Save Local Business Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, 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 in the Record on H.R. 1041, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 1041, as amended, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

The choice before the House today is clear: whether those who defended our freedom deserve the same constitutional protection as nonveterans.

This past February, President Trump and Secretary Collins answered that question with a resounding yes.

VA overturned a longstanding policy of automatically reporting veterans and beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also called NICS, simply because they needed help managing their VA benefits.

VA reported them not because they committed a crime or because a judge or a medical professional determined they were a danger to themselves or others. VA reported them to NICS simply because they needed help managing their benefits. That was the policy for over three decades, Mr. Speaker.

I have been working on this issue for 10 years because I know that this interpretation of the law is wrong. That is why I have long- championed this bill, as well as my bipartisan provision in this, the yearly VA appropriation bill, to prohibit VA's fiduciary program from reporting veterans' names to NICS.

This is a bill about due process. Most importantly, it is about protecting our veterans' Second Amendment rights. It is time we put a permanent end to the practice of treating our veterans' Second Amendment rights as an option and pass H.R. 1041.

This bill would codify the policy rider that was included in the MILCON appropriation bill that passed the House last week.

As a veteran and sportsman, I believe it is a gross violation of due process to say that a veteran with a fiduciary should be treated as a second-class citizen. Our veterans raise their right hands to defend the constitutional rights of American citizens. I know because I was one of them, and I took that responsibility seriously.

Yet, when the question came before our committee on whether it would defend their rights, Ranking Member Takano and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact that some Members in this Chamber plan to defend this discriminatory practice. Generally, a civilian cannot lose their Second Amendment rights without involvement from a judge, but veterans did for three decades. Democrats would prefer they continue to.

A veteran goes to the VA to ask for help, and the VA bureaucracy answers ``yes,'' but only in exchange for your Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, that is not due process. This is an antigun, antiveteran agenda. If a veteran poses a legitimate threat to themselves or others, judges already have legal tools available to them. Let me say that again. Judges already have legal tools available to them. A veteran should receive the same rights as every other American.

There is also something else that I want to raise: the false assumption that disabled veterans are dangerous and the harmful assumption that the capacity to manage your finances has any bearing on dangerousness or that you are dangerous, as well. Those sorts of cartoon-like simplifications cause those with disabilities to face extra hurdles when exercising their rights. It is unacceptable, and, as a veteran, I am not going to stand for it anymore.

There is no evidence that these veterans are more dangerous to themselves or others simply because they need help managing their benefits. Holding veterans to the evidence-less standard is outrageous. Frankly, it paints the veterans' mental health issues in a way that should concern everyone. Over 200,000 veterans were reported to the NICS list under this practice. Let me say it again: 200,000 veterans.

Secretary Collins and President Trump worked with DOJ to change that, wiping the list clean. I want to be clear that no person, veteran or otherwise, reported to NICS by a State judge, law enforcement agency, or other reporting bodies for any other reason was removed.

At committee markup, Democrats also offered amendment after amendment designed to delay and weaken this bill. They wanted more studies.

Mr. Speaker, I am tired after 10 years of delays. Democrats want a system where veterans are presumed guilty and a system where veterans are forced to prove their innocence.

In America, constitutional rights are God-granted rights. Veterans should never have to choose between assistance and preserving their constitutional rights, and veterans with disabilities should not be discriminated against.

This Congress has a responsibility to protect veterans' rights just as fiercely as they protect any other American's rights.

This Memorial Day, let us not just remember those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us also remember the freedoms and the people who they sacrificed it for.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 1041, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I find this argument offensive, that veterans with fiduciaries are dangerous. This is simply not true. There is no evidence provided that veterans with fiduciaries are any more violent, suicidal, or dangerous than nonveterans.

Yet, Democrats continue to push the idea that veterans who need help managing their finances should be treated as though they were presumed dangerous. Now, he can say that that is not the case, but there are over 200,000 people who would argue differently.

Incompetence in financial ability is not and should not be something that should take away your Second Amendment right. Yes, veterans struggle with suicide and mental health greater than the rest of the population. Yes, those financial hardships often face negative thoughts, but the problem facing the veterans are separate and distinct.

