Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

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

Mr. Speaker, America is suffering. Americans don't recognize the country we live in. Trump's tariffs have caused prices to soar. We have the highest unemployment rate in 4 years so fewer people have jobs. Those out of work can't even afford those expensive groceries, housing, and appliances.

Republicans refused to extend the health insurance tax cuts in time, so now millions of Americans have health insurance premiums that are double and sometimes even triple what they were 1 year ago. In their big, beautiful bill, Republicans took a sledgehammer to our fragile healthcare system to give permanent tax breaks to their political donors, the billionaires, and the biggest corporations.

Our President bombed boats and then the capital of a foreign country for oil, and now he says he is acting President of that country.

He wants our military to invade a NATO ally. Remember, Mr. Speaker, America and our NATO allies fought fascism together in World War II. Republicans claim we don't have money to keep healthcare costs down, yet they are going to keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars for Trump's reckless military action in Venezuela and everywhere else he decides to invade or bomb.

Trump and Kristi Noem have militarized our streets. Masked men in full military gear roam the streets of our cities. These masked men invade church properties and schools, knock down doors without warrants, ram cars, and assault pastors and people of faith. These masked, armed men have arrested hundreds of citizens just for looking Latino.

Last week, they killed a citizen. They shot a mother of three in the face three times. Her last words were: I am not mad at you. His words, after shooting her to death, are too obscene to say on this floor.

Kristi Noem and the President have now demonized this dead mother. Trump wants Americans to deny what we can see with our own eyes: the killing of a mother, Renee Nicole Good.

In the face of all this pain, chaos, and economic hardship, the American people expect Congress to do something, to ask hard questions of the administration, to be the check and balance that we were taught about in school, conduct oversight, lower prices, and protect our healthcare.

So what are Republicans doing?

Last week, following the invasion of Venezuela and the expiration of the healthcare tax credits, their priority was a bill about showerheads. This week it is worse. They are actively putting their thumb on the scale in favor of big corporations and against workers, lowering what parents get paid in overtime, reclassifying workers so they can pay them less, or make it easy for corporations, like those big meatpacking plants, to get away with hiring child labor or wage theft. They want to block financial managers from even considering environmental risks like flooding and wildfires.

Yes, Americans want Congress to do something. The problem is that Republicans control the House and the bills we consider in the Rules Committee and vote on.

However, Democrats can force votes, like we did on the healthcare tax credits and like we will soon do on the War Powers Resolution. On the floor of the people's House, we will call out Republicans who always seem to stand with the biggest corporations and against workers.

Despite what the titles of their bills say, they do the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, we will force Republicans to face the consequences of ignoring the economic struggles of everyday Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what is amazing is that on the floor of this House we heard my colleague talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I guess they are going back to calling it that. They were trying to change its name because they know that the American people know it is not beautiful. It is only beautiful, Mr. Speaker, if you are a billionaire and you have benefited from those tax cuts for the millionaires, the billionaires, and the biggest corporations.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats wanted to make permanent, and offered amendments, so that we could continue tax cuts for middle-class Americans. We wanted to do something more than what they did on tipped workers.

Are you kidding me, Mr. Speaker? Republicans made tipped worker tax credits temporary but gave permanent tax cuts to the billionaires. The predominant benefit of that big, beautiful bill went to the richest Americans, and there is no denying that.

There is no denying that $1.4 trillion went to the wealthiest Americans. There is no denying the fact that they keep talking about deficits, $4 trillion, that they are forcing our children and grandchildren to pay because they wanted to give those tax credits to the biggest corporations and millionaires.

Now, the other thing that is interesting that got raised is Minnesota. She talked about a couple of immigrants who have been arrested. We don't have any problem about enforcement and arresting people who commit crimes. In fact, we have had Democratic Presidents do that. Obama deported more people than Trump has, but he went after people with criminal records.

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the people in ICE custody have committed no crime. Hundreds of citizens have been arrested for no crime by ICE, which has no jurisdiction. Why were they arrested? Is it just because they look Latino? Is it just because they speak Spanish? That is not okay.

