Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is my special privilege to recognize Brian Peacock of Reading as the Veteran of the Month for February and to honor him for his distinguished service to our great Nation.

Following high school, Brian volunteered for the United States Marine Corps through the Buddy Program, completing recruit training in San Diego, California, followed by infantry and reconnaissance training at Camp Pendleton. Brian deployed to Vietnam with the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, serving from 1970 to 1973. His courageous service earned him numerous decorations, including the Combat Action Ribbon, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.

Brian's commitment to service continued after the Marine Corps. He joined the Michigan National Guard in 1974, where he served with distinction as an officer for nearly two decades, retiring as a Major in 1992. After his retirement from the Guard, Brian worked in the Department of Corrections for 26 years. In total, he devoted almost five decades to public service.

Even in retirement, Brian continues to exemplify his dedication to service. He has been a member of the American Legion for more than 40 years and currently serves as the 1st Vice Commander for Post 195 in Jonesville. He regularly visits veterans at the Hillsdale Medical Care Facility, assists with transporting veterans to VA medical appointments, and serves on the Legion Honor Guard at funerals, parades, and commemorative ceremonies. Brian also volunteers countless hours supporting Legion initiatives and community events, always ensuring veterans are remembered, honored, and supported.

Brian is an inspiration to many, and I express my profound gratitude for his leadership and lasting service to our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (H.R. 6359) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6359.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, legislation that affirms a simple but powerful principle: Expecting mothers should be encouraged to pursue their education like any other student.

Pregnant students often receive incorrect guidance or no guidance at all on how to navigate classes while pregnant. In many cases, women feel pressured to end their pregnancies or risk academic failure despite protections that exist now under Federal law.

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act requires schools to clearly communicate what accommodations and protections pregnant and parenting students are entitled to. That includes excused absences for medical needs, the ability to make up missed work, and protection from discrimination and retaliation.

More specifically, this bill requires information to be emailed to students at least once each academic year and appear in student handbooks at orientation, at student health or counseling centers, and on the institution's website. When students know their rights, they are empowered to stay enrolled, stay engaged, and succeed.

This legislation doesn't burden colleges. It simply increases transparency by helping schools communicate consistently and avoid confusion or unnecessary disputes.

This is a commonsense, compassionate measure that promotes transparency and ensures pregnant students have the support they need to create a better future for themselves and their child.

Mr. Speaker, let's cherish life for both the child and his or her mother who dreams of academic success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pregnant Students' Rights Act and stand up for the dignity, opportunity, and educational success of every student.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to go back to the same argument that we had in committee.

We don't prohibit schools from giving a full panoply of information. Our concern is that they haven't been.

Pregnant students have been left without full information, full information that comes and is required by law under Title IX on all aspects of medical care, of counseling, and of opportunity. But sadly, that has been left out as far as saying if you are pregnant and you want to continue as pregnant in this school, we are going to support you in that.

Title IX gives all of the information. We are not going to be redundant. We are just making sure that you also include, young lady, if you are pregnant and you want to continue in school, we are going to do our best to help you and provide all the resources. I just wish we could catch hold of this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), the sponsor of this commonsense, compassionate, and helpful bill.

Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend and colleague from Georgia, as she has discussed that tragic story with me before, my heart does break. Having experienced that in my own personal family, as well, I understand what she is saying.

I am just not capable, I guess, of communicating that this bill is affording all the questions to be answered and all of the issue to be addressed. It also gives pregnant women, who are blessed to be able to continue carrying to completion, the opportunity to also know that their academic opportunity will continue, as well. That is all we are attempting to do.

My heart breaks with that story, but my heart also says we want to make sure--that is why I appreciate Representative Hinson's bill--it expands the opportunity for the information that is given.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), chair of the Congressional Family Caucus and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few factual comments in response and also provide some information relative to my colleague's previous comments.

Republicans just passed working families tax cuts, which gave American families the largest tax cut in American history. Under the bill, the typical family will get up to $10,900 in additional take-home pay. Households earning less than $100,000 will get a 12 percent tax cut compared to July 2025. Equally as important, if not more so, the child tax credit will double to $2,200 for more than 40 million American families.

That is taking into consideration the children that come from pregnancy who are born. We are not leaving them without resources. The working families tax cuts promotes life by putting hardworking families first, ensuring that they keep their hard-earned money in their pockets for their necessary uses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of significant pro-family, pro-life medical community members, family research members, and students in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.