They deserve to be treated as such. That is why we have a VA that spans everything from healthcare to benefits. If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, there are medical and legal professionals who can stand by and address these issues just like it is for those people who are nonveterans. H.R. 1041 does not change that fact. It simply dispels harmful stereotypes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who has been a veteran who served beside veterans, his combat brothers and sisters, and knows what veterans face.

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

I think we should go ahead and listen to what was actually said whenever we said that they actually were having some mental problems, the issue where the ranking member actually said that we only take it away and then they have an appeals process, and that that appeals process is a great appeals process. Mr. Speaker, 240,000 veterans have had their rights taken away, and through the appeals process, less than 800 got them back--less than 800.

He also said that some of them might not want to have their Second Amendment rights. There is nothing in our Constitution that forces you to use your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights do not become less important simply because ignoring them is convenient.

In fact, moments like these are when the constitutional protection matters the most. My colleagues say we should respond with more studies. That is what they want, more studies. A peer-reviewed study is not standing for the rights granted to every American citizen of our Nation. Who should keep their rights more than the people who stood up and fought for them?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to what the previous speaker just said.

She explained that if someone has a mental health condition or someone has these other concerns, that she would offer an amendment to that. However, let me explain to you that if we grant them their constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, they already have that ability.

They already have that ability and their constitutional rights would be treated exactly the same as a person that does not serve in the military and does not go to the VA.

Someone can see that if they had a problem, then they could take and raise that before a judge, not before a bureaucrat.

Let me explain this again. This is not about gun rights. This is not about dealing with our veterans that might commit suicide or anyone else that might commit suicide. This is about the constitutional right of a veteran who has fought for those rights that a bureaucrat has the power to take away their ability to have that Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution.

Now, they might not agree with that Second Amendment and that has been debated here several times. But now to continue to carry on and use this law to take away the rights of people who fought for their rights, how ridiculous is that? How ridiculous is it going to be to go back for Memorial Day and tell their veterans, I was there for you. We took away your rights. I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats claim that H.R. 1041, as amended, would harm vulnerable veterans. That is simply false, but just don't take my word for it. Organizations who represent millions of veterans and their families support this. In fact, the bill is supported by The American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, Mission Roll Call, the Black Veterans Empowerment Council. All of these groups, and countless others, veterans organizations across this Nation support this piece of legislation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and many others. Why? It is because they understand that this is about the rights of the men and women who stood in the gap to make sure you can keep yours.

This bill is also supported by Second Amendment groups, including: Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Importantly, H.R. 1041, as amended, is supported by the civil liberties groups and organizations who advocate for the elderly and those with disabilities, including the American Civil Liberties Union, not necessarily a conservative group, the National Disability Rights Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the Disability Rights, Education & Defense Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, and even Ranking Member Takano can admit that it is not every day that many of these groups come united together, especially probably the NRA and the ACLU. Their support shows how discriminatory the practice that the VA has been doing for over the last three decades has been by reporting to the next unit anyone who seeks fiduciary help from the VA.

Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have spoken on the Democrat side of the aisle would carry other laws that would take away your Second Amendment right.

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the gun law here, though I would. I am arguing the rights of our veterans for due process, the same as someone who never raised their hand. Why should someone have their rights improperly and without due process be taken away because they chose to stand up for this Nation?

I am going to tell you this wasn't for political purposes. I have been carrying this bill for a long time. This weekend, you are going to have to go back to your districts, and you are going to have to talk about the fact that: I am there for you, my veterans. Thank you. I am there for you, but I don't think you are worth your constitutional rights, even though you served to defend them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that has wrongly occurred in this Nation for way too long. I thank the administration for getting it straightened out. We are not saying that someone that is a veteran and is a danger to themselves or a danger to other people can't go through the process like everybody else and say, okay, we do need to go ahead and look over their ability to have that Second Amendment right. That is why we have the NICS list. But whenever the NICS list is overburdened, matter of fact, with our veterans at the percentage that it is, something is wrong. Something is wrong. This bill has been a longtime coming.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from many of those organizations that I mentioned previously: The American Legion, National Disability Rights Network, National Rifle Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Civil Liberties Union.

