[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H670-H676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1210
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2988, PROTECTING PRUDENT INVESTMENT
OF RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2262,
FLEXIBILITY FOR WORKERS EDUCATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 2270, EMPOWERING EMPLOYER CHILD AND ELDER CARE SOLUTIONS ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2312, TIPPED EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4366, SAVE LOCAL BUSINESS
ACT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 988 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 988
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House 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.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Workforce or their respective designees; (2) the further
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2262) to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude certain
activities from hours worked, and for other
[[Page H671]]
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any bill specified in section
4 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such bill are waived. The respective
amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in each such
bill shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in each such bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each
such bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto,
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 4. The bills referred to in section 3 of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) The bill (H.R. 4366) to clarify the treatment of 2 or
more employers as joint employers under the National Labor
Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers
Education Act; H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care
Solutions Act; H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act; H.R.
4366, the Save Local Business Act, under a closed rule; and H.R. 2988,
the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, under a
structured rule.
One hour of debate each for H.R. 2262, H.R. 2270, H.R. 2312, H.R.
2988, and H.R. 4366 shall be equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce,
or their designees. The rule provides for a motion to recommit for all
five bills.
Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today are about one thing: getting
the Federal Government out of the way of the American worker.
For too long, outdated definitions and woke regulatory overreach have
stifled opportunities and created a paperwork trap for the job creators
on our Main Streets. Today, we take a stand for common sense and
economic growth.
We begin with H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act.
Under current law, many nonexempt workers, the very people who could
benefit most from upskilling, are often excluded from voluntary
training because the Fair Labor Standards Act treats those sessions as
hours worked. This creates massive inconvenience for employers, who
ultimately choose not to offer the training at all.
This bill levels the playing field, allowing workers to pursue
voluntary professional development outside of regular hours without
triggering burdensome overtime costs for their employers.
In the same spirit of support, H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer
Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, addresses the childcare crunch
facing so many families. By excluding childcare and eldercare benefits
from the regular rate calculation for overtime, we remove a major
financial barrier for some small business owners who want to help their
employees balance work and family life. This is a pro-family, pro-
worker solution that requires no new Federal spending.
We must also protect the flexibility that makes the service industry
so vital. H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, clears the
regulatory fog that has long surrounded tipped workers.
The Biden administration attempted to micromanage every minute of a
server's day through the unworkable 80/20 rule, a standard that is
virtually impossible to monitor or enforce. This bill provides a clear
and simple definition for tipped employees, an employee who receives
tips plus other cash wages that meet or exceed the Federal minimum wage
for a work period.
This provides stability for restaurant owners and protects the hiring
potential of our servers and bartenders.
Similarly, H.R. 4366, the Save Local Business Act, restores the joint
employer standard that served our economy for decades.
The Obama and Biden administrations weaponized the National Labor
Relations Board to target the franchise model, creating a scheme that
cost the franchising sector an estimated $33 billion annually. By
codifying that an employer must exercise direct, actual, and immediate
control over workers, we restore the certainty that small business
owners, contractors, and franchisees need to grow and hire more.
Finally, we must protect the hard-earned savings of the American
people.
{time} 1220
H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings
Act, ensures that Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA,
fiduciaries are focused on one thing, the financial bottom line.
We cannot allow woke fiduciaries to gamble with a worker's pension to
satisfy a political agenda. This bill reinforces the duties of loyalty
and ensures that investment decisions are based solely on maximizing
returns for the benefit of the retiree and not a social experiment.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the regulatory noise
coming out of Washington. They want a government that works for them,
not against them. These five bills deliver on our promise to cut red
tape, empower families, and protect the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, America is suffering. Americans don't recognize the
country we live in. Trump's tariffs have caused prices to soar. We have
the highest unemployment rate in 4 years so fewer people have jobs.
Those out of work can't even afford those expensive groceries, housing,
and appliances.
Republicans refused to extend the health insurance tax cuts in time,
so now millions of Americans have health insurance premiums that are
double and sometimes even triple what they were 1 year ago. In their
big, beautiful bill, Republicans took a sledgehammer to our fragile
healthcare system to give permanent tax breaks to their political
donors, the billionaires, and the biggest corporations.
