Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings 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, pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2988) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2988.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, introduced by Representative Rick Allen, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

At its core, this legislation is about one simple principle: Retirement savings should be managed to protect workers' futures and not to advance political agendas.

Over the past several years, the Biden administration pushed a rule that encouraged retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance--ESG--factors, when making investment decisions. That might sound harmless, but in practice, it shifts the focus away from what retirement investing is supposed to be about: maximizing returns and minimizing risk for workers and retirees.

Americans set aside money in their 401(k)'s and pension plans to retire with dignity. They do it so that they can pay their bills, cover medical costs, and support their families. They do not invest their hard-earned savings so that Federal bureaucrats can push ideological priorities.

That is exactly the concern here. ESG investing has become a tool for advancing a broader political agenda. Instead of asking: Is this the best investment for the worker, the ESG framework often asks: Does this investment align with certain social or environmental goals?

Those goals are not what ERISA was created to promote. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, was established to ensure that fiduciaries act in the best interests of plan participants. It requires loyalty, prudence, and a clear focus on financial outcomes that workers rely on.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Biden-Harris rule is that it created permission and, in many cases, pressure for fiduciaries to prioritize ESG factors over the economic interests of participants. When that happens, retirement security is placed at risk.

ESG funds are often more costly and less transparent. In many cases, they underperform compared to traditional options. That means that workers may be paying more and getting less--less growth, less stability, and less certainty about their future.

This is not a theoretical issue. When a fiduciary chooses investments based on nonfinancial criteria, the person paying the price is not the bureaucrat in Washington or the corporate executive on a conference call. The person paying the price is the worker who depends on that retirement account to survive. That is why H.R. 2988 is needed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill restores the proper purpose of retirement investing: financial security. It makes clear that retirement plan decisions must be made based solely on economic factors--things like risk, return, liquidity, and diversification. It also addresses how fiduciaries use shareholder rights, like proxy voting.

Under current practices, some fiduciaries use the shares held in retirement plans to push political policies through proxy votes, whether or not those policies benefit the workers whose money is at stake.

H.R. 2988 stops that. It makes clear that exercising shareholder rights, including proxy votes, must be done in the economic interests of plan participants, not to advance radical political initiatives, not to appease advocacy groups, and not to satisfy trends in the corporate boardrooms.

In addition, the bill strengthens fairness and nondiscrimination in the selection of service providers. It states clearly that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin may not be considered when selecting fiduciaries, counsel, employees, or service providers for ERISA plans. Retirement plan service providers should be chosen on performance and price, not on ideology or race-based preference.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2988 increases transparency for workers. It includes a notice requirement for defined contribution plans that explains the difference between selecting investments chosen by ERISA fiduciaries and selecting investments through a brokerage window.

Why does that matter? It matters because many workers do not realize that when they move money into a brokerage window, they may be stepping outside the protections provided by plan fiduciaries. This bill ensures workers are informed and can make decisions with clarity. In short, H.R. 2988 is a course correction. It protects retirees from financial experimentation. It protects workers from political interference, and it reinforces the idea that retirement plans exist for one reason: to help Americans retire with stability and security.

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

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

H.R. 2988 codifies the principles in the Trump Department of Labor's 2020 rule on retirement plan ESG investing.

Under the bill, as with the 2020 Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a financial factor, then that factor can be considered when investing and exercising shareholder rights.

Nothing in H.R. 2988 prevents a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk of an investment. Like the 2020 Trump rule, H.R. 2988 recognizes that ESG factors can present an economic risk or opportunity, which qualified investment professionals would appropriately treat as material economic considerations under generally accepted investment principles.

H.R. 2988 neutrally applies these principles to all investment decisions.

To suggest this bill bars a fiduciary from appropriately considering any factor that may be material to investment is blatantly false. Unlike the Biden-Harris rule, this legislation ensures neutrality and prudent decisionmaking by fiduciaries.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many claims about the supposed advantages of ESG investing.

Allow me to set the record straight. ESG funds have underperformed for years. According to Morningstar, ESG funds lagged the U.S. Market Index and the S&P 500 in 2023 and 2024. To make matters worse, ESG products charge higher fees to participants than traditional investment funds, which can significantly limit the growth of participants' retirement savings over time.

Finally, according to researchers at George Mason University, ESG funds expose workers and retirees to additional investment risk that traditional investments typically do not face. Increased costs, increased risk, and lackluster returns make for a bad cocktail.

