal could harm the unborn and obstruct high-quality providers from offering services to domestic violence victims.

As I said before, FVPSA should not be an instrument for partisan policies, especially those that threaten religious liberties.

Committee Republicans want to continue FVPSA's history of bipartisanship, yet Democrats have upended the previously bipartisan balance between prevention services and support for victims and children at the behest of special interest groups. This is shameful.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2119, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, while many of the amendments offered today by my Democrat colleagues do not make the bill any worse, they fail to correct the significant flaws of the underlying bill.

Several amendments offered by Republican Members would have improved the bill, but Democrats blocked those amendments from being debated.

Two of those I would like to highlight quickly are: An amendment offered by Congresswoman Mary Miller to ensure FVPSA dollars cannot be used for abortion services or abortion referrals and an amendment offered by Congresswoman Spartz to ensure taxpayers know the mission and purpose of the resource centers authorized under FVPSA.

These amendments are needed to address concerning changes the Democrats make that open the door for taxpayer funding of abortion under FVPSA and also double down on attempts to advance a radical gender ideology through FVPSA's resource centers.

The Democrats missed an opportunity to change course, work in a bipartisan fashion, and send the Senate a bill we know could become law. But they have decided to pursue partisan policy over protecting victims.

Thankfully, this bill is not heading to the President's desk, and I look forward to working on making further needed improvements so victims can access the help they need from those they trust.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, again, these amendments do not make any further harm to the programs, but they also do not cure the flaws in the bill before us today. I do not oppose this en bloc but urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act provides critical services to victims of domestic violence, and faith-based organizations are some of the leading providers of these services.

Unfortunately, the Democrats' bill would change that by adding extreme provisions that stray from FVPSA's important purposes and could limit participation of the important faith-based providers.

The substitute amendment offered by Congresswoman Letlow ensures that faith-based providers don't have to choose between their beliefs or continuing to deliver the vital service and care that help protect victims.

Congresswoman Letlow's amendment also brings much-needed accountability to FVPSA. The law currently authorizes the Secretary to create domestic violence resource centers, but these resource centers have been used to push a radical gender ideology rather than help victims of domestic violence.

That is why the substitute amendment requires the Secretary to provide notice to Congress before creating additional resource centers. Further, it requires the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on the effectiveness of these resource centers and provide recommendations for improvements on how they can do a better job delivering services to victims.

It has been too long since Congress has exercised effective oversight of this program, and it is time to change that. Beginning with the provisions in Congresswoman Letlow's amendment, this law will finally have some real accountability metrics.

The Democrats' bill also strikes a current law provision that requires certain grant recipients to obtain funding from sources outside the Federal Government, so Federal taxpayers are not on the hook for providing all of the funding.

While Republicans are committed to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively, Democrats refuse to acknowledge that we are nearly $30 trillion in debt. Their radical taxing-and-spending spree is intended to create the largest Federal Government expansion since the New Deal, and this bill is the latest attempt by the Democrats to create further reliance on government, pushing out private-sector involvement in these critical programs. That is why the amendment I offered ensures the important non-Federal match provision under FVPSA remains in place.

I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).

Madam Speaker, it is critical that we reauthorize FVPSA in a bipartisan manner, free from partisan poison pills. The Democrats' bill fails to do that, but the Republican amendments would set aside politics, ensuring FVPSA continues to offer help to victims of domestic violence.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again this year, a local farm in North Carolina's Fifth District has been selected to provide the White House Christmas tree.

Rusty and Beau Estes, the owners of Peak Farms in Ashe County, are no strangers to this prestigious selection process.

In both 2008 and 2012, Peak Farms provided Fraser firs to the White House, and in 2018, the farm was selected to deliver the Christmas tree to the residence of Vice President Mike Pence.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrific accomplishment, and it represents the best that North Carolina has to offer.

Congratulations to both Rusty and Beau. Mr. Speaker, yet again, Rusty and Beau have proven that North Carolina's Fifth District is the premier provider of Christmas trees throughout the country.

Madam Speaker, it appears that the Biden administration is going to do everything it possibly can to destroy our economy and hurt working-class people.

