[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H681-H685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMPOWERING EMPLOYER CHILD AND ELDER CARE SOLUTIONS ACT
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 988, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and Workforce, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill,
as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2270
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Empowering Employer Child
and Elder Care Solutions Act''.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE IN COMPUTING
OVERTIME COMPENSATION.
(a) In General.--Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``payments or
reimbursements for child or dependent care services;'' after
``by the employer;'';
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (8)(D)(ii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the value of any child or dependent care services
provided by an employer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to overtime compensation required to
be paid for workweeks beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. 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
[[Page H682]]
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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2270, the Empowering
Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act. Unfortunately, it doesn't
solve anything. It doesn't provide any additional child or elder care.
What it does is take money out of people's pockets because, under
current law, employers must pay hourly workers time and a half for
hours worked over 40 hours in a week. That overtime rate is based on a
worker's regular rate of pay, which includes not only the cash payment
but also non-wage compensation and presently includes the value of
child or dependent care services when employers decide to provide them
as part of the benefit package.
Existing law already provides incentives for these benefits, allowing
employers to deduct them as a cost of doing business and offering tax
preferences for certain child and dependent care assistance.
This bill would change the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude the
value of these services from the regular rate used to calculate
overtime.
Despite its name, the bill does not require employers to provide any
child or elder care. Instead, it just reduces the cost of overtime if
they provide it. That is the problem. In practice, this bill encourages
employers to keep workers on the job longer rather than expanding
access to affordable care. It increases the time away from families
while offering no assurance that any support for childcare will be
provided. Workers who already receive these benefits will see their
overtime pay reduced.
There is no evidence that these workers who do not receive this
benefit are likely to get the benefit. The only group we know for
certain will be affected is those who already have it, and they will
lose money on overtime. That makes no sense. I don't know how that
solves anything.
I would hope that we would not reduce workers' pay. To do that, we
have to oppose the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1440
Mr. WALBERG. 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. MESSMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue affecting
both families and businesses in Indiana and across the United States,
which is the expensive, but essential, financial support workers need
to provide care for their young children and elderly parents.
Current law discourages employers from helping their workers pay for
onsite childcare or elderly dependent care because of the unreasonable
pay calculations that increase costs and burdensome regulations for the
company.
This guidance is so outdated. It was enacted in 1938, and we all know
things have come a long way since then when families did not use
daycare services for their little ones and elderly parents lived with
their adult children until death.
The current mandates of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to
dependent care drive up costs for businesses through unreasonable pay
calculations.
These expensive requirements naturally remove the incentive for many
companies to provide this important coverage for their employees. It is
high time we eradicate this unwarranted red tape and let businesses
invest in the needs of their employees without punishing the company
for doing just that.
That is why I introduced the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care
Solutions Act. Hoosiers and all Americans must not be forced to choose
between caring for a loved one and working outside of the home.
Businesses deserve to be profitable but are also entitled to have the
most qualified workers to support their company's growth. A company
must be rewarded and not penalized for making critical benefits
available to their employees, which, in turn, helps the company recruit
the best and the brightest to their workforce.
The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act lowers
costs, cuts red tape, and better serves American companies by making
profamily benefits achievable. Passing this legislation contributes to
our goal of returning affordability to the American people and the U.S.
workforce.
The American taxpayer needs our help now more than ever to get our
economy back on track, and this bill will be one small step in making
that dream a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his support on H.R. 2270.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is a
distinguished member of the Education and Workforce Committee and the
ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another effort to chip away at the
protections guaranteed at the Federal level and take money out of the
American worker's pocket.
The concept of overtime is very simple. If you work more than your
traditional 40 hours a week, then you make more money, and you get to
take home what you earn.
Now, instead of protecting that very basic principle, my Republican
colleagues are trying to make it easier for employers to pay their
workers less for working more. They want to pay workers less for
working more. This bill would exclude child and dependent care from the
rate of pay used to calculate a worker's overtime pay. In other words,
this bill makes it permissible to pay workers less than their regular
rate if they picked up an extra shift.