Organizations that Support H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

Students for Life Action

National Right to Life Committee

Iowa Right to Life

Concerned Women for America

American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and

Gynecologists (AAPLOG) Action

Heritage Action

Independent Women

Center for Urban Renewal (CURE)

Eagle Forum

Family Research Council

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to reemphasize that this bill is about ensuring pregnant students know the rights given to them under Title IX, which cover all the concerns that my colleagues, with all due respect, on the other side of the aisle say they want included. Title IX includes all of that.

We want students to know the rights given to them under Title IX without creating excessive regulations or requirements for colleges and universities.

Despite what some of my colleagues have said today, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act doesn't promote a certain viewpoint or ideology. It simply affirms a basic principle, and that principle is that pregnant students deserve to know their rights when pursuing an education.

I don't believe that to be too radical, Mr. Speaker, and I don't believe the American people do either. In fact, for years, many of my Democratic colleagues acknowledged that abortion is a serious and difficult decision and supported efforts to ensure women were not forced into it by a lack of resources or support. They joined in passing legislation to help women who choose to continue their pregnancies. Yet, today, some of those efforts are being undermined unless amendments that explicitly promote abortion are included.

It is deeply disappointing that some of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to turn this straightforward transparency bill into an abortion debate, implying that support for pregnant students is contingent on including pro-abortion provisions. Why must an innocent baby ever be seen as an enemy or obstacle to success?

This bill also does not provide medical advice or dictate what specific resources colleges and universities may list. For that reason, I would encourage those who oppose this legislation on those grounds to carefully re-read the bill's plain language. We all know that when individuals know their rights, they are able to make informed decisions that are best for them, their families, and their futures.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2262) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude certain activities from hours worked, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2262.

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

Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans should never be barred from voluntarily pursuing professional development or training opportunities. In fact, we should be giving workers more opportunities to get the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly changing economy.

Unfortunately, current Federal law makes it harder for employers to provide voluntary training and upscaling opportunities. Oftentimes that means workers must take time out of their busy lives to look beyond the workplace for programs that they should be able to get at work.

Needless to say, this makes absolutely no sense. Employers understand their employees and whether skills gaps exist in their own workforces. If a business knows how to train its employees to succeed in a role, then it should be allowed to teach those skills and invest in the employees' professional development. There simply is no need for arbitrary roadblocks that make it harder for businesses to offer voluntary trainings to their own employees.

Republicans are already promoting upscaling and training opportunities to help strengthen the American workforce. Last summer, we passed a Working Families Tax Cuts Act, which expanded opportunities for young Americans to access short-term, high-quality credentialing and training opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2262 builds on that success by simply allowing employers to offer voluntary education and upscaling opportunities to nonexempt employees so that workers can easily take control of their own professional development. This doesn't just help the business grow. It provides new, tangible skills that help employees do better in their own careers and sets them up for success on their own.

Mr. Speaker, let's make one thing clear: H.R. 2262 expands voluntary--voluntary--employer-led training opportunities. Businesses would still be required to compensate workers who receive mandatory job training. This bill simply makes it easier for ambitious employees to pursue additional professional development opportunities on their own terms, whether or not it is directly tied to their current job. If a bartender wants to take a course in restaurant management, he or she should be able to do so, and the employer would welcome that dedication.

Let's look at the bigger picture. Our workforce still has millions of unfilled jobs caused, in part, by a widening skills gap. As our own economy grows, thanks to the progrowth policies of Republicans and the Trump administration, many growing businesses are likely to face skills shortages of their own.

That is why we need commonsense legislation like the Flexibility for Workers Education Act, which makes it easier for workers to get the skills that they need to succeed and for businesses to find the right person for the job.

Throughout my time in Congress and now as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I have consistently fought to expand opportunities to help workers thrive and grow. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act, to remove obstacles and give workers more controls over their own careers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), the sponsor of this legislation, to present her bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly applaud my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle for the commitment to making sure that workers are cared for, employees, but also I want employers to be cared for as well, and the two working together ends up to be the best.

Employers, generally speaking, care about their employees. I know my Democrat colleagues often disagree with that statement, but it is almost always the case in a successful business, especially in a time of intense competition for the workforce.

My Democrat colleagues have suggested that employers will attempt to use H.R. 2262 to commit wage theft. However, the bill clearly states that the educational activity must occur outside of an employee's regular working hours. The attendance is voluntary. The employer cannot take adverse action against an employee for attending the training or not, and the employee cannot perform any work for the employer during their attendance at the training.

