Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.

This bill amends the Federal law governing safety, transparency, and integrity in professional boxing, the only professional sport that is federally regulated.

The original law regulating boxing was enacted to end corrupt promoters' abilities to corner the market by locking up top talent and requiring any would-be challengers to surrender their promotional rights or agree to new representation chosen by the promoter. Some particularly powerful promoters allegedly even threatened or bribed sanctioning organizations to manipulate their rankings.

Thanks to current law, those days are over. As a result of that law, boxers at the top of the sport take home approximately 80 percent of the revenue associated with a match.

The bill we are voting on today is the result of bipartisan work that went into improving it. Specifically, Chairman Walberg, Workforce Protections Subcommittee Ranking Member Omar, Representative Stevens, and I came together, identified key issues, and made meaningful fixes to strengthen the legislation. These changes were significant, and the bill we are considering is much better than the version that was introduced.

For example, we improved health and safety protections for fighters, particularly when it comes to brain health, which is an important priority, by adding additional neurological testing.

The bill now ensures that qualified ringside physicians are available, strengthens emergency preparedness by requiring onsite medical personnel, and expands pre-bout medical testing.

We also enhanced boxers' economic security. We increased minimum insurance coverage for injuries, added accidental death coverage, and raised the minimum compensation per round.

We also took steps to protect the integrity of the sport. The bill now incorporates consistent antidoping standards, increases drug testing, and begins to address the problem of too many championship titles diluting competition.

We added protections for fighters under contract by limiting contract length, ensuring opportunities to compete will be compensated, and giving boxers a fair chance to pursue other opportunities.

These practical, bipartisan improvements are a significant win for boxers' health and well-being, as well as their economic futures.

As the bill moves forward in the legislative process, the Senate can and should build on the progress we have made in the House and continue to improve this legislation before it becomes law.

For example, the Senate could ensure enforceability of the Boxing Act's rights by prohibiting any contract between a boxer and a UBO or boxing service provider, including clauses that bar class action proceedings or mandates to bring disputes to private arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and thank the authors, Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas and Brian Jack of Georgia, for their work on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a senior member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is far better today because of the bipartisan work that went into it.

Together, we have improved safety standards, strengthened financial protections, and added important safeguards for fighters.

These changes will help ensure that boxers are better protected both in and out of the ring and that the sport moves forward with greater integrity and accountability.

As all the speakers on this side have mentioned, there is more work that could be done to strengthen the bill, especially as it pertains to private right of action and binding arbitration. This bill has come a long way and is significantly improved from its introduced version.

I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th birthday of Dr. Andrew Billingsley. As the representative of Virginia's 3rd Congressional District, I have the honor of representing Dr. Billingsley's alma mater, Hampton University, known in his time as the Hampton Institute. After serving in the Army during World War II, Dr. Billingsley began his academic journey at Hampton where he served on student council. Ultimately, he transferred to Grinnell College, where he earned his bachelor's degree in political science.

He went on to earn master's degrees in social services and sociology from Boston University and the University of Michigan, respectively, and a doctoral degree in social policy and research from Brandeis University in 1964. Dr. Billingsley then brought his expertise to higher education, serving at the University

of California, Berkeley, and Howard University, and later as the eighth president of Morgan State University. Over the course of his distinguished career, he authored and co-authored numerous books, research papers, and academic publications. Even after retirement, he continued to mentor and teach, earning many awards and honors in recognition of his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Billingsley has dedicated his life's work as a sociologist to advocating for Black families. On the occasion of his 100th birthday, it is only fitting that we celebrate his extraordinary legacy and years of service.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about that Clinton budget.

Clinton's budget passed when the deficit was $290 billion. The Republicans fought it tooth and nail, and didn't deliver a single vote on that budget. When it finally got down to about $10 billion, the Republicans jumped on the bandwagon just before it was going to balance, whether they agreed to it or not. They were prancing around like peacocks, like it was their idea all the while.

They could get credit for ten of the $290 billion of Clinton's deficit reduction. For years, Republicans have been talking about reducing the deficit and doing nothing about it.

If you look at what they did last year, they added trillions of dollars to the debt in that big, ugly bill. In fact, every Republican administration since Nixon has made the deficit worse and delivered a worse deficit to their Democratic successors and every Democrat since Kennedy has produced a better deficit.