Let's talk about criminal activity. Trump pardoned the January 6 insurrectionists who beat law enforcement right outside these doors, violently beat the law enforcement officers who were protecting us.

What has happened since then? Do you want to talk about people who have been arrested? Talk about all of those violent offenders who were arrested, and what did they get? They got a pardon from this President. We have dozens who have gone on to reoffend, who have gone on to assault, who have been engaged in child pornography, in egregious crimes because this President pardoned them. When you want to talk about going after criminals, let's look at what this President has failed to do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that in response to this litany and this long list of criminal activity and the criminals who were pardoned by Trump, we heard the same thing, there was a sex offender. What about all those sex offenders that have now been pardoned?

What about all of the egregious actions that ICE is conducting in Mrs. Fischbach's very own State? She won't stand up for the law enforcement officers who she walks by every day and the attacks that they faced, but she will stand up in favor of ICE activity that has killed one of Minnesota's own citizens?

Let me read one of the President's latest posts: ``Do the people of Minnesota really want to live in a community . . . '' His last sentence: ``Fear not, great people of Minnesota, the day of reckoning and retribution is coming.''

Retribution? We should not live in a society where we have a President who goes after cities and States because they have Democratic leadership. There are Republicans who live in that city. There are Democrats who live in that city, Independents. It should not matter.

However, this President and Republicans who support him and refuse to condemn him seem to think it is okay to beat up law enforcement officers in our own Capitol, but it is not okay to question excessive, egregious abuses by ICE not only in Minnesota, but across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 20, the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, a bipartisan bill that would expand workers' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace, hold employers accountable for violating workers' rights, and allow for free, fair, and safe union elections.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the slate of partisan bills that Republicans want us to vote on this week, which lower overtime pay for workers, cut workers' wages, give corporations more loopholes to mistreat workers without consequence, and mess with workers' retirement savings plan to combat supposed wokeness, whatever that is, Democrats simply want to add another bill for consideration, one that actually helps workers and is cosponsored by 214 Members of Congress, including several Republicans.

The PRO Act was one of the first bills I got to cosponsor in committee and in Congress when I joined in 2021. That was back when the committee was called the Education and Labor Committee because Democrats are not afraid of saying ``labor,'' and we will always protect workers' rights. That is why when we held the majority, we passed the PRO Act to support workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I will address something in one of the bills that is about childcare and the care economy.

We all know the care economy is what makes all other work possible. Women can go to work when they know their babies will be well taken care of. When a parent or grandparent gets ill, we know that it is women who

step in to fill the gap. In fact, because it is so expensive to get care, we have seen a record number of women fall out of the workforce. It is up to about 350,000 women, I think, who have left.

This is a problem because we need women to be able to participate in our workforce, to be able to contribute to their own household's income. We know that this is something that can be fixed with governmental action.

In New Mexico, we now have universal childcare. It is something we can get done, and the reason why we do this is because it is important to allow women and parents to work. It is often men who stay home as the father. It is also important for the child because when you get good early childcare, you grow up to have more opportunities in life.

On average, though, parents spend between $6,500 and $15,000 per child for 1 year of childcare. That is eating up more and more of families' budgets. People can't afford this.

What we know that people have done is negotiate. They talk to their employers, and those employers have often provided childcare as one of the elements of compensation. This is why unions are important. They have negotiated this and fought for this as part of compensation.

For decades, when you get paid overtime, you include all of your compensation, including if you were getting assistance for care expenses.

Now, they have named their bill and added ``childcare'' to it, and they say this is to increase the availability of childcare. What it actually will do is that it is going to decrease people's overtime pay. You are no longer going to get paid overtime based on your full compensation. This is overturning decades of precedence.

Once again, they are acting in a way that makes life more expensive, that makes sure that parents who receive this benefit will get paid less if they are forced to work overtime. Guess what. If you are forced to work overtime and have to keep your kids in childcare, it is going to cost you more.