I am not sure that it can be any more clear. H.R. 2262 gives employees more options to pursue success, not just in their current role, but in roles they may be interested in and would like to upskill and pursue. Employers recognize that investing in their workers is essential if they are to be successful.

This legislation offers a win for employees wanting to upskill and a win for employers who wish to develop their existing talent.

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

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

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

Republicans are committed to expanding opportunities for American workers. H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act, is a commonsense bill that makes it easier for a business to offer voluntary upskilling opportunities to its employees.

As our Nation faces a widening skills gap and millions of unfilled jobs, H.R. 2262 would provide additional pathways for workers to pursue training and fill a growing number of jobs that require skilled workers.

As chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am committed to cutting red tape and removing roadblocks that make it harder for workers and businesses to succeed. The Flexibility for Workers Education Act is another strong step, Mr. Speaker, toward ensuring Washington doesn't put up roadblocks that hinder progress in our workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2270) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude child and dependent care services and payments from the rate used to compute overtime compensation, 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 to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2270.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, a bipartisan proposal that meets working families where they are and strengthens our economy at the same time.

Across this country, millions of Americans are doing two full-time jobs at once. They are employees striving to be productive and dependable at work, and they are caregivers--parents of young children, sons and daughters caring for aging parents, or both. These responsibilities do not disappear when the workday begins. They shape whether a worker can show up on time, stay focused, or remain in the workforce at all.

Along with many other affordability challenges, the increasing cost of child and dependent care is a serious issue facing our country. Parents leave jobs they want to keep. Caregivers turn down promotions or reduce hours. Businesses lose skilled workers, productivity declines, and the entire economy pays the price.

Many employers want to provide child and elder care for their employees, but the law discourages them from

doing so by asserting that routinely provided childcare must be included in an hourly employee's regular pay rates.

The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act removes this longstanding obstacle for employers wishing to provide these highly valued accommodations to their workforce and aligns the treatment of these pro-family benefits with other employer-provided benefits.

For workers, employer-supported care can be the difference between staying in the job or being forced out of the workforce. It reduces stress, improves mental health, and allows parents and caregivers to focus on their work, knowing their loved ones are safe and supported.

Supporting caregivers should not be a partisan issue. Every one of us represents constituents who are struggling and juggling with the work that they have and the care that they give.

Every district in every State has employers struggling to attract and retain workers because care options are limited or unaffordable.

The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act sends a clear message: We value work. We value family. We understand that the two are deeply connected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, not only because it is good policy but because it reflects the lived reality of millions of Americans who are doing their very best every day to care for their families and contribute to our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would make mention that for gym memberships offered by an employer and other benefits, health insurance benefits, they aren't calculated in overtime either.

This brings us together on those issues. In fact, I believe it makes certain that there is more opportunity for small businesses especially to have the ability to have dollars that could be put toward the childcare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), who is the sponsor of this bill. He is also a member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

My colleague on the other side of the aisle has said this bill is an assault on working families. That could not be further from the truth.

H.R. 2270 is a narrowly tailored solution to the growing challenge working families are facing when it comes to childcare. I fail to see, again, how excluding the value of an employer-sponsored childcare subsidy in the calculation of an employee's regular rate will result in lower take-home pay as my colleagues have said on the other side.

The issue this legislation attempts to fix is that in many cases, employers are currently unable to offer childcare to employees due to the prohibitively high overtime cost.

H.R. 2270 rights that wrong by excluding child and dependent care from regular rate calculations as has been done several times, as I mentioned earlier, for other benefits and bonuses because Congress rightly saw that, without exclusion, employers would not be able to do more for their employees even as they want to.

This bill enhances the opportunity for the care that we need for childcare as well as dependent care.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know I spent my opening remarks discussing how the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act helps empower working families. In closing, I would like to highlight how access to affordable childcare benefits job creators and our Nation's economy.

For employers, the return on investment is well documented. Companies that offer care solutions see lower turnover, reduced absenteeism, and higher employer/employee engagement. In a competitive labor market, the ability to offer these benefits is vital to attracting and retaining talent and ensuring American businesses remain competitive at home and abroad.

For our economy, the stakes could not be higher. Labor force participation, particularly among women, continues to be constrained by caregiving responsibilities. When caregivers are sidelined, we lose talent, experience, and economic growth potential. This bill helps remove one of the biggest barriers to keeping willing workers on the sidelines and strengthens our overall economic resilience.