Our President bombed boats and then the capital of a foreign country
for oil, and now he says he is acting President of that country.
He wants our military to invade a NATO ally. Remember, Mr. Speaker,
America and our NATO allies fought fascism together in World War II.
Republicans claim we don't have money to keep healthcare costs down,
yet they are going to keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars for
Trump's reckless military action in Venezuela and everywhere else he
decides to invade or bomb.
[[Page H672]]
Trump and Kristi Noem have militarized our streets. Masked men in
full military gear roam the streets of our cities. These masked men
invade church properties and schools, knock down doors without
warrants, ram cars, and assault pastors and people of faith. These
masked, armed men have arrested hundreds of citizens just for looking
Latino.
Last week, they killed a citizen. They shot a mother of three in the
face three times. Her last words were: I am not mad at you. His words,
after shooting her to death, are too obscene to say on this floor.
Kristi Noem and the President have now demonized this dead mother.
Trump wants Americans to deny what we can see with our own eyes: the
killing of a mother, Renee Nicole Good.
In the face of all this pain, chaos, and economic hardship, the
American people expect Congress to do something, to ask hard questions
of the administration, to be the check and balance that we were taught
about in school, conduct oversight, lower prices, and protect our
healthcare.
So what are Republicans doing?
Last week, following the invasion of Venezuela and the expiration of
the healthcare tax credits, their priority was a bill about
showerheads. This week it is worse. They are actively putting their
thumb on the scale in favor of big corporations and against workers,
lowering what parents get paid in overtime, reclassifying workers so
they can pay them less, or make it easy for corporations, like those
big meatpacking plants, to get away with hiring child labor or wage
theft. They want to block financial managers from even considering
environmental risks like flooding and wildfires.
Yes, Americans want Congress to do something. The problem is that
Republicans control the House and the bills we consider in the Rules
Committee and vote on.
However, Democrats can force votes, like we did on the healthcare tax
credits and like we will soon do on the War Powers Resolution. On the
floor of the people's House, we will call out Republicans who always
seem to stand with the biggest corporations and against workers.
Despite what the titles of their bills say, they do the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, we will force Republicans to face the consequences of
ignoring the economic struggles of everyday Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify a few things, one in particular about
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The narrative that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only gives tax cuts
to billionaires is just false. The bill cuts taxes for working-class
families who need it most. As a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act, the top 1 percent will pay more in Federal taxes than they did
before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
It ends $500 billion in Biden-era tax breaks and special interest
giveaways to wealthy individuals and large corporations. It stops a
Biden-era $1,700 tax increase.
Working families making between $15,000 and $30,000 will have their
taxes cut by 21 percent under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Mr.
Speaker, 66 percent of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's tax cuts
benefit families making less than $500,000. Just because they keep
saying it doesn't make it true. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act does
help working families.
Mr. Speaker, I do have to address, because my colleague has decided
to bring ICE into this debate, or this discussion, regarding small
businesses and help that we may be able to give small businesses. I
just want to give a few examples of what ICE is actually doing in
Minnesota, because I am someone who is here from Minnesota.
They have arrested a registered sex offender from Somalia with 17
prior convictions, including domestic violence and threatening
terroristic acts.
They have arrested an illegal El Salvadoran alien convicted of sexual
assault on a child.
They have arrested an illegal alien from Mexico convicted of selling
cocaine and methamphetamine and multiple illegal aliens from Laos
convicted of rape, assault, kidnapping, and sodomy of children under
the age of 13 and domestic violence.
They have arrested convicted murderers from Mexico, Sudan, Burma,
Laos, Sierra Leone, Guatemala, Somalia, and El Salvador.
That is what ICE is doing in Minnesota. They are making it safer for
everyday people.
I ask my colleague to simply allow the investigation to take place
over what happened last week and to stop the inflammatory rhetoric that
is unnecessary at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, what is amazing is that on the floor of this House we
heard my colleague talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I
guess they are going back to calling it that. They were trying to
change its name because they know that the American people know it is
not beautiful. It is only beautiful, Mr. Speaker, if you are a
billionaire and you have benefited from those tax cuts for the
millionaires, the billionaires, and the biggest corporations.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats wanted to make permanent, and
offered amendments, so that we could continue tax cuts for middle-class
Americans. We wanted to do something more than what they did on tipped
workers.