Their spiral of increased costs for American families is always looking out for the big guy, always looking out for those big corporations. That is why Democrats oppose this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that Americans know that Trump has been horrible on the handling of their economy because he has done nothing to lower the cost of living. In fact, everything he has done is the opposite.

His tariffs have increased prices. Their failure to address the healthcare crisis and extend tax credits for health insurance premiums has increased the cost of healthcare for Americans. In fact, Americans know this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled ``Americans are more dissatisfied with Trump's handling of the economy than ever, polls show,'' from Politics, dated December 17, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier, Trump's economy is a mess, and Republicans have failed to step up and do anything. They fail to step up and challenge him on any of the issues. They refuse to allow a vote on the tariffs on the floor of this House. They stopped the clock so that we wouldn't vote on the tariffs in this House.

Today's bills are another step in Republican efforts to chip away at workers' rights, their retirement, and their pay, while costs are sky- high.

House Republicans continue to uphold Trump's failing economy and broken promises. As one of his campaign promises, Trump said that, on day one of his term, he would lower the prices of all goods and make America affordable again. Yet, nearly a year into his Presidency, life for Americans is more expensive than ever.

For the first time in nearly 4 years, more Americans reported that their family's current financial situation was bad rather than good. This was in December before the craziness of this--what?--just 12 days in.

Consumers are worried about prices, inflation, and tariffs. Those were the concerns of working Americans, but none of these bills before us do anything to address that.

Mr. Speaker, the wallets of Americans are emptier today than they were a year ago. My colleagues refuse to call out Trump's broken promises or stand up against his tariffs or all of his policies, any of his policies. I guess they are just afraid of him.

As working-class Americans work paycheck to paycheck to paycheck, millionaires and billionaires get richer and richer. What is the response? They offer bills about showerheads and bills that tip the scales against workers. They want workers to get less money for more work. That is a lousy deal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these bills and to vote against the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 988 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act; H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act; H.R. 4366, the Save Local Business Act, under a closed rule; and H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, under a structured rule.

One hour of debate each for H.R. 2262, H.R. 2270, H.R. 2312, H.R. 2988, and H.R. 4366 shall be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their designees. The rule provides for a motion to recommit for all five bills.

Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today are about one thing: getting the Federal Government out of the way of the American worker.

For too long, outdated definitions and woke regulatory overreach have stifled opportunities and created a paperwork trap for the job creators on our Main Streets. Today, we take a stand for common sense and economic growth.

We begin with H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act. Under current law, many nonexempt workers, the very people who could benefit most from upskilling, are often excluded from voluntary training because the Fair Labor Standards Act treats those sessions as hours worked. This creates massive inconvenience for employers, who ultimately choose not to offer the training at all.

This bill levels the playing field, allowing workers to pursue voluntary professional development outside of regular hours without triggering burdensome overtime costs for their employers.

In the same spirit of support, H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, addresses the childcare crunch facing so many families. By excluding childcare and eldercare benefits from the regular rate calculation for overtime, we remove a major financial barrier for some small business owners who want to help their employees balance work and family life. This is a pro-family, pro- worker solution that requires no new Federal spending.

We must also protect the flexibility that makes the service industry so vital. H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, clears the regulatory fog that has long surrounded tipped workers.

The Biden administration attempted to micromanage every minute of a server's day through the unworkable 80/20 rule, a standard that is virtually impossible to monitor or enforce. This bill provides a clear and simple definition for tipped employees, an employee who receives tips plus other cash wages that meet or exceed the Federal minimum wage for a work period.

This provides stability for restaurant owners and protects the hiring potential of our servers and bartenders.

Similarly, H.R. 4366, the Save Local Business Act, restores the joint employer standard that served our economy for decades.

The Obama and Biden administrations weaponized the National Labor Relations Board to target the franchise model, creating a scheme that cost the franchising sector an estimated $33 billion annually. By codifying that an employer must exercise direct, actual, and immediate control over workers, we restore the certainty that small business owners, contractors, and franchisees need to grow and hire more.

Finally, we must protect the hard-earned savings of the American people.

H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, ensures that Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, fiduciaries are focused on one thing, the financial bottom line.