The reason we have a deficit today is because the Democrats haven't been able to clean up the mess as quick as the Republicans can make it. Now they come up with a so-called balanced budget amendment. It doesn't produce a balanced budget. In fact, it will make it more difficult to produce a balanced budget. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass the budget.

Let's get serious. You are not going to balance the budget cold turkey in 1 year without tax increases. We are talking about a two- thirds vote. Which is more likely: Balancing the budget cold turkey or having a two-thirds vote without any limit to how bad the deficit gets?

I think people have been around here long enough to know that it is going to be the two-thirds vote, and it is going to be a horrendous deficit. Republicans have used their time to enact massive tax cuts for big corporations and the top 1 percent. They have exploded the deficit in the process. To balance the budget, Congress has to make the tough decisions to actually balance the budget. It is not going to balance itself.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will actually make it more difficult to do, and that is why we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation and Representative of Norfolk, Virginia, we are gathered here

today with my colleagues across the Commonwealth with a heavy heart as we honor the victims of the recent shooting at Old Dominion University. This was an act of terrorism, and like all mass shootings, this has become far too commonplace.

On Thursday, as students and faculty gathered for their classes, just like every other day, tragedy struck Old Dominion's campus when a gunman opened fire on Constant Hall, targeting an ROTC class.

The gunman took the life of Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shah and injured two others before he was stopped by a brave group of students. Brandon Shah graduated from ODU in 2007 and returned a few years ago to oversee the Army ROTC Monarch Battalion.

As we reflect on his extraordinary life of service, our hearts are with his family and loved ones, as well as the two injured students, and we pray for their swift recovery.

Our hearts are also with the entire Old Dominion community. Today, we are all Monarch strong.

Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment of silence to mourn the loss and honor the life and service of Lieutenant Colonel Shah and demonstrate support for the entire Old Dominion University community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4307, the Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act.

This bipartisan bill is led by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath). It directs the Secretary of the Department of Labor to develop and implement effective training to ensure that the Department of Labor enforcement personnel continue to be educated on identifying and responding to human trafficking.

It also ensures that Department of Labor employees are aware of how to refer potential cases of human trafficking to the Department of Justice and other appropriate authorities.

It requires a new annual report to Congress on the Department of Labor's trafficking prevention efforts, which will help guide the committee's future oversight efforts.

The Department of Labor's worker protection agencies play an essential role in enforcing Federal labor standards, ensuring workers are paid what they have been promised by their employers, and protecting health and safety in the workplace. Adequate training ensures that investigators are equipped to recognize red flags, such as confiscated identification documents, withheld wages, restricted movements, threats, coercion, and other indicators of forced labor.

These efforts should be appropriately funded, and the Department of Labor must continue to play a key role in fighting human trafficking. Wage and Hour investigators are often on the front lines and may be the only Federal officials in a position to encounter workers trapped in exploitative conditions.

Unfortunately, President Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request proposed cutting funding for the Wage and Hour Division by nearly 10 percent and reducing staffing by roughly 250 employees for non-H-1B activities.

Over the course of the past decade, the number of Wage and Hour staff has fallen from a little over 1,400 in fiscal year 2017 to just under 1,200 in fiscal year `25, an 18 percent decline, even as the Wage and Hour Division has tracked a 150-percent increase in child labor violations over the same period.

It is critical to follow up this authorization with additional funding because, without the additional funding, this bill could result in even fewer resources available for the Department to carry out their core missions because it imposes additional burdens on agency staff. Additional funding could allow the Department to continue its core functions and fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the bill.

No one should be forced to work under threats, abuse, or intimidation. This legislation recognizes the essential role the Department of Labor and worker protection agencies play in protecting vulnerable workers and holding traffickers accountable.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan proposal, 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 support of H.R. 6392, the Home School Graduation Recognition Act. The bill reinstates and clarifies present law to make clear that homeschooled students are eligible for Federal student aid so that they can pursue higher education.

Under the Higher Education Act, students who complete a home school program recognized under their State's law qualify for title IV aid, including Pell grants and Federal student loans. Each State sets its own requirements for the education of homeschooled students.

The HEA confirms that homeschoolers must meet their State's eligibility requirements to receive Federal student aid if educated at home according to those State rules. HEA does allow schools to set their admission standards for students, including those educated at home, but no homeschooled student should be denied Federal higher education assistance just because they do not technically have a regular high school diploma. This bill clarifies that eligibility if they have qualified under their State laws.

Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to support the bill in its efforts to clarify the laws to ensure students access to higher education. Of course, that being said, the bill may clarify some students' right to Federal student aid, but the action does not go far enough to mitigate the damage done since the Trump administration came in about 1 year ago. By illegally dismantling much of the Department of Education, firing critical Federal financial aid staff, and limiting access to Federal aid in the big, ugly law, the Trump administration has only put higher education further out of reach for many.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6392 because the bill makes it clear that homeschooled graduates have access to higher education.

By further clarifying the intent of the Higher Education Act, this bill would ensure that students who complete a home school program recognized under their State's law can continue to qualify for title IV aid, including Pell grants and Federal student loans.

Fortunately, this bill will help ensure that these students can access an affordable, high-quality degree while this action taken by this body is reducing and denying aid to others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6472, which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in-State tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands.

I support this initiative in principle because we cannot ignore the needs of these States. However, we also should not ignore that States and public colleges set their own tuition rates based on State budgets and priorities.

When this bill was marked up in committee, Democrats proposed an amendment to require the Federal Government to foot the bill for these costs instead of the public colleges themselves. This approach has a similar goal to the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant, the DCTAG program, which provides Federal funding for D.C. residents to help pay the difference between the higher out-of-State tuition and the lower in-State tuition at public universities across the country.

The DCTAG program was established because Washington, D.C., does not have an adequate number of public universities. The territories involved in this bill face a similar challenge. Most of the territories do not have a robust public university system that offers a variety of majors for students to choose from. Regrettably, the full committee did not agree to this amendment to provide Federal funding.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the bill because we must ensure that all students have access to low-tuition college education, I still have concerns about the funding mechanism. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to bear the cost of this mandate rather

than shift it to the States, which are already facing financial strain.

Further, while I appreciate my colleagues' interest in expanding college access and affordability for students from these territories, I would be remiss if I overlooked the fact that congressional Republicans made it harder for these same students to afford colleges. That is because of cuts to the Pell Grant Program, changes to loan limits, and elimination of affordable loan repayment plans enacted in their big ugly law. Nevertheless, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. Speaker, 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. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.

This bill requires schools to provide pregnant students with information about on campus and community resources and accommodations to assist them in carrying a baby to term while they pursue an education.

Unfortunately, instead of sharing unbiased and comprehensive information, this bill requires schools to distribute only partial information about a student's rights under Title IX and selective information and resources that solely encourage students to carry a pregnancy to term.

It provides no information about rights and accommodations for students who may find themselves in a medical situation that requires an abortion. Now, repeating the idea that comprehensive information must be provided does not make it true.

Title IX entitles the students to the information, but this bill only requires some of that information to be provided. Now while the bill's proponents continue to assert that students are

unaware of their rights, they provide no justification or evidence that students are any more or less aware of their rights or accommodations specific to carrying a child to term. If we are concerned about students who do not have a full understanding of their rights, then we should provide all of the information necessary to address their concerns.

By shielding students from health information, resources, and the rights that are available to them, Republicans are denying them the ability to choose what may be best for them and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I suggest that that big, ugly bill gave tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, but, meanwhile, it cut healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and ran up trillions of dollars in additional debt.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 50 organizations representing civil rights, labor organizations, youth advocates, women's rights, reproductive rights, and others.

January 20, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We, the

undersigned organizations, represent a diverse group of

advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights

protections and institutional resources for pregnant and

parenting students. We write

to share our opposition to the Pregnant Students' Rights

Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not

address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational

attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize

people for their pregnancy outcomes.

This bill that purports to ``protect the rights of pregnant

students'' falls far short of the protections that are

actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and

their children.

More than 3 million undergraduate students in the United

States are parents, which is nearly one in five. Despite

earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting

college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due

to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional

support and recognition of the unique barriers to college

completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting

students often experience feeling disconnected from the

larger education community and are not aware of who they can

speak to when they experience discrimination because of their

pregnancy or parenting status.

Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to

complete their education free from bias and harassment, in

environments that support them on their educational journeys.

