[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H685-H691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TIPPED EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
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. 2312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Tipped Employee Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. TIPPED EMPLOYEES.
Section 3(t) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 203(t)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(t)'' and inserting ``(t)(1)'';
(2) by striking ``engaged in an occupation in which he
customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in
tips.'' and inserting ``, without regard to the duties of the
employee, who receives tips and other cash wages for a work
period described in paragraph (2) at a rate that, when
combined with the cash wage required under subsection
(m)(2)(A)(i), is not less than the wage in effect under
section 6(a)(1).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) A work period described in this paragraph is a work
period that is determined by the employer of the employee,
such as a work period of 1 day, 1 week, every 2 weeks, every
28 days, or every pay period.''.
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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 2312.
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 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.
{time} 1500
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.
[[Page H686]]
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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee
Protection Act. It is actually the tipped employer protection act.
Today, we are discussing one of several bills that House Republicans
claim will benefit workers but ultimately falls short of what workers
need.
H.R. 2312 would redefine the Fair Labor Standards Act, the FLSA, to
make workers more vulnerable to wage theft and give employers an excuse
not to pay workers what they are otherwise owed.
Under present law, the FLSA allows employers to take a tip credit
only if employees are in jobs where they regularly and customarily earn
at least $30 a month in tips. If workers split their time between jobs
that regularly earn tips and jobs that don't, such as one shift as a
restaurant server and another as a restaurant line cook, the employer
can apply the tip credit today only to the tip-earning shifts.
This bill would tear down that distinction.
Ultimately, the bill seeks to expand the pool of workers that
employers can pay a subminimum wage rather than the full wage. This is
problematic because tipped workers are paid less per hour and have less
access to benefits such as sick leave, healthcare, short-term
disability, and life insurance.
In fact, the Federal tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour.
Instead of giving workers a leg up, this bill offers bad actors an
opportunity to cut corners and shortchange their workers.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the sponsor of this good bill.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walberg for this
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, the Tipped Employee
Protection Act, which clarifies the definition of a tipped employee,
providing long-term certainty for the service industry and, ultimately,
protecting tipped employees' right to earn a living, a good living.
Mr. Speaker, our local service industry businesses, like the family-
owned restaurant down the street, both reflect and shape the culture in
each of our communities.
These establishments aren't just places to enjoy a good meal. They
are where we foster and grow relationships. From catching up with
friends to shaking hands on new business to marking some of life's
biggest accomplishments--birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and
promotions. Where do we do this? We do this down at the local
restaurant.
Many eateries like the ones I just described make their home in my
own area of northwest Arkansas. Some of my favorites include Neal's
Cafe in Springdale. By the way, I should give credit to its owner,
Micah Neal, for helping provide the inspiration for the legislation
that we are talking about here today. Another place is Herman's, an
iconic rib house in Fayetteville.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, naming some of my area's most
popular restaurants. What do they have in common? To begin with they
have great food, but it is the hardworking people behind the counter or
taking your table order who truly make these businesses landmarks in
our communities. We all have them.
The bill I stand here in support of today, Mr. Speaker, is about
protecting these workers. Restaurants, most of which are small
businesses, operate on very thin margins. The tip credit system is the
foundation on which these small businesses operate.
The tip credit, or the tipped wage, has been part of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for decades. It allows employers to pay tipped workers a
base wage with tips--handsome tips, in many cases--making up the rest
of those workers' earnings.
This system empowers tipped employees to maximize their earning
potential. In fact, research shows that servers at full-service
restaurants earn over twice--let me say it again, earn over twice--the
Federal minimum wage. According to the National Restaurant Association,
tipped servers nationally make a median income of $27 an hour, with the
highest paid workers in the $41 an hour range.
The tip credit also offers flexibility for operators to invest in
their businesses and staff. Without it, restaurant operators would be
forced to make some very tough decisions, such as raising prices on
their customers or reducing workers' hours, maybe even cutting jobs
altogether.
Unfortunately, regulatory overreach has put the tipped credit system
at risk, creating uncertainty for restaurant operators. Different
administrations have issued conflicting rules and guidance, producing a
regulatory roller coaster for restaurant owners and their staff. This
instability makes it difficult for owners and operators to make long-
term business plans. Antiworker efforts that chip away at the tipped
wage altogether interfere with employees' hard-earned paychecks and
livelihoods.
My bill, Mr. Speaker, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, provides a
commonsense solution. It puts an end to hurtful regulatory confusion
and litigation. It preserves the tipped wage and protections in the
Fair Labor Standards Act. It provides clarity and simplicity in
categorizing workers as tipped employees. It seeks to maintain a
consistent regulatory environment.
To put it simply, my legislation will protect the hard-earned
paychecks of tipped employees across the country and right at home in
my Third District of Arkansas, the people who work day in and day out
to put food on the tables of your favorite restaurant, as well as on
their own kitchen tables at home.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is how we deliver bigger paychecks to our
constituents back home.
One other thing, Mr. Speaker. If you ever find yourself in
Springdale, Arkansas, at Neal's Cafe, order some apple salad. You will
thank me later.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Workforce and the ranking member of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are selling
Americans on a bill with a flashy title and hoping that they don't read
the fine print.
The so-called Tipped Employee Protection Act implies that something
in this bill might actually benefit workers who work for tips. In
reality, this bill manipulates labor law to decrease employees' earning
power and allow employers to skirt minimum wage requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I was a high school English teacher, and I taught my
students about irony. This bill is more aptly titled the Republican
invent new ways to pay workers less bill.