We cannot allow woke fiduciaries to gamble with a worker's pension to satisfy a political agenda. This bill reinforces the duties of loyalty and ensures that investment decisions are based solely on maximizing returns for the benefit of the retiree and not a social experiment.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the regulatory noise coming out of Washington. They want a government that works for them, not against them. These five bills deliver on our promise to cut red tape, empower families, and protect the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify a few things, one in particular about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The narrative that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only gives tax cuts to billionaires is just false. The bill cuts taxes for working-class families who need it most. As a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the top 1 percent will pay more in Federal taxes than they did before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

It ends $500 billion in Biden-era tax breaks and special interest giveaways to wealthy individuals and large corporations. It stops a Biden-era $1,700 tax increase.

Working families making between $15,000 and $30,000 will have their taxes cut by 21 percent under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Mr. Speaker, 66 percent of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's tax cuts benefit families making less than $500,000. Just because they keep saying it doesn't make it true. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act does help working families.

Mr. Speaker, I do have to address, because my colleague has decided to bring ICE into this debate, or this discussion, regarding small businesses and help that we may be able to give small businesses. I just want to give a few examples of what ICE is actually doing in Minnesota, because I am someone who is here from Minnesota.

They have arrested a registered sex offender from Somalia with 17 prior convictions, including domestic violence and threatening terroristic acts.

They have arrested an illegal El Salvadoran alien convicted of sexual assault on a child.

They have arrested an illegal alien from Mexico convicted of selling cocaine and methamphetamine and multiple illegal aliens from Laos convicted of rape, assault, kidnapping, and sodomy of children under the age of 13 and domestic violence.

They have arrested convicted murderers from Mexico, Sudan, Burma, Laos, Sierra Leone, Guatemala, Somalia, and El Salvador.

That is what ICE is doing in Minnesota. They are making it safer for everyday people.

I ask my colleague to simply allow the investigation to take place over what happened last week and to stop the inflammatory rhetoric that is unnecessary at this point.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but I feel like I need to repeat myself and remind others about what ICE is actually doing in Minnesota. They have arrested a registered sex offender from Somalia with 17 prior convictions, including domestic violence and threatening terrorist acts, and convicted murderers from Mexico, Sudan, Burma, Laos, Guatemala, and Somalia. I wish I didn't have to continue to repeat myself about what ICE is really doing. What ICE is about is making sure that our streets are safer.

As for the claim about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act not doing what it is supposed to and only giving tax cuts to

billionaires, I had mentioned, I had explained what actually happened in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I would ask the other side, I would just ponder or wonder out loud why they didn't do it in their Inflation Reduction Act. If it was that important, when they were in control and they passed the Inflation Reduction Act, why didn't they do all of these things that they talk about being so important right now?

It is a little confusing when they continue to repeat. They believe that if they just continue to say the same thing over and over and over and over, it makes it true, and it does not, if you take a look at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and what ICE is doing in Minnesota.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will clear up some of the rhetoric on H.R. 2270. It is called the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, but just to make it clear, this bill makes it easier for employers to provide childcare benefits for their employees.

It excludes childcare and eldercare benefits from the regular rate calculation for overtime, so we remove a major financial barrier for some small business owners who want to help their employees actually balance work and family life. It would be a helpful thing for those employers and employees to help provide childcare.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to get back to actually addressing the rules and the bills that are before us, instead of listening to Democrat talking points over and over.

I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during this debate. It seems that they are once again choosing to prioritize Federal bureaucracy and woke social agendas over the actual needs of the American worker.

They claim to be the party of the worker. Yet, they oppose H.R. 2262, which simply increases opportunities for hourly employees to voluntarily take training classes to better their careers. They claim to support families. Yet, they oppose H.R. 2270, a bill that makes it easier for small businesses to offer childcare benefits.

The American people are tired of a government that treats every voluntary interaction between an employer and employee as a potential crime. They are tired of the 80-20 rules that make it harder for small businesses. They are tired of joint employer standards that were designated by union lawyers in Washington to destroy the franchise model that has provided a path for the American Dream for millions.