Unfortunately, pregnant and parenting students are routinely

stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied the resources,

accommodations, and support they need to thrive in their

educational institutions. Many pregnant students risk their

health or the health of their pregnancies, because they are

unaware of their right to accommodations, including leaves of

absence, lactation accommodations, academic adjustments--

including virtual learning and extensions on completing

assignments--financial aid eligibility, and child care.

Ensuring that students are informed about their educational

institution's policies that can further their academic

achievement while also supporting their health and caregiving

needs is an important step in addressing the systemic

barriers that can keep pregnant and parenting students from

graduating.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill would do little to

mitigate these harms and instead risks further stigmatizing

pregnant and parenting students. The proposed bill relies on

anti-abortion language and seeks to limit students'

reproductive healthcare decisions. This language is part of a

political ploy that the anti-abortion movement hopes to use

to further its case for a national abortion ban now that the

Supreme Court has overturned the federal constitutional right

to abortion care as established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore,

the bill language undermines existing legal protections under

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) for

pregnant students experiencing a range of outcomes related to

their pregnancies.

Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every

person's capacity to make their own decisions--including

whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of

our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This

bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would

actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to

remain enrolled and meet their educational goals.

Such supports are critically needed, and include:

Explicit protections under Title IX

Nondiscrimination protections at the state and local level

Accessible and affordable child care, and increased funding

for on-campus child care

Access to early education and pre-kindergarten services

Transportation access

Support for basic needs, including food, housing, clothing,

etc.

Flexible school attendance policies

Lactation accommodations

Less stigma and shame around young parenthood

Increased accountability measures for institutions who fail

to protect pregnant and parenting students

Federal funding to support campus Title IX offices' work to

prevent and investigate discrimination against pregnant

students

Mandatory data collection on student parents to help

institutions better target supports and meet the unique needs

of this population

As mentioned above, pregnant and parenting students do face

stigma and need adequate resources to combat discrimination.

However, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act contains

little more than a hollow directive for these students to

file complaints with the Department of Education, which

the Trump Administration has been systematically

decimating since taking office, even promising to

dismantle the agency. A series of Executive Orders issued

early in 2025 substantially impacted the Department's

enforcement of civil rights laws, by prioritizing

weaponizing these laws to advance discrimination instead

of protecting students, including pregnant and parenting

students. Education Secretary Linda McMahon fired nearly

half of Department staff--with the Office for Civil Rights

(OCR), which is responsible for ensuring schools comply

with federal civil rights laws, being particularly

impacted. And Secretary McMahon also closed most of OCR's

twelve regional offices that have responsibility to

investigate alleged violations of civil rights laws.

Directing pregnant students to an institution that has

been gutted by the current Administration is little more

than lip service.

There is an alternate path forward. We applaud the

bipartisan legislation put forward by Representatives Lucy

McBath, Deborah Ross, and Don Bacon: the Understanding

Student Parent Outcomes Act of 2025. This bill would make a

meaningful difference by allowing essential data collection

on the barriers to college graduation for pregnant and

parenting students. Legislation like this is necessary to

ensure that pregnant and parenting students can complete

their education and that they and their families are

protected.

Although pregnant and parenting students face many

roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational

institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent

discrimination against them, While balancing their health,

caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is

challenging, these added responsibilities often renew

students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to

parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the

barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not.

This proposed bill would reinforce structural and

institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students

make regarding their personal lives.

We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with

the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and

with any other members of Congress who are ready to be the

champion that pregnant and parenting students in our nation

need and deserve.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Youth, AFT, AFL-CIO, All* in Action Fund,

American Association of University Women (AAUW), American

Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American Humanist

Association, Center for Reproductive Rights, Clearinghouse on

Women's Issues, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates,

Feminist Majority, Girls for Gender Equity, Guttmacher

Institute, Healthy Teen Network, Ibis Reproductive Health,

Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National Collaborative, Know

Your IX, Legal Momentum, the Women's Legal Defense &

Education Fund.

MANA, A National Latina Organization, MomsRising, National

Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association,

National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association,

National Institute for Reproductive Health, National Latina

Institute for Reproductive Justice, National Network of

Abortion Funds, National Organization for Women, National

Organization of API Ending Sexual Violence, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center

Action Fund, National Women's Political Caucus, New America

Higher Education Policy Program, Physicians for Reproductive

Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Positive

Women's Network-USA, Power to Decide, Public Justice,

Reproaction.