The American Legion,

Office of the National Commander,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2025.

Hon. Mike Bost,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bost: On behalf of the American Legion 1.5

million dues paying members, I write to express our full

support for H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection

Act, as amended.

This legislation is a necessary step toward restoring the

constitutional rights of countless veterans who, despite

having honorably served our nation, have been unjustly denied

their Second Amendment rights. For far too long, veterans who

required the assistance of a fiduciary for managing VA

benefits--often due to physical or age-related issues--were

reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check

System (NICS) without any due process or judicial review.

These individuals were wrongfully categorized as mentally

defective, not based on a court ruling, but simply on

administrative decisions by the Department of Veterans

Affairs.

H.R. 1041 corrects this miscarriage of justice by

prohibiting the VA from transmitting personally identifiable

information to the Department of Justice for inclusion in

NICS unless a judge or magistrate has determined the

individual to be a danger to themselves or others. This

preserves the fundamental principle of due process--an

essential safeguard for any constitutional right, especially

one as central as the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill rightly recognizes that being assigned a fiduciary

does not equate to being a danger to oneself or others and

therefore should not serve as grounds to restrict firearm

ownership. Importantly, this legislation requires the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Attorney General

that the basis for all prior reporting of veterans to NICS

solely due to fiduciary status does not apply or no longer

applies. This notification will, in turn, trigger the FBI to

update the NICS database accordingly ensuring that those who

were wrongfully reported will be removed. It is critical to

note that veterans who are on the NICS list for other

legitimate legal reasons, such as a state court finding

dangerousness, will remain unaffected by this correction.

This bill does not jeopardize public safety. Instead, it

upholds the balance between protecting communities and

respecting the rights of those who served our country with

courage and sacrifice. The assumption that a veteran is

incapable or dangerous simply because they require fiduciary

assistance is not only unfounded--it is deeply disrespectful

and discriminatory.

We urge members of Congress to support and pass the

Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act to ensure that no

veteran is stripped of their rights without a fair and

impartial judicial process.

For God and Country,

James A. LaCoursiere,

National Commander.

Mr. Speaker, my message to all Members is really clear: Support this bill. Support the constitutional rights of those people who fought for those constitutional rights for you.

As I said, this has gone on long enough. I think that a person who knows and understands this issue will stand up for their veterans and support 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 today in strong opposition to this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country, so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consider this bill now is not lost on me.

They are here, once again, putting politics above policy, only this time Republicans are playing political games with the lives of veterans.

It goes without saying that there is a mental health crisis in this country. Americans of all stripes lack access to the resources necessary to properly care for their mental health--or fail to fully realize them--and they suffer because of this crisis.

Veterans are certainly no exception, and they face additional challenges due to service-connected mental health conditions. Many veterans can access mental health care through the VA, but those not connected to VA care may face additional challenges seeking resources and support.

Unfortunately, because of cheap, easy access to firearms in this country, our Nation's mental health crisis is one of the many contributors to the epidemic of suicide and gun violence in America.

Again, veterans are not immune to that, and where those two issues converge, veterans and their communities suffer the consequences.

Let me just cite a few examples: Lewiston, Maine; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs and Fort Hood, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Jasper, Georgia; and countless others. The absolute tragedy of veteran suicide remains persistent.

Despite our best efforts, the rate of veteran suicide has not declined as far and as fast as we would like it to. More than 6,500 veterans die by suicide each year, and more than 70 percent of those suicides are deaths by firearms.

In fact, veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide using a firearm than their nonveteran peers. So why, knowing all of that, do we find ourselves debating a bill today that will only lead to more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable veterans in VA care? The answer is pure and simple: politics.

This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is about Republicans invoking their favorite political shield whenever they need to distract from their failure to govern. They have brought versions of this bill to the floor and in committee. They have brought it up again and again for nearly a decade and usually when they want an election-year fight, not a serious veterans policy debate.

Veterans should know exactly what is happening here. The majority is using the Second Amendment as branding for a bill that has nothing to do with veterans losing rights for seeking care. That is not happening.