With H.R. 4366, the Save Local Businesses Act, we are finally bringing stability back to our Main Streets. We are telling the small business owners in my district and across the country that if they do not have direct, actual control over the worker, the Federal Government is not going to pretend they do just to satisfy a political agenda.

We cannot ignore the retirement security of our constituents. H.R. 2988 is a commonsense safeguard. When an American worker hands over their hard-earned paycheck to a fiduciary, they expect that money to be invested to maximize their return and not to fund a political experiment or a green energy fantasy. This bill ensures that pecuniary factors are the only things driving retirement investments.

The legislation in this package represents a fundamental shift back to the principles that made our country and our economy strong, which are clarity, flexibility, and individual opportunity. We are removing regulatory hurdles that have stifled upward mobility for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to put the interests of the American worker, the small business owner, and the retiree ahead of the interests of Washington bureaucrats. I am proud to support this rule, and I am glad that I was able to speak about the rule and about the

bills, instead of talking points. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 988 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 20) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the

Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce

or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to

recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX

shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 20.

Sec. 7. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message

that the House has passed H.R. 20 no later than three

calendar days after passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act. It is actually the tipped employer protection act.

Today, we are discussing one of several bills that House Republicans claim will benefit workers but ultimately falls short of what workers need.

H.R. 2312 would redefine the Fair Labor Standards Act, the FLSA, to make workers more vulnerable to wage theft and give employers an excuse not to pay workers what they are otherwise owed.

Under present law, the FLSA allows employers to take a tip credit only if employees are in jobs where they regularly and customarily earn at least $30 a month in tips. If workers split their time between jobs that regularly earn tips and jobs that don't, such as one shift as a restaurant server and another as a restaurant line cook, the employer can apply the tip credit today only to the tip-earning shifts.

This bill would tear down that distinction.

Ultimately, the bill seeks to expand the pool of workers that employers can pay a subminimum wage rather than the full wage. This is problematic because tipped workers are paid less per hour and have less access to benefits such as sick leave, healthcare, short-term disability, and life insurance.

In fact, the Federal tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour. Instead of giving workers a leg up, this bill offers bad actors an opportunity to cut corners and shortchange their workers.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

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

Mr. Speaker, we received a letter from the Union SEIU, which says in part that this bill, the so-called Tipped Employee Protection Act, would amend Federal minimum wage and overtime law by broadening the definition of tipped employee and increasing the employer's power to move workers in and out of tipped employee status, including allowing employers to decide on a daily or weekly basis whether a worker counts as a tipped worker.

This is a harmful and ill-conceived bill in every possible way. Most tipped workers already struggle to make ends meet. We should be doing away with the subminimum wage for tipped workers, not incentivizing and expanding tipped work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a January 13, 2026, letter from

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a January 13, 2026, letter from the Economic Policy Institute to Speaker Johnson.

January 13, 2026.

Re Opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of

Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and

Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business

Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R.

2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations

dedicated to worker rights and building a just and inclusive

economy write in opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent

Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering

Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local

Business Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and

H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act. If enacted,

these bills would harm workers by weakening longstanding

labor and employment laws, leading to lower pay, reduced

employer accountability, and more precarity.

H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement

Savings Act

The Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act

would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

(ERISA) to block retirement plan fiduciaries from considering

climate change and other environmental, social, and

governance factors when they select retirement investments.

The bill would constrain plan fiduciaries' ability to account

long-term financial risks in their investment decisions,

which would undermine workers' retirement security.

H.R 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions

Act

The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

would exclude child, dependent, and elder care payments from

the rate used to compute overtime compensation for eligible

workers. This would result in workers receiving less overtime

than they are owed under current law, which would in turn

incentivize employers to impose longer workweeks on already

over-worked employees. Further, workers who face longer

workweeks as a consequence of H.R. 2270 would likely

experience higher childcare costs as childcare providers who

operate during nontraditional hours (including evenings and

weekends) tend to cost more. H.R. 2270 would contradict the

basic premise, going back to 1938. that employers should be

deterred from requiring employees to work excessive and

burdensome hours.