Participants and beneficiaries of employer-sponsored retirement plans rely on the expertise of fiduciaries, who are required by law to act solely in the financial interests of participants. Weakening that expectation to advance partisan ideological objectives is wrong and hurts the safety and stability of Americans.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friends on the other side, many Democrats want to make race and sex the most important factors in choosing ERISA retirement plan service providers. In so doing, they are advocating for blatant race and sex discrimination, which we should all strongly oppose.

Discrimination is never justified, and the use of quotas is inherently discriminatory. ERISA plan service providers must be selected using a prudent and nondiscriminatory process. That is what H.R. 2988 requires.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), the chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee and the sponsor of this good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is vice chair of the Financial Services Committee and extremely well-versed in being able to deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting to a point, I think, that the old adage that everything has been said, just not everyone has said it yet. But with fear of offending that specific adage, I must respectfully, again, address the fact of the misconception that is being put forward about the Biden ESG rule as being neutral. That was, is, and always will be patently false.

The Biden-Harris ESG rule was explicitly intended to advance the left's radical climate and social agenda that harms Americans' retirement and long-term financial well-being. Even though the debate can be made about ESG issues, that is not what we want to see taking place for the best benefit of retirees.

This legislation is needed to combat the Biden rule which was issued in response to not one but two executive orders on climate change. The Biden Labor Department expressly stated that the intended effect of the rule is to loosen restrictions on fiduciaries and encourage them to consider ESG factors in their decisionmaking; to encourage them, not simply allow it, but to encourage them.

The Biden Labor Department's explanation of the rule lists ESG factors that it believes are relevant to investment performance, including impacts to climate change, corporate board composition, and workplace diversity and inclusion.

H.R. 2988 is essential to restore the neutrality of financial factor- only evaluation when investing to protect America's retirement savers.

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.

Let me close with this: H.R. 2988 is about keeping retirement investing focused on what matters--protecting workers and retirees.

The Biden-Harris ESG rule encouraged fiduciaries to consider political and ideological factors in retirement plans, even when that could increase risk and reduce returns. That is unacceptable.

Representative Rick Allen's bill restores the ERISA standard by requiring that investment decisions be based only on economic factors. It ensures proxy voting and shareholder rights are exercised solely in the financial interest of plan participants, not to push radical policies. It bans discrimination in selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. It almost sounds American in its idea. It improves transparency by requiring plans to explain the difference between fiduciary-selected investments and brokerage windows.

This bill puts retirement savers first, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

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

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

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. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act. This bill is premised on the Republicans' mistaken belief that they know best when it comes to investing workers' retirement savings.

Under the present law, the retirement plan fiduciary is required to make prudent investment decisions in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. The bill codifies two rules from the first Trump administration that impose first-of-their-kind restrictions on plan fiduciaries' abilities to consider what are called environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, factors when making investment decisions and exercise shareholder rights.

The appropriate course of action is to permit fiduciaries to consider ESG factors so long as they don't diminish investment returns. As we know, such factors, whether it be sea level rise or poor corporate governance, are relevant to a company's performance. Considering whether a real estate investment will literally be underwater because of sea level rise is not ideology. It is sensible for plan fiduciaries to be permitted to consider such factors and to be able to adopt them if they don't reduce investment returns. That is precisely what the rule from the Biden administration permitted.

Predictably, the Trump administration is walking away from that rule, and now the House is continuing to go in the wrong direction. For example, H.R. 2988 will impose unnecessary barriers to considering things like sea level rise. The supporters are making up some risk, suggesting that some of these funds may be worse than others. I think the studies have shown that they are as good or better, in fact, than others. Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears to be poised to green light what are clearly consensus-held risky investments such as cryptocurrency and put those in retirement plans. That makes no sense at all.

Finally, H.R. 2988 would undermine the worthwhile efforts to increase diversity among asset managers. There are about $82 trillion in financial assets in retirement funds. Only 1.4 percent of those assets are managed by women or minority firms. Women and minorities, represented by two-thirds of the population, they are managing 1.4 percent of the assets.

Now, apparently that creates a problem, and the problem is: How did they get the 1.4 percent? How did the good old boys lose 1.4 percent? So they are going to change the rules to limit access to women- and minority-owned firms. This bill would needlessly undermine what little progress has been made and actually raise questions about what problem we are trying to solve.