What is happening is that Republicans are stoking fear, feeding stigma, and using vulnerable veterans as props in a political fight. More specifically, Republicans desire to invoke the sacred Second Amendment and use the issue of access to firearms for political gain, and that is what is driving this conversation.

That they would do so by endangering veterans' lives is disgusting to me, and it should be to them, as well. What we will hear from Republicans is that fear of having their Second Amendment rights encroached upon leads to a reluctance of veterans to seek mental health care. That is true, but that very fear is being stoked by the stage that they have set for today's debate.

The constant refrain from Republicans that the VA will take your guns away if you seek help is what is fueling the harmful stigma. Under no circumstances does seeking mental health care at the VA lead to a loss of rights or firearms, and if the Republicans were interested in the truth, they would acknowledge that.

We will hear from the majority and we have heard from them already that veterans' due process rights are being violated and that veterans are having their rights stripped away unconstitutionally by bureaucrats at the VA. Again, not true and false on many fronts.

There is robust due process built into the VA's systems that passes constitutional muster. We are going to hear from Republicans that the VA's decision to assign someone a fiduciary and subsequently add their name to the NICS list is based on whether someone can balance their checkbook or whether they can manage their benefits. Again, another blatant falsehood.

The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs. Let me say that again: The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs.

It is documented in medical records by a clinician, not just some what they would call a bureaucrat. It is documented in medical records by a clinician and interpreted by someone trained in reading those medical records. At no point is anyone just given a mere math test.

Mr. Speaker, at times I feel like we are screaming into the void regarding gun violence. How many more preventable deaths and injuries will we tolerate? How many veterans will we let languish in a spiral that leads to it? When will we stop political posturing and start making meaningful change to actually help veterans?

This bill is certainly not accomplishing that task. Unfortunately, my counterparts have lost sight of the truth at the heart of this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is the veterans' health and safety.

The majority wants veterans to believe that this debate is about protecting constitutional rights. It is not. It is about recycling a decade-old talking point, stoking fear about VA care, and hiding behind the Second Amendment because they do not have a serious governing agenda.

Today, we are debating this bill, and I want you to remember that the rhetoric of the majority is not based on the reality of the situation but, rather, it is based on their desire to use veterans as pawns in their election-year political games.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address this issue of who is actually in the fiduciary program. Let's talk a moment about the population that this bill is intended to cover, those who are actually in the fiduciary program.

These are veterans with severe illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, significant traumatic brain injury,

post-traumatic stress, bipolar disorder, and dementia. These are people who meet the level of injury or illness criteria such that they cannot manage their personal affairs, not just their checkbook.

I have heard this argument over and over again by the majority. Oh, people are being denied, veterans are being denied access to firearms because they can't balance their checkbook. No, no, no. This is not to be reduced to that talking point.

We should be looking to these veterans with care and compassion. We should look at how to better serve their needs regarding access to consistent care and treatment. All these disorders are associated with elevated risk of dangerousness to self and others--suicide in particular--especially when combined with a host of other factors that are actually concentrated in the veterans population.

Moreover, we also know empirically that veterans who are found to have poor financial management abilities are also two times more likely to have substance abuse disorders, suicidal ideation, or engage in violent behavior and be in the justice system.

Drawing a distinction between those who simply cannot balance their checkbook and those who are more explicitly dangerous to themselves or others is not warranted and, in fact, could cause more veterans to slip through the cracks.

It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program. I, for one, would like to know more about the veterans that are in the fiduciary program.

This bill addresses none of those data gaps, which is one of its many flaws. Instead of seeking to understand who is in this population, the majority rejects any attempt to know more about them.

The majority suggests that there are veterans on the fiduciary list who don't have the opportunity to get off that list, that there is a lack of a robust appeals process. He cites 200,000 veterans being named in this list because they are assigned a fiduciary and cites that there is only maybe a couple of folks who have ever appealed. He cites that as a failure of the appeals process, but maybe it is the other way around. Maybe it is not really what veterans want to do who are on this list. I would like to know that for sure, and we could study that, but the majority has rejected all attempts.

There is very limited information publicly available about the population of veterans deemed to be financially incompetent who have historically been reported to the NICS list and whether they, on average, have elevated rates of suicidality or violence.