H.R. 2262, The Flexibility for Workers Education Act

The Flexibility for Workers Education Act would amend the

Fair Labor Standards Act to excuse employers of their

responsibility to pay workers for trainings or other

professional development opportunities that are outside of

regular work hours. Despite the bill's generous-sounding

title, this bill would not give workers any more flexibility.

Instead, it allows employers to hold trainings and

professional development opportunities after work hours and

not pay workers who attend--as long as the employer does not

say it's required. However, employers can still lead workers

to believe these trainings and professional development

opportunities are required, which would result in workers not

being paid for their time.

H.R 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act

This bill amends the FLSA's definition of ``tipped

employee'', by allowing employers to classify workers as

tipped employees--and thus allow employers to take a tip

credit--if workers receive (1) any amount of tips (2) over a

period of time selected by the employer, (3) regardless of

the employees' duties. Eliminating the requirement that

workers must be ``engaged in an occupation in which he

customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in

tips.'' And allowing employers to choose any time period

would give employers nearly unfettered discretion to re-

classify almost any worker receiving any amount of tips for

any amount of time as tipped employees and pay them a

subminimum wage of $2.13 an hour, including for time spent

doing non-tipped duties. This goes well beyond reversing the

80/20 rule challenged by the restaurant industry and would

only further exacerbate the precarity of workers in an

industry that already includes many of the nation's lowest-

paid occupations and suffers from already high rates of wage

theft. If Congress truly wants to protect tipped workers, it

should pass the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the

federal minimum wage floor and gradually phase out the

subminimum wage for tipped workers.

H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act

The ``Save Local Business Act'' would ensure that trillion-

dollar corporations like Amazon can use subcontracting and

outsourcing arrangements to escape accountability to their

workers. Businesses have long relied on subcontracting

arrangements--such as hiring workers through temporary

staffing agencies--to avoid their responsibility to comply

with the FLSA and NLRA, even though they maintain power to

control working conditions and that the workers are integral

to their business. These contracting work-arounds were

present when the FLSA and NLRA were passed in the 1930's, and

versions of this outsourcing are used today by companies.

Indeed, businesses across the economy--including in labor-

intensive and low-paid sectors like construction, home and

health care, janitorial and

building services, hotels and hospitality, and warehousing

and logistics--use similar contracting arrangements to

insulate themselves from accountability. Limiting employer

accountability and enabling corporations to avoid

responsibility for violations of workers' rights under the

FLSA and the NLRA will hasten race-to-the-bottom on labor

standards, with businesses that treat their workers fairly

finding it harder to compete.

Should H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of

Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and Elder

Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act; H.R.

2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R. 2262,

Flexibility for Workers Education Act be brought to the

floor, we strongly urge all Members of Congress to vote No.

With any questions, please reach out to Charlotte Dodge,

National Employment Law Project; Sam Sanders, Economic Policy

Institute or Michelle Feit, National Partnership for Women &

Families.

Sincerely,

Economic Policy Institute.

National Employment Law Project.

National Partnership for Women & Families.

Mr. Speaker, this is an open invitation for employers, particularly those involving restaurants and hotels, to lower their employees' wages by combining traditionally tipped occupations with nontipped occupations. For example, they will be able to put a line cook on the floor for a few hours a day and then apply the tip credit to all of the hours that the employee works.

Tipped workers already are paid less per hour and have less access to benefits such as paid sick leave, healthcare, short-term disability and life insurance, and under this bill employers would be given a pass to not pay workers what they otherwise would have been owed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't provide any additional child or elder care.

What it does is take money out of people's pockets because, under current law, employers must pay hourly workers time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. That overtime rate is based on a worker's regular rate of pay, which includes not only the cash payment but also non-wage compensation and presently includes the value of child or dependent care services when employers decide to provide them as part of the benefit package.

Existing law already provides incentives for these benefits, allowing employers to deduct them as a cost of doing business and offering tax preferences for certain child and dependent care assistance.

This bill would change the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude the value of these services from the regular rate used to calculate overtime.