Are you kidding me, Mr. Speaker? Republicans made tipped worker tax
credits temporary but gave permanent tax cuts to the billionaires. The
predominant benefit of that big, beautiful bill went to the richest
Americans, and there is no denying that.
There is no denying that $1.4 trillion went to the wealthiest
Americans. There is no denying the fact that they keep talking about
deficits, $4 trillion, that they are forcing our children and
grandchildren to pay because they wanted to give those tax credits to
the biggest corporations and millionaires.
{time} 1230
Now, the other thing that is interesting that got raised is
Minnesota. She talked about a couple of immigrants who have been
arrested. We don't have any problem about enforcement and arresting
people who commit crimes. In fact, we have had Democratic Presidents do
that. Obama deported more people than Trump has, but he went after
people with criminal records.
Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the people in ICE custody have committed
no crime. Hundreds of citizens have been arrested for no crime by ICE,
which has no jurisdiction. Why were they arrested? Is it just because
they look Latino? Is it just because they speak Spanish? That is not
okay.
Let's talk about criminal activity. Trump pardoned the January 6
insurrectionists who beat law enforcement right outside these doors,
violently beat the law enforcement officers who were protecting us.
What has happened since then? Do you want to talk about people who
have been arrested? Talk about all of those violent offenders who were
arrested, and what did they get? They got a pardon from this President.
We have dozens who have gone on to reoffend, who have gone on to
assault, who have been engaged in child pornography, in egregious
crimes because this President pardoned them. When you want to talk
about going after criminals, let's look at what this President has
failed to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but I feel like I need to
repeat myself and remind others about what ICE is actually doing in
Minnesota. They have arrested a registered sex offender from Somalia
with 17 prior convictions, including domestic violence and threatening
terrorist acts, and convicted murderers from Mexico, Sudan, Burma,
Laos, Guatemala, and Somalia. I wish I didn't have to continue to
repeat myself about what ICE is really doing. What ICE is about is
making sure that our streets are safer.
As for the claim about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act not doing what
it is supposed to and only giving tax cuts to
[[Page H673]]
billionaires, I had mentioned, I had explained what actually happened
in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I would ask the other side, I
would just ponder or wonder out loud why they didn't do it in their
Inflation Reduction Act. If it was that important, when they were in
control and they passed the Inflation Reduction Act, why didn't they do
all of these things that they talk about being so important right now?
It is a little confusing when they continue to repeat. They believe
that if they just continue to say the same thing over and over and over
and over, it makes it true, and it does not, if you take a look at the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act and what ICE is doing in Minnesota.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that in response to this litany
and this long list of criminal activity and the criminals who were
pardoned by Trump, we heard the same thing, there was a sex offender.
What about all those sex offenders that have now been pardoned?
What about all of the egregious actions that ICE is conducting in
Mrs. Fischbach's very own State? She won't stand up for the law
enforcement officers who she walks by every day and the attacks that
they faced, but she will stand up in favor of ICE activity that has
killed one of Minnesota's own citizens?
Let me read one of the President's latest posts: ``Do the people of
Minnesota really want to live in a community . . . '' His last
sentence: ``Fear not, great people of Minnesota, the day of reckoning
and retribution is coming.''
Retribution? We should not live in a society where we have a
President who goes after cities and States because they have Democratic
leadership. There are Republicans who live in that city. There are
Democrats who live in that city, Independents. It should not matter.
However, this President and Republicans who support him and refuse to
condemn him seem to think it is okay to beat up law enforcement
officers in our own Capitol, but it is not okay to question excessive,
egregious abuses by ICE not only in Minnesota, but across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hoyle).
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
rule and H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act.
When I was a waitress in 1983, the tipped wage was exactly the same
as it is now. It is $2.13 an hour. Your ability to budget, to cover
rent, to buy groceries, and to pay for gas depends on how much
strangers leave on the table.