We have no data on the desired beneficiaries in the fiduciary program to purchase or own firearms. We don't even know if people on this list actually want to own firearms.

We have no data on why beneficiaries are failing to utilize the due process afforded to them in the system already.

We have no data on if fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help or if other factors are more important.

In other words, the claim that fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help is a claim being made that has not been borne out by any sort of research or study.

We also don't know the long-term mental health outcomes of those in the fiduciary program.

Democrats in the past have offered amendments to address all of these data gaps, and they were universally rejected by the majority because, again, this is not about policymaking to them. This is not about really trying to understand what we can do to help veterans.

What Republicans have put forth here today is a philosophical debate about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment, and they have made this argument in the absence of data to push legislation without safeguards that will have real-life consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I want to try to bring us back down to Earth and dispel the rumors that those on the other side of the aisle can't help themselves but to spread.

We have heard that H.R. 1041 is a matter of restoring veterans' due process rights, that it is a matter of veterans losing their guns if they need a little help with their finances, and that veterans are stripped of their rights to bear arms for life by unelected VA bureaucrats. None of this is true.

Veterans are not having their weapons taken away if they utilize VA mental health care. Under no circumstances is VA traipsing around the country confiscating firearms.

This is a story that needs to stop being told. I would encourage my colleagues to stop intentionally spreading misinformation.

The Veterans Health Administration, where veterans would be receiving care, has absolutely no role in this process and absolutely no communication with the Department of Justice or the NICS list.

Veterans can and should go to VHA, the Veterans Health Administration, and the VA medical centers for care without fear.

Stop spreading the false fear or the false basis for fear. Start telling the truth.

The truth is that there is robust due process present in this program. A veteran can appeal the assignment of a fiduciary and their subsequent reporting to NICS both before and after the fact, including in Federal court.

I will note, though, that VA data indicates that not many people choose to appeal this decision. That is not because it is too difficult but because it is a pathway that veterans simply are not choosing or simply don't desire.

Again, we are talking about veterans and other beneficiaries who have been injured or made ill in such a way that they cannot make decisions for themselves.

To be clear, this is not something VA launches into without regard.

Veterans in this program have gone through a rigorous, medically- based--medically-based--process to determine their needs for a fiduciary. The decision is not some flippant choice to take away weapons by unelected bureaucrats over a math test as we often hear. An assignment of a fiduciary is done after highly specific criteria are met, and only then, when those criteria are met, does a veteran's name get forwarded to the NCIS database.

However, the majority asks: Why are we treating our veterans like criminals?

Why are we assuming guilt and barring them from obtaining weapons?

This is a rhetorical flourish. It is also fantastical. Veterans are not being treated like criminals. They are being handled in a manner that is commensurate with their medical status as determined by a medical provider in order to protect them and those around them from potential harm.

We have to stop spreading falsehoods and be honest with our veterans. It is inappropriate full stop.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is my good friend and a passionate advocate for gun safety in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my good friend and fellow committee member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously frustrated with what I have heard here today. There has been a lot of lipservice to the concept of due process from my colleagues, which is particularly interesting considering they do not share this same passion for the application of this right elsewhere at VA.

If it wasn't already clear that my colleagues are only here to put on a show, I will remind everyone that even if this bill were to be signed into law today, it would have no effect whatsoever on the processes and procedures at VA.

Why you may ask? This is because in its infinite wisdom, the Department of Justice and VA, have decided to ignore Congress, once again, and unilaterally interpret the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act so as not to apply to VA.

VA isn't even doing the things the majority is accusing them of doing anymore, but sadly, my colleagues have decided it is worth continuing to sow mistruths, distortions, and risk endangering veterans and civilian lives alike by messaging on the backs of beneficiaries who need treatment, not weapons.

Mr. Speaker, we must be steadfast in providing meaningful support to our veterans, not using them as props for political gain as this bill does.

As the chairman said, this is not about gun rights. This is not about gun rights. I would suggest that what this is about is politics.

We must do anything and everything we can to protect the most vulnerable veterans in the VA system and not inject more risk of harm.

For those reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

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.