Despite its name, the bill does not require employers to provide any child or elder care. Instead, it just reduces the cost of overtime if they provide it. That is the problem. In practice, this bill encourages employers to keep workers on the job longer rather than expanding access to affordable care. It increases the time away from families while offering no assurance that any support for childcare will be provided. Workers who already receive these benefits will see their overtime pay reduced.

There is no evidence that these workers who do not receive this benefit are likely to get the benefit. The only group we know for certain will be affected is those who already have it, and they will lose money on overtime. That makes no sense. I don't know how that solves anything.

I would hope that we would not reduce workers' pay. To do that, we have to oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is a distinguished member of the Education and Workforce Committee and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage people to support the motion to recommit, which would actually create childcare availability.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO which says, in part: `` . . . there is no evidence that reducing the overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or elder care.''

AFL-CIO, Legislative Alert,

January 12, 2026.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 15 million workers

and 64 affiliate unions represented by the AFL-CIO, I urge

you to oppose the following anti-worker bills scheduled for

consideration on the House floor this week: the Flexibility

for Workers Education Act (H.R. 2262), the Empowering

Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act (H.R. 2270), and

the Tipped Employee Protection Act (H.R. 2312).

H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act, would let

employers require workers to attend job-related training

without paying them for that time. The bill allows employers

to label training as ``voluntary,'' even when workers feel

pressured to attend to keep their jobs or advance, and

removes current protections that ensure training closely tied

to a worker's job is paid. As a result, employers could push

essential training outside of regular work hours and off the

clock, increasing unpaid work for low-wage workers.

H.R. 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care

Solutions Act, would exclude from the calculation of an

employee's regular wage rate any employer reimbursement for

child or elder care when calculating an employee's overtime

rate of pay. Under this bill, employees who receive these

reimbursements would see their overtime wage rate cut.

Reducing a worker's overtime earnings will not help them

afford the cost of child or elder care. Instead, it will make

life harder. And there is no evidence that reducing the

overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread

willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or

elder care. Workers need both decent wages and access to

affordable child and elder care. There are ways to achieve

the latter without attacking the former.

H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would change

federal wage law in a way that makes pay more unstable for

many low-wage workers by allowing employers to treat almost

any worker as a ``tipped employee'' if they receive even

small or occasional tips over a time period the employer

chooses, whether that is a single day or an entire month.

This could allow employers to pay the tipped subminimum wage

to workers such as baristas, hotel staff, delivery drivers,

salon workers, stadium staff, and other service workers who

do not regularly earn tips. For example, a worker who waits

tables would be paid the full minimum wage for non-tipped

cooking shifts, but under this bill the employer could

average tips earned earlier in the week and use them to

justify paying $2.13 an hour for cooking shifts as well,

which would cut weekly pay. By weakening existing rules that

limit when the tip credit can be used, the bill would result

in reduced take-home pay for workers, give employers greater

control over how workers are classified and paid, make it

harder for workers to know if they are being paid correctly,

and increase the risk of wage theft in industries where it is

already common.

Collectively, these bills nickel and dime workers' pay at a

time when so many struggle to afford the basics. Wages should

be raised, not cut. Please vote no on H.R. 2262, H.R. 2270,

and H.R. 2312.

Sincerely,

Jody Calemine,

Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to solve, as I said, the elder or childcare crisis in this country. It does not create affordable care, and it does not guarantee a single new benefit for working families.

What it does do is reduce overtime pay for workers who already receive these benefits while encouraging employers to keep people at work longer without fully paid compensation. That means more time away from loved ones, less money in workers' pockets, and probably more need for childcare.

If we are serious about supporting families, then Congress should be expanding access to affordable care, not cutting wages under the guise of helping workers. We could really do some help by supporting the motion to recommit and passing the Child Care for Working Families Act. That would actually lower costs for families and create childcare opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we would support the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2312) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise the definition of the term ``tipped employee'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2312.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, America's labor law hasn't kept up with the times. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs much of our modern workforce policy and regulations, was written in 1938 and has never been updated to meaningfully protect tipped workers.