What makes me angry is what little has changed since the tipped wage
was frozen. Rent, food, gas, and childcare have all exploded, but
tipped workers are still stuck with a base wage from decades ago. That
is wrong.
However, the bigger problem is the system was never built to work.
The law says that your employer has to make up the difference if your
tips don't reach minimum wage, but in most States there is no real
enforcement unless you catch it, document it, and risk retaliation by
demanding the pay that you have earned. To put it another way, the law
puts the burden of enforcement on the people with the least power.
H.R. 2312 makes this even worse. It would massively expand employers'
power to treat far more workers and far more hours as tipped wages.
Oregon does this differently. Tipped workers' wages are higher.
Poverty rates are lower, and the restaurant industry still thrives. For
workers, that means a slow night doesn't mean that you can't pay your
rent.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected my amendment to
ensure these workers have the bare minimum wage protections. Again, I
will remind people that the minimum wage in this country has
not changed in decades.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Protect workers and
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question,
I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 20, the Richard
L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, a bipartisan
bill that would expand workers' rights to organize and collectively
bargain in the workplace, hold employers accountable for violating
workers' rights, and allow for free, fair, and safe union elections.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the slate of partisan bills that
Republicans want us to vote on this week, which lower overtime pay for
workers, cut workers' wages, give corporations more loopholes to
mistreat workers without consequence, and mess with workers' retirement
savings plan to combat supposed wokeness, whatever that is, Democrats
simply want to add another bill for consideration, one that actually
helps workers and is cosponsored by 214 Members of Congress, including
several Republicans.
The PRO Act was one of the first bills I got to cosponsor in
committee and in Congress when I joined in 2021. That was back when the
committee was called the Education and Labor Committee because
Democrats are not afraid of saying ``labor,'' and we will always
protect workers' rights. That is why when we held the majority, we
passed the PRO Act to support workers.
{time} 1240
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member
of the Committee on Education and Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I will address something in one of
the bills that is about childcare and the care economy.
We all know the care economy is what makes all other work possible.
Women can go to work when they know their babies will be well taken
care of. When a parent or grandparent gets ill, we know that it is
women who
[[Page H674]]
step in to fill the gap. In fact, because it is so expensive to get
care, we have seen a record number of women fall out of the workforce.
It is up to about 350,000 women, I think, who have left.
This is a problem because we need women to be able to participate in
our workforce, to be able to contribute to their own household's
income. We know that this is something that can be fixed with
governmental action.
In New Mexico, we now have universal childcare. It is something we
can get done, and the reason why we do this is because it is important
to allow women and parents to work. It is often men who stay home as
the father. It is also important for the child because when you get
good early childcare, you grow up to have more opportunities in life.
On average, though, parents spend between $6,500 and $15,000 per
child for 1 year of childcare. That is eating up more and more of
families' budgets. People can't afford this.
What we know that people have done is negotiate. They talk to their
employers, and those employers have often provided childcare as one of
the elements of compensation. This is why unions are important. They
have negotiated this and fought for this as part of compensation.
For decades, when you get paid overtime, you include all of your
compensation, including if you were getting assistance for care
expenses.
Now, they have named their bill and added ``childcare'' to it, and
they say this is to increase the availability of childcare. What it
actually will do is that it is going to decrease people's overtime pay.
You are no longer going to get paid overtime based on your full
compensation. This is overturning decades of precedence.
Once again, they are acting in a way that makes life more expensive,
that makes sure that parents who receive this benefit will get paid
less if they are forced to work overtime. Guess what. If you are forced
to work overtime and have to keep your kids in childcare, it is going
to cost you more.
Their spiral of increased costs for American families is always
looking out for the big guy, always looking out for those big
corporations. That is why Democrats oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I will clear up some of the rhetoric on
H.R. 2270. It is called the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care
Solutions Act, but just to make it clear, this bill makes it easier for
employers to provide childcare benefits for their employees.
It excludes childcare and eldercare benefits from the regular rate
calculation for overtime, so we remove a major financial barrier for
some small business owners who want to help their employees actually
balance work and family life. It would be a helpful thing for those
employers and employees to help provide childcare.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that Americans know that Trump has been
horrible on the handling of their economy because he has done nothing
to lower the cost of living. In fact, everything he has done is the
opposite.