This legislation also recognizes that caregiving does not end with childhood. As our population ages, more workers are caring for elderly parents or relatives. Eldercare challenges can be just as disruptive and unpredictable as childcare needs, and yet they are often overlooked in policy decisions.

This bill addresses both, reflecting the real-life responsibilities families face. This is a smart use of policy to align incentives with outcomes we all support: stronger families, a more resilient workforce, and a healthier economy. Let's give employers the tools to help give workers the support they need and move our country forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Messmer for bringing this bill before us. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as the Member who represents one-half of NEPA's original author's district, I rise in strong support of the SPEED Act. This bipartisan, commonsense legislation will streamline our permitting process, making it faster, more predictable, and more accountable.

Currently, our broken permitting process delays critical energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects for years. This not only hurts workers but raises costs for hardworking families and makes us more dependent on foreign countries, including our adversaries.

In Michigan, we need access to reliable energy to meet our growing demands, increase affordability, and help us compete. However, these essential projects can't move forward if our permitting process is holding us back.

The SPEED Act addresses these issues by streamlining reviews, setting clear timelines, and improving coordination across agencies.

Mr. Chair, this legislation helps us build again in this country, from energy projects to manufacturing facilities. America is entering a golden age of energy dominance thanks to President Trump's policies and the Working Families Tax Cuts that Republicans passed earlier this year.

The SPEED Act builds on this progress by cutting bureaucratic red tape, bringing back good-paying jobs and revitalizing our infrastructure and energy sectors.

We must restore common sense to our permitting process so we can unleash American energy and lower costs for hardworking Michiganders.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Michigan will thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as I travel across Michigan's Fifth District,

I have heard from many Michiganders who are thrilled about the economic relief that House Republicans are providing.

Earlier this year, we passed the working families tax cut legislation, which is profamily, proworker, and pro-Michigan.

This historic legislation empowers families by preventing residents of Michigan's Fifth District from facing a 27 percent tax hike and increasing take-home pay by up to $11,700.

In addition, the legislation increases the child tax credit, strengthens paid family leave, and establishes savings accounts for newborns, allowing families to invest in their child's future from birth.

House Republicans have accomplished so much this year, but we are only just getting started.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6703.

Because of the unaffordable care act, healthcare costs are out-of- control, and small businesses and the families that they employ are paying the price. The unaffordable care act drove premiums up and added red tape forcing many small employers to drop coverage or stop offering it altogether.

Now my Democrat colleagues want to extend enhanced benefits that they couldn't get their own party to support for more than 3 years when they passed them.

They made this problem, and now they want us to fix it by doing the same thing that has extended this problem. They want our family, friends, and neighbors to suffer further pain as opposed to joining us and fixing the problem as opposed to extending it.

My bill, the Association Health Plans Act, allows small businesses and self-employed Americans to band together, like large companies, to lower costs and deliver high-quality coverage. The CBO report today estimates that this could cover more than 200,000 previously uninsured Americans and attract 700,000 people annually to association health plans.

Complementing this, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, authored by Representative Bob Onder, shields small businesses from regulatory overreach while expanding affordable healthcare options.

Together, these measures, included in the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act, cut red tape, protect choice, and lower costs.

I plead with my Democrat colleagues to join us in bringing about a remedy to our healthcare system which is broken because of the unaffordable care act.

They broke it, but please join us to fix it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, most Americans rely on employer-provided healthcare, but government-driven costs are making that coverage more expensive every year. Families are paying more, and small businesses are struggling to keep up with the mandates and the red tape.

Americans deserve affordable, high-quality coverage that puts decisions back where they belong with workers, families, and employers, not the Federal Government.

Bottom line, the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act empowers workers and job creators and makes healthcare more affordable for everyday Americans. By the way, perchance you want to keep the unaffordable care act for yourself, you still can.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my special privilege to recognize Mark Rodgers as he retires after a meaningful and fulfilling career in public service.

Mark's remarkable career, which includes senior leadership roles across government at the federal and state levels, stands as a testament to his principled leadership and unwavering commitment to improving the policies that shape America's modern workforce.

As Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, a committee that I am now proud to chair, he played a pivotal role in shaping workforce policy and overseeing critical reforms in some of the most complex areas of law. His service at both the U.S. Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management further underscores his impact.

At the state level, Mark also served with distinction as Deputy Secretary for Labor and Management Relations at the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, where he simultaneously served as a senior advisor on labor-management and labor-political issues. In this role, Mark demonstrated his exceptional ability to bridge the worlds of government, labor, and management, while fostering constructive and solutions-oriented relationships.