As a result, tipped workers are not clearly defined or protected under the law. This leaves their jobs vulnerable to the whims of administrative regulations, court rulings, and too often unclear guidance written by unelected bureaucrats that inconsistently interpret the rights of tipped workers. That creates chaos for millions of workers.

The Biden-Harris administration was perhaps the most striking example of government overreach and the harm it can do to working families' bottom lines. Its disastrous 80/20 rule required that no more than 20 percent of the work performed by tipped employees could be categorized as untipped work, and those untipped tasks could only be performed for 30 minutes at a time.

Basically, this required minute-by-minute manager supervision to ensure workers were complying with the rule. Anyone in the service industry would tell you in a high-paced environment like a restaurant or bar that is next to impossible, but because tipped workers had no clear definition or proper protections under the FLSA, the Biden-Harris administration was free to try and impose overly complex timekeeping requirements that were impossible to enforce.

For several years, this created an enormous headache for small businesses like restaurants that heavily relied on tipped workers. Even worse, such convoluted timekeeping requirements directly impact how much pay Americans take home.

Like many of my colleagues, I want to see Americans rewarded for their hard work and ensure they are paid what they earn. That is why I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, which creates stability for tipped workers and preserves opportunities for them to earn a good wage.

The bill creates a clear, commonsense definition of a tipped worker and prevents future attempts by misguided activist judges and bureaucrats seeking to implement policies that hurt workers' bottom lines.

The Tipped Employee Protection Act also ensures workers earn at least the minimum wage, and the bill respects States' authority to set higher wage levels. This creates even more opportunities for tipped workers to earn more, often far above the minimum wage.

As we have discussed at length in the Education and Workforce Committee, Federal policy far too often treats a State like California the same as Michigan or Arkansas. One-size-fits-all rarely works.

The bill also preserves the current tip credit system, which workers across the country overwhelmingly support--90 percent. This is just one of the ways Republicans are helping tipped workers earn more.

As part of the working families tax cuts, Republicans enacted landmark policies like no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, which put more money back into the working family's pockets.

Republicans are working hard to deliver solutions that help Americans thrive. H.R. 2312 puts more money back in workers' pockets and eases the burden on employers by removing needless Federal regulations.

I am proud to support the Tipped Employee Protection Act. Congress should make it clear that we are working to help put more money back in tipped workers' pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the millions of workers who will benefit from it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the sponsor of this good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner), a great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's talk facts again. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets the Federal minimum wage, as well as a separate minimum wage, for tipped workers. This recognizes the reality that tipped workers have a higher earning ceiling when tips are combined with base wages, representing an employee's total compensation.

There is no limit to the amount one can earn as a tipped worker, so long as the employer is not forced to cut jobs or close businesses. That is the reality.

If small restaurants were all required to pay the full Federal minimum wage to all tipped workers, as my Democrat colleagues suggest, on top of a complete elimination of the overall tip credit system, which has also been supported by my Democrat colleagues, there wouldn't be very many small restaurants remaining at the end of it all.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government should not micromanage businesses by setting requirements that cannot be enforced such as the Biden- Harris administration's 80/20 rule. This required employers to monitor tasks of tipped workers minute by minute. It sure gives incentive to have less employees.

I can think of many better ways to utilize a Wage and Hour inspector's valuable time than harassing restaurants about their bartenders helping out cooks, hosts, and other nontipped employees, all who often work in a fast-paced environment.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that our Nation's workers deserve to be compensated fairly. H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, meaningfully updates the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure tipped workers can take home what they earn, and small businesses are not micromanaged by Federal regulators.

Too often, the political whims of Washington have hurt tipped workers. Their earnings have been hurt instead of boosting them. H.R. 2312 puts an end to this and shields workers from the misguided actions of unelected bureaucrats.

I am proud of the work my Republican colleagues and I have done this Congress to implement policies like no tax on tips that let working Americans and tipped workers keep more of what they make.

I urge my colleagues to support the Tipped Employee Protection Act and help put more money back into American families' pockets.

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