Headline in today's Washington Times: ``Biden piles up red tape after Trump's trims: Long arm of regulation reaches businesses for vague objectives.''

``President Biden accelerated the regulatory state on his first day in office by ordering agencies to consider aspirational but vaguely defined goals and benefits when imposing new rules on businesses large and small.

``The order greenlighting regulations even when the benefits `are difficult or impossible to quantify' sent shudders down the spines of CEOs. They fear business growth will be smothered in pursuit of vague objectives such as `human dignity' and `the interests of future generations.'

`` `It is the most aggressive thing I have ever seen by an administration,' said Doug Holtz-Eakin. `It is one thing to put out a bunch of regulations, but this changes the way regulation is done. It allows you to jam through any regulation you want regardless of the impact [on] the private sector.' ''

We know we are having historic increased inflation and historic debt levels and now regulations. It is a disaster coming.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, Jan Karon, an author from North Carolina, released a novel titled ``At Home in Mitford.'' That novel was the first of 14 she wrote in a series that depicted a small town located in western North Carolina.

To be clear, the town of Mitford is purely fictional, but, in fact, it was based off a town in North Carolina's Fifth District where Jan Karon grew up and drew inspiration from, the town of Hudson.

In early October, it was my privilege and honor, along with hundreds of people from 31 different States, to be in Hudson for the dedication ceremony of the new Mitford Museum.

The mission of this museum is to share the small-town values, through artifacts and archives, that relate to western North Carolina and Jan Karon's novels with those who visit.

One of the museum's objectives is to also to enrich both reading and writing appreciation and enhancing the literary skills in youth and adults. Those important endeavors are worthy of praise.

Jan Karon, along with many of us, grew up learning and appreciating the small-town values which have helped make our country great. By sharing them with her readers, she helps preserve the continuity of those values so

that generations both present and future will carry them forward.

We all long for America to return to those simple values and not stray off course. Think about what some of those values are. They are comradery, service, sense of community, putting in a hard day's work, and family.

If you were to take the time and travel across North Carolina's Fifth District, you would find salt-of-the-earth people who live and breathe those values. Those values are alive and well in every small business, supermarket, church, community, and neighborhood in the Fifth District and across the entire country.

You see, small-town values are not a euphemism for exclusivity or division. They are values that transcend boundaries such as socioeconomic status, political affiliation, and geography.

Mr. Speaker, I consider myself blessed to have been raised in a small town and to have learned those values at a young age. Throughout my life, I have carried them with me.

It is even more of a blessing that I have been entrusted to serve small towns like Hudson and so many others that are the lifeblood of western North Carolina.

I encourage everyone to visit the town of Hudson and see exactly what I mean. Take some time to learn about the values that small towns across this country are built on and how, over time, they have made such an impact upon everyday people.

The undeniable truth is that small-town values will forever be America's values.

September Jobs Report

Mr. Speaker, as a former educator, it is clear to me that the Biden administration needs some serious math tutoring. The September jobs report resembles an incomplete assignment that a student turned in at the very last minute.

Out of 500,000 projected jobs, only 194,000 were added. Five million jobs are still unrecovered in America, and labor participation has slumped to 61.6 percent. It is the worst jobs report of the year, and there are roughly 3 months left to go.

That report rightfully deserves an F, and it tacks on another chapter of this administration making promises it cannot meet. Yet again, the so-called Build Back Better agenda falls flat on its face and the numbers do not lie.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are politicizing the Justice Department and embarking on a witch hunt, this time to go after parents.

Parents across the country are bravely taking a stand to protect their children against overly restrictive COVID-19 mandates and identity politics indoctrination. In response, the Biden administration is weaponizing law enforcement agencies to intimidate them into silence.

Some parents have crossed the line. Harassing and threatening school officials is unacceptable.

But there is no evidence that parents pose a widespread threat to school administrators. Yet, the National School Boards Association is asking the Biden administration to treat these parents like domestic terrorists.

Attorney General Merrick Garland's outrageous memo, giving credence to these accusations, shows the Biden administration cares more about appeasing special interests than Americans concerned about their children.

This attack on the First Amendment cannot continue. Parents must be allowed to stand up for their kids.