Taking on extra work doesn't mean you don't need someone to watch
your kids, and it shouldn't cost you a benefit that you are entitled
to.
Despite the misleading title, this bill cheapens the value of an
employee's overtime labor. The overtime salary threshold is already far
too low. When the first Trump administration set the current threshold,
8.2 million Americans saw their overtime protections just vanish, and
even those eligible employees earning $36,000 a year were making too
much money to qualify for overtime pay.
Mr. Speaker, imagine making $36,000 a year and that would disqualify
you from being able to get overtime pay. You have no right to it.
[[Page H683]]
Childcare and dependent care assistance should be more accessible and
far more affordable for working families, but this Republican proposal
merely incentivizing employers to provide assistance will not solve
that issue and cutting down already low levels of overtime pay will not
do that either.
Right now, working families are watching their access to basic
support services shrink before their eyes. Head Start has seen five of
their regional offices across the country abruptly closed. Medicaid
could face over $800 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. These
lifelines that working families depend on for affordable support
services are rapidly diminishing, largely due to this administration
and this majority's attack on these lifelines as ``waste.''
The resources that working families need are not waste. The tools for
economic survival are not waste. Americans deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose
it as well.
Mr. WALBERG. 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished member
of the Committee on Education and Workforce.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we have a childcare crisis in
this country. In my home State of Pennsylvania, infant and toddler care
costs on average $14,000 per year. That is almost one-half of the
average annual salary of the childcare workers in my district.
Childcare, if folks can even find it, is pushing families into
poverty as they are forced to make impossible choices between paying
the rent or paying for care, between staying employed or staying home.
Republicans are doing everything in their power to undermine
investments in childcare, including with this bill, which will allow
employers to exclude childcare benefits from overtime pay.
Employees working overtime are the ones who need childcare the most
and the bill undermines workers' ability to pay for that care.
For this reason, at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would replace the text of this bill with the Child Care
for Working Families Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my legislation with Ranking
Member Bobby Scott would make sure families actually have access to
childcare slots, that no family spends more than 7 percent of their
income on childcare, and that all early childhood educators make a
livable wage.
If Republicans actually care about children and families, then I
encourage them to pass the Child Care for Working Families Act. I hope
my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
{time} 1450
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage people to support the motion to recommit,
which would actually create childcare availability.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO which
says, in part: `` . . . there is no evidence that reducing the overtime
rate for employees will spur a widespread willingness of employers to
offer reimbursement for child or elder care.''
AFL-CIO, Legislative Alert,
January 12, 2026.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 15 million workers
and 64 affiliate unions represented by the AFL-CIO, I urge
you to oppose the following anti-worker bills scheduled for
consideration on the House floor this week: the Flexibility
for Workers Education Act (H.R. 2262), the Empowering
Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act (H.R. 2270), and
the Tipped Employee Protection Act (H.R. 2312).
H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act, would let
employers require workers to attend job-related training
without paying them for that time. The bill allows employers
to label training as ``voluntary,'' even when workers feel
pressured to attend to keep their jobs or advance, and
removes current protections that ensure training closely tied
to a worker's job is paid. As a result, employers could push
essential training outside of regular work hours and off the
clock, increasing unpaid work for low-wage workers.
H.R. 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care
Solutions Act, would exclude from the calculation of an
employee's regular wage rate any employer reimbursement for
child or elder care when calculating an employee's overtime
rate of pay. Under this bill, employees who receive these
reimbursements would see their overtime wage rate cut.
Reducing a worker's overtime earnings will not help them
afford the cost of child or elder care. Instead, it will make
life harder. And there is no evidence that reducing the
overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread
willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or
elder care. Workers need both decent wages and access to
affordable child and elder care. There are ways to achieve
the latter without attacking the former.
H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would change
federal wage law in a way that makes pay more unstable for
many low-wage workers by allowing employers to treat almost
any worker as a ``tipped employee'' if they receive even
small or occasional tips over a time period the employer
chooses, whether that is a single day or an entire month.