His tariffs have increased prices. Their failure to address the
healthcare crisis and extend tax credits for health insurance premiums
has increased the cost of healthcare for Americans. In fact, Americans
know this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article titled ``Americans are more dissatisfied with Trump's handling
of the economy than ever, polls show,'' from Politics, dated December
17, 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From Politics, Dec 17, 2025]
Americans Are More Dissatisfied With Trump's Handling of the Economy
Than Ever, Poll Shows
Americans give President Donald Trump his worst approval
ratings ever for his handling of the economy, as they also
express concerns about the cost of living, healthcare prices,
and personal finances, a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans disapprove of how Trump is
handling the economy, once viewed as one of the president's
strengths. Thirty-six percent say the president is doing a
good job, the lowest this poll has found across both of his
terms in office.
Sagging support Trump on the economy is likely a major
factor dragging down his overall approval rating--38% of
Americans think Trump is doing a good job as president, the
lowest percentage since the end of his first term.
``This is a major problem for him,'' said Lee Miringoff,
director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. ``When
affordability is so front and center in people's minds,
that's going to be laid at the doorstep of a chief
executive.''
Seven in 10 Americans say the cost of living in their area
is unaffordable, including nearly half of Republicans and
three-quarters of independents, according to the latest poll.
Three in 10 Americans say the cost of living is affordable,
falling 25 percentage points since June.
``The longer this goes on, the harder it is to get those
numbers back,'' said Amy Walter, editor of The Cook Political
Report. ``It becomes sort of a self-fulfilling situation.
People don't feel confident in you, and they think prices
just continue to go up.''
Public frustration with the economy also plagued Trump's
predecessor, Joe Biden, during his presidency. When inflation
began to peak in early 2022, Biden's approval on the economy
also dipped to 36% before improving slightly by the end of
his term.
Trump capitalized on voters' economic dissatisfaction
during the 2024 presidential election to win back the Oval
Office. Now, those same feelings could be potentially
perilous for Republicans in next year's midterm elections.
On the economy, registered voters were more likely to say
the Democratic partly would do a better job compared to the
Republican party, 40% to 35%. Independent voters gave
Democrats an 11-point edge in this poll (though the margin of
error for that group was 6.2).
It's a dramatic reversal from September 2022, months before
the last midterm elections, when Republicans held a 15-point
advantage on the economy with voters overall and a 23-point
advantage with independents.
Since the Republican Party now controls the White House and
both chambers of Congress, ``it's tough to point a finger at
the Biden economy and say that's what's driving this
situation,'' Miringoff said.
While Democrats are positioned well for the midterms right
now, their support on this issue has not fully hardened,
Miringoff added. Democrats made issues of affordability their
top concern in off-year elections and will likely continue to
do so. ``This may be where you throw a few punches, step back
and hope the other side collapses,'' Miringoff said.
Americans don't see brighter days in 2026.
Economic concerns are fueling an overall sense of pessimism
as 2025 comes to an end. More than half of Americans (57%)
described themselves as having a more negative view of what's
to come in the year ahead, while 43% say they are more
optimistic. It's a reversal from a year ago when the majority
felt hopeful about what would come to pass in 2025.
A year ago, people felt like 2025 might offer some relief
with prices of goods stabilizing, Walter said. That didn't
happen, and now people are less inclined to believe it will
happen next year.
Instead, the price of goods remains the biggest economic
concern for Americans in this latest poll, with 45% listing
the issue as the most pressing issue for them--more than
double the number who named any of the other options,
including housing costs, tariffs, job security or interest
rates.
Even as the president has begun to acknowledge issues of
affordability and promised to bring prices under control, he
has also dismissed concerns as a ``con job'' perpetrated by
Democrats.
Some Republicans in Congress have broken publicly with the
president over his repeated claims. ``Affordability or the
lack of ability of Americans to afford the cost of living is
not a Democrat hoax,'' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.,
told PBS News Hour co-anchor Amna Nawaz last week. Greene,
who will resign her seat in Congress next month, pointed to
record credit card debt as one factor in an continuingly
unstable economy.