We should be trusting our professionals bound by law, not House Republicans to make sound decisions about Americans' retirement savings.

For those reasons, I oppose the bill, and I encourage 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 Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record links to letters in opposition to H.R. 2988: One led by the Americans for Financial Reform and signed by dozens of organizations representing labor, civil rights, environmental, and other relevant policy issues; another from the AFL- CIO; a letter from SIRES; another letter signed by the National Employment Law Project, the Economic Policy Institute, and the National Partnership for Women and Families; one letter from SEIU; and one letter from the U.S. Sustainable Investment Forum. The link is: https:/ /house.app.box.com/s/xpixugm5qpckl4kxrc4h4u55i3to8roy

Mr. Speaker, right now across the country, workers are struggling to pay their bills and meet basic needs, let alone save for retirement. It is incredibly hard for workers to do much on their own for retirement when, according to the Federal Reserve, many would struggle to come up with the money to finance an unexpected $400 expense, such as a car repair or medical bill.

That being the case, it should not be controversial for retirement plan professionals to appropriately weigh environmental, social, and governance factors in their clients' best interests. H.R. 2988 would restrict the fiduciary's ability to consider all relevant factors that might affect investment decisions to the detriment of retirees.

Of course, it has been pointed out that some ESG funds do better, some do worse, just like all other categories of funds. The committee chair's opening statement suggested that ESG funds don't do as well as the S&P 500. The fact is, most funds don't do as well as the S&P 500 index funds, but the other funds are not restricted. A consideration, not a mandate, of ESG factors ought to be allowed.

They said the present law is not neutral. This law is not neutral because if you want to consider environmental possibilities and concerns or governance or other factors like that, extra paperwork is needed, and it is much more difficult to have those considered.

Mr. Speaker, the professionals ought to be able to decide what are the best investments for the retirees, not politicians. For that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment appears to require GAO to submit a report to Congress that compares the returns generated through the brokerage windows with those of other investments available through retirement plans.

Brokerage windows allow plan participants to invest outside the menu of designated investment alternatives available under their plan. Such investments can include mutual funds and, in some cases, individual stocks and bonds.

Of the amendments that were filed at Rules Committee, my Democratic colleagues and I would have preferred one from the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, Mr. DeSaulnier of California, to be made in order. His amendment would have fixed the fundamental flaw of division A of the bill, which simply would have ensured that plan fiduciaries would be permitted to consider ESG investments if they can be done without sacrificing investment returns.

Although I do not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, I do have a couple of observations about it.

First, the effect of this amendment could be accomplished by just writing a letter to GAO, along with the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. That would be faster than sticking it on this bill and hoping the bill passes.

We may draw the conclusion that this amendment was made in order so that the Republican majority could say they have an open process on this flawed bill and avoid yet another criticism of all of their closed rules.

With respect to the substance of the amendment, I am concerned that it needlessly pits two things that are not in conflict, that is, brokerage windows and the plan's designated investments.

My colleagues know, in 2021, the ERISA Advisory Council examined brokerage windows. They noted that fewer than one-third of the retirement plans even offer a brokerage window, and roughly 2 percent of plan participants with access to one actually choose it. When you look at the average brokerage window account, it exceeded over $300,000, which is far greater than what many Americans have in their total retirement funds.

While few people are using the brokerage windows, the ones that do may be interested in exploring funds or stocks that are not affected by their plan. Of those mutual funds that are offered, some may be ESG- themed.

If that is the concern of my colleagues, and if they are banking on the GAO to produce a report that shows ESG-themed funds offered in a brokerage account will underperform, they may be disappointed because researchers at New York University noted that ``empirical studies and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate a positive relationship between ESG integration and financial performance.''

GAO itself has already examined this issue in the past and stated: ``The vast majority, 88 percent, of the scenarios in studies we reviewed . . . reported finding a neutral or positive relationship between the use of ESG information in investment management and financial returns.''

Finally, the gentleman's amendment must be considered alongside the House Republicans' efforts to decimate GAO's budget. Last summer, House Republicans proposed cutting the GAO budget by 50 percent. Fortunately, that was restored in the final version, but it is curious that the House Republicans now want to give the GAO more work after they were so intent on cutting its budget.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it makes much difference whether it passes or not, but I yield back the balance of my time.