Reproductive Freedom for All, Rocky Mountain Victim Law

Center, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Stop Sexual Assault

in Schools, Tahirih Justice Center, The Pregnant Scholar at

WorkLife Law, Transgender Law Center, UltraViolet Action,

Union for Reform Judaism, University Survivors Movement,

Women Employed, Women of Reform Judaism, Women's Law Project.

Mr. Speaker, they describe the Pregnant Students' Rights Act as: ``a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.''

They further say: ``This bill that purports to `protect the rights of pregnant students' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.''

It points out that if you really want to be serious, there are some things that we could actually do to support the students, such as: explicit protections under Title IX; nondiscrimination protections at the State and local level; accessible and affordable childcare; access to early childhood education and pre-kindergarten services; transportation services; and others that would actually make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, we have constantly heard that they are providing comprehensive information and not amending Title IX. The fact is that Title IX does have comprehensive rights that are listed under Title IX that are comprehensive.

This bill, however, only requires partial information about those rights. When only partial information is given, that could have fatal consequences to women. Tragically, women have died because of anti- abortion legislation that was passed in some States that require women to be close to death before they can have what could have been a safe abortion if performed earlier. If they mistime it and get closer to death than they thought, many have actually died in those circumstances.

Legislators voted for those laws. We have to note that we should not allow colleges to withhold information that could save women's lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this bill would not pass under that situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, State abortion bans have undermined healthcare for pregnant women, causing women to experience life-threatening health conditions and complications, with some women tragically losing their lives because of laws that legislators voted for.

Now, House Republicans are going to make things worse by limiting students' access to information about available resources, including information about their right to receive accommodations and protections under Federal civil rights laws available to pregnant or parenting students on college campuses. Women should have access to all relevant information so they can make informed decisions about their futures.

By requiring schools to provide only some information that encourages students to carry a pregnancy to term, this bill could unduly endanger students' health by keeping them in the dark about their rights and resources available to them.

The supporters keep saying that they are not amending Title IX, which entitles students to all of this information. They keep ignoring the fact that this bill only requires that some, not all, of that important information be provided. Repeating a misrepresentation does not make it true.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere appreciation to Coach Mike Tomlin for his extraordinary career and lasting impact on the game of football. His resignation marks the end of an era not only for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but for the entire National Football League.

Coach Tomlin has been a model of leadership, consistency, and excellence. As one of the longest-tenured and most successful head coaches in the league, he demonstrated what it means to lead with integrity, resilience, and a commitment to both performance and people. His historic achievements--including never having a losing season-- speak volumes about his discipline, preparation, and ability to bring out the best in those around him.

For those of us in Hampton Roads, Coach Tomlin's story is especially meaningful. A proud graduate of Denbigh High School in Newport News and a standout student-athlete at the College of William & Mary, he represents the very best of our region. His journey from our local schools to the pinnacle of professional football is a testament to the power of hard work, perseverance, and community support.

Beyond the wins and championships, Coach Tomlin's legacy is also defined by the doors

he helped open. As one of the few Black head coaches in the NFL, he has been an inspiration to countless young people who now see what is possible when talent meets opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Coach Tomlin and his family the very best in this next chapter. His influence will continue to be felt for years to come--on the field, in locker rooms, and in the lives of the many players, coaches, and fans he inspired.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here, workers' rights are under attack, and working families are struggling to decide between paying rent and paying for groceries. Instead of lowering costs, this week, the Republicans are considering proposals that will reduce workers' wages, adversely affect their retirement savings, and give corporations and bosses loopholes to take money out of their pockets. This is untenable, and these are the proposals that Americans can least afford.

That is why we must defeat the previous question, so we can bring up and pass H.R. 20, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to help workers organize. We know that when they organize, they will have higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces.

The PRO Act will be the most significant upgrade in U.S. labor law in over 80 years. For too long, workers have suffered from antiunion attacks and toothless labor laws that have undermined their right to work safely and be paid fairly.

The PRO Act will help hold lawbreaking employers accountable by imposing meaningful penalties for violating workers' rights. It will secure free, fair, and safe union elections by preventing employer interference. It will crack down on corporations that misclassify employees to stymie their right to organize.