Mark's experience also extends beyond traditional government service. As Vice President of Industry Relations for the Motor Freight Carriers Association, he represented management as the lead labor negotiator in the LTL trucking industry, earning respect for his professionalism, dedication, and command of labor-management relations. Most recently, Mark served as the founder and president of MWR Consulting, guiding clients through the complexities of federal legislative and regulatory policy with clarity and strategic insight. His work reflects not only his deep technical knowledge, but also his genuine understanding of how policy affects real people.

Mark's contributions have left an indelible mark on workforce policy. May others know of my high regard for Mark and my best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is my special privilege to recognize Renae Shircliff of Hillsdale as the Veteran of the Month for December and honor her for her distinguished service to our great Nation.

After graduating high school in 1984, Renae enlisted in the United States Army, serving proudly as an Army Specialist 4th Class, 63 Hotel Tank Mechanic and duty driver for her Commanding Officer. Her excellence and commitment were recognized early in her career, earning her the Army Achievement Medal for her service in Stuttgart, Germany.

Even after leaving active duty, Renae never stopped serving; she simply shifted her focus to ensuring that her fellow veterans received the care, benefits, and respect they deserved. In 2013, Renae joined the Hillsdale County Veterans Affairs Office, and by 2018, she had risen to Director and Veterans Service Officer, a role in which she became a driving force for change and advocacy.

Her dedication earned her prestigious recognition, including the 2016 Pat Ford Award

from Hillsdale College and the Leo Leggett Award from the American Legion in both 2017 and 2023. Under her leadership, Hillsdale County veterans collectively received more than $32 million in VA benefits in both 2022 and 2023, and an additional $17 million in 2024. These benefits were pivotal in ensuring our veterans receive the care they deserve and improving the quality of life for their families. Renae has personally guided countless veterans through the process of securing the benefits they have so rightfully earned, providing both expertise and compassion.

Renae Shircliff is truly a cornerstone of the veteran community. I am honored to share her story today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of this remarkable veteran and public servant.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 284) to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 284.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 284, the Congressional Award Program Reauthorization Act.

The Congressional Award Act encourages young people between the ages of 14 and 23 to challenge themselves in ways that not only benefit themselves but also the communities they live in. The award is not given based on past achievement but, rather, an individual is honored for setting goals, creating an action plan, and meeting those goals.

Earning an award means young Americans completed self-designed programs focused on four key goals. They are volunteer service, personal growth, exploration, and physical fitness.

Upon completion, participants are awarded a Congressional Award certificate or medal in one of three levels: gold, silver, or bronze. These are important recognitions of the hard work and dedication of America's young leaders. The Congressional Award has empowered over 500,000 participants nationwide and is the highest honor Congress bestows on American youth.

By reauthorizing this program, we honor the countless hours of hard work and dedication of so many past and present participants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), a man who has consistently been committed to encouraging young people to achieve, beginning with his own son, as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I thank my colleagues, including my ranking member, Bobby Scott, for this work in a bipartisan way. We have worked to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act, including Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Senator Lummis of Wyoming.

For decades, the Congressional Award Act has inspired young people to engage with their communities and improve the lives of their neighbors and themselves. On the Education and Workforce Committee, we are constantly working to promote more pathways for success for students and young adults so that they can thrive. The Congressional Award program is yet another step to encourage young people to set goals, develop a plan, and be the best that they can be.

Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025.

For nearly 80 years, the National School Lunch Program has provided low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. We know that healthy diets can improve student success both in and out of the classroom. Whole milk is a nutrient-rich food, and its higher fat content allows children to stay fuller longer.

Unfortunately, misconceptions about certain types of fat or calories have prevented schools from offering whole milk as an option to our children. The bill gives us a chance to ensure that children have access to nutritional milk options they want to drink.

Some children struggle to consume enough of the right calories to support healthy growth and stay energized throughout the entire school day. For some, school meals may be the only meals they receive that day.

This notion that whole milk consumption is linked to childhood obesity is deeply flawed. In fact, studies suggest that higher cow's milk-fat intake is associated with a lower risk of childhood obesity. While it is important to limit fatty, sugary, and highly processed foods, whole milk does not fit into this category. In fact, many schoolchildren are at risk of dairy underconsumption, not overconsumption.

Whole milk provides critical nutrition for growing minds. We need to follow the science and pass the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.