Americans are experiencing it firsthand, Miringoff said,
and Trump's continued denials about how Americans are feeling
about the cost of living ``creates even a bigger issue'' for
him and could risk turning gentle wind ``into a hurricane.''
How Trump voters see the economy right now
Those worries about the economy have bubbled up even among
people like Roger Chester, 48, an Illinois independent who
voted for the president last year. He said Trump's governing
philosophy is best described as shifting winds.
``He's not conservative. He's not liberal. He is none of
the above,'' Chester said. ``He literally blows with the wind
to what his base wants and that is it. Which is fine. That's
all I want my politicians to do.''
Chester said he's had a ``love-hate'' relationship with
Trump since the president first ran for office a decade ago.
He now says the president is a ``populist puppet.''
While Chester said prices of goods are ``horrendous'' and
``unbearable,'' he doesn't solely blame Trump.
``He's the only one that's actually made an effort to
actually keep any of the promises
[[Page H675]]
that he's made, and he definitely hasn't been perfect,'' he
said.
To stay afloat, Chester, who lost his job in a casino
several years ago, says he works seven days a week to support
his family. He also believes the United States has to go
through some tough times to emerge in a better economic
place, with more jobs and better pay.
``I'm willing to suffer. I'm never going to retire. That's
how it is,'' he said. ``I'm doing pretty much anything to
have a better life for my son.''
Hundreds of miles away in North Carolina, independent
Justine Hawkins is also playing the economic long game. The
health care worker and mother of three was a reluctant Trump
voter last year.
She said the economy is mostly working fine for her upper
middle-class family, but she disagrees with the president's
assertion that affordability is a hoax.
``If you walk into any grocery store, you know everything
costs more money,'' she said.
Hawkins said while everyone is feeling discomfort right
now--especially in the height of holiday shopping--she is
trying to prioritize essential needs over things she may
want. She hopes Trump's policies like tariffs on imported
goods will pay off eventually.
``If I looked at it today, I'd say, `Oh, I'm very unhappy,'
'' Hawkins said. ``I think in the long run we will, as a
nation, be better off because of it.''
Others strongly disagree with that prediction, including
some Republican voters. In this poll, the president's support
from his own party dropped five points since last month.
Sherry Kamphaus, 61, is one Republican who has grown
disillusioned with Trump.
She lives in Illinois, a solidly Democratic state, and
voted for Trump last year. She likes how the president is
handling some issues, such as immigration. But that approval
is outweighed by economic concerns, the major area where she
said the president has failed to meet her expectations.
``He was supposed to help with food prices. That was the
main reason that I voted for him,'' she said. ``Food prices
just keep going up.''
Her frustration has spilled over to the Republican Party.
``They promised they'd do better, but they didn't follow
through,'' she said. ``They're not doing what they promised
to do, especially with the economy and inflation.''
Majority say they are worried about cost of health care
For millions of others. the cost of health care remains a
serious concern as enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care
Act are all but certain to expire at the end of the year.
Average monthly premiums are likely to double on average, and
millions of Americans are expected to drop coverage
altogether.
More than half of Americans are concerned that they will be
unable to pay for needed health care services next year.
Another 46% say they are not worried.
But perspective is sharply divided along income, race and
age:
67% of people who make under $50,000 are concerned while
47% of those who make above $50,000 say the same.
47% of white respondents expressed worry compared to 69% of
Black voters and 65% of Latino voters.
63% of people under 30 years old are concerned. 40% of
those over 60 years old say the same.
While the poll paints a concerning picture about the
overall state of the economy, there are some potential signs
of hope for the Trump administration.
Two-thirds of Americans are concerned about the effect of
tariffs the president is implementing, but as he has reversed
course on some of them and scaled back the announcement of
many, the percentage of those who are worried has dropped 14
points since June.
Additionally, half of Americans think the U.S. economy is
currently in a recession, the lowest number who believe that
since 2010.
The poll also found:
39% say the economy is working well for them personally.
21% say their family finances have improved in the last
year; 35% say they've gotten worse; and 44% say things have
mostly stayed the same.
33% expect their financial finances to improve next year--
down 15 percentage points since June. Another 29% believe
things will get worse, and 39% expect their situation to stay
the same.