This is a critical moment for working families. We cannot abandon our workers, the backbone of the American economy, when they are under attack from antiworker politicians and lawbreaking corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in defeating the previous question so that, instead of reducing workers' wages, we can support this bicameral, bipartisan legislation to ensure that workers can earn the pay and benefits they are owed for their hard work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2262, the so-called Flexibility for Workers Education Act.

We have heard about these roadblocks and obstacles. Mr. Speaker, the roadblocks and obstacles are a requirement that people get paid for their time.

Too many Americans still work too hard but can't afford the basics, such as groceries, rent, or utilities. Even more, they are struggling to afford the little extras that give you a slice of the American Dream, like owning a home, taking your family on vacation, or even occasionally going out to a restaurant.

Yet, simply put, the economy just isn't working for everybody. According to Moody's Analytics, the top 10 percent of earners account for nearly 50 percent of all of the United States' consumer spending, so obviously something is out of whack. Despite this reality, House Republicans are attempting to pass three bills this afternoon that would cut workers' wages.

This bill, H.R. 2262, would relieve employers of the obligation to pay employees for training outside of their regular working hours.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees must be compensated for employer-mandated education and training outside the regular work hours. Essentially, the FLSA protects workers from being compelled to volunteer their time for job-related training without wage and hour protections.

However, this bill significantly weakens the protections because it would permit employers to provide job-related training after hours but off the clock so long as they do not state that it is technically required.

However, employers can still lead workers to believe that the training is needed. You can just imply that if you want a raise or promotion, it would be nice to get the training. That is not really required. The legislation is based on the flawed premise that if you provide workers with certain opportunities or benefits, employers must be able to pay them less. That doesn't make sense.

We should not let employers get away with failing to pay workers for their time while claiming that it is in the workers' best interests. These workers, if they are working on an employer-provided training, should not be required to work off the clock without any compensation.

For that reason, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just looking over the internet and found a Reddit discussion board and found one entry that said: ``I am bothered by unpaid 2-day training, which is going to be 9 hours each day.'' This kind of crosses the line, and they just wanted to know if that was legal in New York.

In reference to the motion to recommit, I hope we would support the motion to recommit. It would give us an opportunity to vote on an increase in the minimum wage which hasn't been increased in over a decade.

A few years ago, it was noted that a full-time minimum wage worker could not afford a modest two-bedroom apartment in any county in the United States. Since then, housing costs have gone up, but the minimum wage has stayed the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, according to last week's Bureau of Labor statistics, 2025 was the worst year for job growth in this country since the last Trump administration. 2025 had 3 months of job losses. Meanwhile, President Biden had 48 consecutive months without a single loss. At this point in President Biden's term, he had already created millions of jobs. At the end of the first year, President Trump has only created a few hundred thousand.

Yet, despite this reality, the House Republicans are attempting to advance this bill which would allow employers to get away without paying workers for job-related training outside of regular hours so long as it is technically not required.

It will do nothing to lower the costs of living or give working families a leg up. For this reason, I hope we will defeat the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFL-CIO, Legislative Alert,

January 12, 2026.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 15 million workers

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

you to oppose the following anti-worker bills scheduled for

consideration on the House floor this week: the Flexibility

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

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

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

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

employers require workers to attend job-related training

without paying them for that time. The bill allows employers

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

pressured to attend to keep their jobs or advance, and

removes current protections that ensure training closely tied

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

essential training outside of regular work hours and off the

clock, increasing unpaid work for low-wage workers.

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

Solutions Act, would exclude from the calculation of an

employee's regular wage rate any employer reimbursement for

child or elder care when calculating an employee's overtime

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

reimbursements would see their overtime wage rate cut.

Reducing a worker's overtime earnings will not help them

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

life harder. And there is no evidence that reducing the

overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread

willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or

elder care. Workers need both decent wages and access to

affordable child and elder care. There are ways to achieve

the latter without attacking the former.

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

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

many low-wage workers by allowing employers to treat almost

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

small or occasional tips over a time period the employer

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

This could allow employers to pay the tipped subminimum wage

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

salon workers, stadium staff, and other service workers who

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

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

cooking shifts, but under this bill the employer could

average tips earned earlier in the week and use them to

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

which would cut weekly pay. By weakening existing rules that

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

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

control over how workers are classified and paid, make it

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

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

already common.

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

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

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

and H.R. 2312.

Sincerely,

Jody Calemine,

Director, Government Affairs.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.