This could allow employers to pay the tipped subminimum wage
to workers such as baristas, hotel staff, delivery drivers,
salon workers, stadium staff, and other service workers who
do not regularly earn tips. For example, a worker who waits
tables would be paid the full minimum wage for non-tipped
cooking shifts, but under this bill the employer could
average tips earned earlier in the week and use them to
justify paying $2.13 an hour for cooking shifts as well,
which would cut weekly pay. By weakening existing rules that
limit when the tip credit can be used, the bill would result
in reduced take-home pay for workers, give employers greater
control over how workers are classified and paid, make it
harder for workers to know if they are being paid correctly,
and increase the risk of wage theft in industries where it is
already common.
Collectively, these bills nickel and dime workers' pay at a
time when so many struggle to afford the basics. Wages should
be raised, not cut. Please vote no on H.R. 2262, H.R. 2270,
and H.R. 2312.
Sincerely,
Jody Calemine,
Director, Government Affairs.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to solve,
as I said, the elder or childcare crisis in this country. It does not
create affordable care, and it does not guarantee a single new benefit
for working families.
What it does do is reduce overtime pay for workers who already
receive these benefits while encouraging employers to keep people at
work longer without fully paid compensation. That means more time away
from loved ones, less money in workers' pockets, and probably more need
for childcare.
If we are serious about supporting families, then Congress should be
expanding access to affordable care, not cutting wages under the guise
of helping workers. We could really do some help by supporting the
motion to recommit and passing the Child Care for Working Families Act.
That would actually lower costs for families and create childcare
opportunities.
[[Page H684]]
Mr. Speaker, I hope we would support the motion to recommit, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 988, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2270 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania is as
follows:
Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2270 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE I--CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING PROGRAM
SEC. 101. BIRTH THROUGH FIVE CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING
PROGRAM.
(a) Child Care Definitions.--The definitions in section
658P of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n) shall apply to this section, except as
provided in subsection (b) and as otherwise specified.
(b) Additional Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Apprenticeship.--The term ``apprenticeship'' means an
apprenticeship registered under the Act of August 16, 1937
(commonly known as the ``National Apprenticeship Act''; 50
Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.).
(2) Child care certificate.--
(A) In general.--The term ``child care certificate'' means
a certificate (that may be a check or other disbursement)
that is issued by a State, Tribal, territorial, or local
government under this section directly to a parent who shall
use such certificate only as payment for child care services
or as a deposit for child care services if such a deposit is
required of other children being cared for by the provider.
(B) Rule.--Nothing in this section shall preclude the use
of such certificates for sectarian child care services if
freely chosen by the parent. For the purposes of this
section, child care certificates shall be considered indirect
Federal financial assistance to the provider.
(3) Child experiencing homelessness.--The term ``child
experiencing homelessness'' means an individual who is a
homeless child or youth under section 725 of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
(4) Eligible activity.--The term ``eligible activity'',
with respect to a parent, shall include, at minimum,
activities consisting of--
(A) full-time or part-time employment;
(B) self-employment;
(C) job search activities;
(D) secondary, postsecondary, or adult education, including
education through a program of high school classes, a course
of study at an institution of higher education, classes
towards an equivalent of a high school diploma recognized by
State law, or English as a second language classes;
(E) health treatment (including mental health and substance
use treatment) for a condition that prevents the parent from
participating in other eligible activities;
(F) activities to prevent child abuse and neglect, or
family violence prevention or intervention activities;
(G) employment and training activities, including job
training, under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(29 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); and
(H) taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) (or equivalent provisions for
Federal employees), a State or local paid or unpaid leave
law, or a program of employer-provided leave.