For many Americans, the cumulative effect of all the
swirling economic pressures can be almost too hard to manage.
Sherry Kamphaus, the Illinois Republican, has been married
for 41 years and now stays home full time to care for her
disabled husband. She said they pay all their bills, stick
close to their budget and try to live within their means.
Every month is still a challenge.
``There's a difference between living and surviving,''
Kamphaus said. ``We're surviving.''
PBS News, NPR and Marist Poll conducted a survey from Dec.
8 through Dec. 11, 2025, that polled 1,440 U.S. adults by
phone, text and online with a margin of error of 3.2
percentage points, and 1,261 registered voters with a margin
of error of 3.4 percentage points.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier, Trump's
economy is a mess, and Republicans have failed to step up and do
anything. They fail to step up and challenge him on any of the issues.
They refuse to allow a vote on the tariffs on the floor of this House.
They stopped the clock so that we wouldn't vote on the tariffs in this
House.
Today's bills are another step in Republican efforts to chip away at
workers' rights, their retirement, and their pay, while costs are sky-
high.
House Republicans continue to uphold Trump's failing economy and
broken promises. As one of his campaign promises, Trump said that, on
day one of his term, he would lower the prices of all goods and make
America affordable again. Yet, nearly a year into his Presidency, life
for Americans is more expensive than ever.
For the first time in nearly 4 years, more Americans reported that
their family's current financial situation was bad rather than good.
This was in December before the craziness of this--what?--just 12 days
in.
Consumers are worried about prices, inflation, and tariffs. Those
were the concerns of working Americans, but none of these bills before
us do anything to address that.
{time} 1250
Mr. Speaker, the wallets of Americans are emptier today than they
were a year ago. My colleagues refuse to call out Trump's broken
promises or stand up against his tariffs or all of his policies, any of
his policies. I guess they are just afraid of him.
As working-class Americans work paycheck to paycheck to paycheck,
millionaires and billionaires get richer and richer. What is the
response? They offer bills about showerheads and bills that tip the
scales against workers. They want workers to get less money for more
work. That is a lousy deal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these bills and to vote
against the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to get back to actually addressing the
rules and the bills that are before us, instead of listening to
Democrat talking points over and over.
I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
during this debate. It seems that they are once again choosing to
prioritize Federal bureaucracy and woke social agendas over the actual
needs of the American worker.
They claim to be the party of the worker. Yet, they oppose H.R. 2262,
which simply increases opportunities for hourly employees to
voluntarily take training classes to better their careers. They claim
to support families. Yet, they oppose H.R. 2270, a bill that makes it
easier for small businesses to offer childcare benefits.
The American people are tired of a government that treats every
voluntary interaction between an employer and employee as a potential
crime. They are tired of the 80-20 rules that make it harder for small
businesses. They are tired of joint employer standards that were
designated by union lawyers in Washington to destroy the franchise
model that has provided a path for the American Dream for millions.
With H.R. 4366, the Save Local Businesses Act, we are finally
bringing stability back to our Main Streets. We are telling the small
business owners in my district and across the country that if they do
not have direct, actual control over the worker, the Federal Government
is not going to pretend they do just to satisfy a political agenda.
We cannot ignore the retirement security of our constituents. H.R.
2988 is a commonsense safeguard. When an American worker hands over
their hard-earned paycheck to a fiduciary, they expect that money to be
invested to maximize their return and not to fund a political
experiment or a green energy fantasy. This bill ensures that pecuniary
factors are the only things driving retirement investments.
The legislation in this package represents a fundamental shift back
to the principles that made our country and our economy strong, which
are clarity, flexibility, and individual opportunity. We are removing
regulatory hurdles that have stifled upward mobility for far too long.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to put the interests of the American worker,
the small business owner, and the retiree ahead of the interests of
Washington bureaucrats. I am proud to support this rule, and I am glad
that I was able to speak about the rule and about the
[[Page H676]]
bills, instead of talking points. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 988 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 20) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce
or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 20.
Sec. 7. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message
that the House has passed H.R. 20 no later than three
calendar days after passage.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________