(5) Eligible child.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible child'' means an
individual--
(i) who is less than 6 years of age;
(ii) who is not yet in kindergarten; and
(iii) who--
(I) resides with a parent or parents who are participating
in an eligible activity;
(II) is included in a population of vulnerable children
identified by the lead agency involved, which at a minimum
shall include children with disabilities, infants and
toddlers with disabilities, children experiencing
homelessness, children in foster care, children in kinship
care, children in a family that is eligible for assistance
through the special supplemental nutrition assistance program
for women, infants, and children established by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), a household
that is eligible to receive assistance through the
supplemental nutrition assistance program established under
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.),
or a family that is eligible to receive assistance through
the program of block grants to States for temporary
assistance for needy families established under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
and children who are receiving, or need to receive, child
protective services; or
(III) resides with--
(aa) a parent who is more than 65 years of age;
(bb) a parent who is employed by an eligible child care
provider; or
(cc) a parent who is enrolled in high school and has not
exceeded the maximum age of enrollment in high school.
(B) Longer-term period eligibility.--An individual who is
determined to be an eligible child shall not be required to
reverify eligibility for purposes of this title during the
period after the determination and before the individual
becomes 6 years of age or enters kindergarten, whichever
occurs earlier.
(6) Eligible child care provider.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible child care provider''
means a center-based child care provider, a family child care
provider, or other provider of child care services for
compensation that--
(i) is licensed to provide child care services under State
law applicable to the child care services it provides or, in
the case of an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, meets the
rules set by the Secretary;
(ii) participates in the State's tiered system for
recognizing and supporting the quality of child care services
described in subsection (f)(3)(B), or, in the case of an
Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, meets the rules set by
the Secretary--
(I) not later than 4 years after the State first receives
funds under this section; and
(II) for the remainder of the period for which the provider
receives funds under this section; and
(iii) satisfies the State and local requirements, including
those requirements described in section 658E(c)(2)(I) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)(2)(I)), applicable to the child care services it
provides.
(B) Special rule.--A child care provider who is eligible to
provide child care services in a State for children receiving
assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9857 et seq.) on the date the State
submits an application for funds under this section, and
remains in compliance with any licensing or registration
standards, or regulations, of the State, shall be deemed to
be an eligible child care provider under this section for 3.5
years after the State first receives funding under this
section.
(7) FMAP.--The term ``FMAP'' has the meaning given the term
``Federal medical assistance percentage'' in the first
sentence of section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396d(b)).
(8) Family child care provider.--The term ``family child
care provider'' means one or more individuals who provide
child care services, in a private residence other than the
residences of the children involved, for less than 24 hours
per day per child, or for 24
[[Page H685]]
hours per day per child due to the nature of the work of the
parent involved.
(9) Inclusive care.--The term ``inclusive'', with respect
to care (including child care), means care provided by an
eligible child care provider--
(A) for whom the percentage of children served by the
provider who are children with disabilities or infants or
toddlers with disabilities reflects the prevalence of
children with disabilities and infants and toddlers with
disabilities (whichever the provider serves) among children
within the State involved; and
(B) that provides care and full participation for children
with disabilities and infants and toddlers with disabilities
(whichever the provider serves) alongside children who are--
(i) not children with disabilities; and
(ii) not infants and toddlers with disabilities.
(10) Infant or toddler.--The term ``infant or toddler''
means an individual who is less than 3 years of age.
(11) Infant or toddler with a disability.--The term
``infant or toddler with a disability'' has the meaning given
the term in section 632 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1432).
(12) Lead agency.--The term ``lead agency'' means the
agency designated under subsection (e).
(13) Provider type.--The term ``provider type'' means a
type that is--
(A) a center-based child care provider;
(B) a family child care provider; or
(C) another non-center-based child care provider.
(14) Recognized postsecondary credential.--The term
``recognized postsecondary credential'' has the meaning given
the term in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).
(15) Staffed family child care network.--The term ``staffed
family child care network'' means a nonprofit organization or
nonprofit cooperative--
(A) that may be a component of a child care resource and
referral organization;
(B) that has at least one paid staff member; and
(C) that offers evidence-based professional development,
quality improvement support, business support, and technical
assistance, including on achieving licensure as a child care
provider, to family child care providers.
(16) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
(17) Territory.--The term ``territory'' means the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
[For full text please see H.R. 2743, Raise the Wage Act.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. 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.
____________________