Here is a closer look at the bill. For jobs like waiting tables,
which regularly generate a large proportion of pay from tips, employers
may pay their employees a small portion of the minimum wage, a mere
$2.13 an hour, as long as what they normally make in tips makes up the
rest.
{time} 1510
Mr. Speaker, this bill, however, opens the opportunity for employers
to manipulate FLSA definitions and classify other workers who receive
tips only sometimes to also be paid a subminimum wage.
[[Page H687]]
Under this bill, hotel housekeepers, valets, manicurists, and other
workers could see their tips used to offset what their employers owe
them, rather than serving as an occasional boost in take-home pay for a
job well done.
In short, it expands the subminimum wage and offers more
opportunities to pay workers less. As I said, we should really call
this bill the Republican invent new ways to pay workers less bill.
No responsible policymaker should be arguing that Americans should be
making less. People in this country are feeling serious financial
strain as the cost of living soars and wages remain stagnant.
Everything is more expensive, and here we are, debating a proposal
that would allow employers to pay people less than what they earned so
employers can save a few dollars on the hour. Shame on this majority.
Once again, this Republican proposal to stimulate the economy relies
on Americans in the lowest income brackets getting squeezed the most.
Mr. Speaker, we need to eliminate the subminimum wage entirely and
make sure that Americans make enough money to live with dignity and not
invent new ways to pay Americans less. I encourage my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baumgartner), a great member of the Education and
Workforce Committee.
Mr. BAUMGARTNER. Mr. Speaker, my voters and my constituents sent me
here to help solve problems, to help small business, to help employees,
and to help grow the economy. As such, I am proud to support the Tipped
Employee Protection Act. This important bill will help codify changes
we are making in Congress to help tip the scales in favor of our
service workers and waitresses.
Current Fair Labor Standards Act rules define tipped work as someone
who customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.
It also considers a standard known as the 80/20 rule, which stipulates
that tipped workers can spend no more than 20 percent of their time, or
30 minutes at a stretch, doing tasks that don't directly earn tips. If
that sounds arbitrary, that is because it is.
Restaurants and similar businesses already run on thin margins.
Keeping track of that kind of detail adds unnecessary red tape and
stress. We all know how tough it is out there right now for small
businesses.
That is why Representative Steve Womack and I introduced the Tipped
Employee Protection Act. This bill replaces the outdated definition of
tipped employees with a simpler and more realistic definition. The bill
defines a tipped worker as anyone who receives tips and other cash
wages that together add up to the Federal minimum wage, without
worrying about how much time they spend on this or that.
This change gives businesses more flexibility and protects them from
unfair and crippling penalties for small recordkeeping mistakes they
might make.
This bill resolves a longstanding issue that has been the subject of
expensive litigation and ensures that the Federal Government does not
set a standard that it cannot reasonably expect to enforce. It also
helps the Department of Labor focus on real wage violations instead of
technical paperwork issues.
Let's help small business. Let's help employers. Let's do the right
thing. Let's not work for the people that just want to have endless
lawsuits, endless litigation, and red tape.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2312 because
businesses don't need Federal bureaucrats micromanaging their
timekeeping.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice opposition to this
bill, the Tipped Employee Protection Act.
Don't be fooled by the name of it. There is nothing proworker in this
bill. It is like calling increased air pollution the blue sky
initiative. This is just another attempt from my Republican colleagues
to create loopholes that allow employers to get away with wage theft.
Anyone who has visited my district in downtown Las Vegas and the
strip will know that our world-class hospitality workers are the magic
behind the glitz and glamour. With the power of organized labor, casino
workers, servers, line cooks, housekeepers, and others put Las Vegas on
the map as a world-renowned hospitality center.
The tourism, gaming, and entertainment industries account for more
than 315,000 jobs in our State. We have proven in Nevada that if you
pay workers what they deserve, everybody wins.
I am especially proud that our State bans subminimum wages for tipped
employees. That means, whether an employee has a good or a bad tipping
month, an employee can still earn an honest living.
More needs to be done to support our workers. This is especially true
as the Trump slump threatens our tourism economy and the Trump
administration cuts vital safety nets like SNAP.
That is why I introduced the LIFT Act last year. It would raise the
minimum wage and all subminimum wages to $17 an hour over the next 3
years with annual increases after that. In contrast, the bill before us
today would change the definition of tipped employee in a manner that
would allow employers to undercut wages.
Anybody in the service industry knows that tips vary from shift to
shift. Under the current law, the definition of tipped employee
accounts for those realities by stipulating that an employee must
customarily and regularly--customarily and regularly--receive more than
$30 a month in tips.
Yet, the bill we are considering today would allow employers to
measure a worker's tips over just a single day of work. Employers could
manipulate schedules and purposely choose to count days where workers
get more tips in order to pay them less.
In 15 States, that means even more workers will be making just $2.13
an hour. That can't even buy a carton of eggs in Trump's economy, much
less pay the rent. A more accurate name for this would be the employer
profits protection act.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues on this side of the aisle and
urge everyone to stand up for workers and vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. WALBERG. 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate comes down to one simple question: What is
fair for tipped workers?
All across America, and especially in my home State of Nevada, tipped
workers show up every day, serving food and cleaning rooms. They keep
our restaurants, hotels, and casinos running. They work hard. They
deserve to be paid fairly for every hour that they work.
Under current law, there is a commonsense protection in place. A
worker
[[Page H688]]
can only be paid a tipped wage if their job actually depends on tips.
That is why the law says workers must regularly earn tips before an
employer can pay a subminimum wage.
{time} 1520
That rule exists to prevent abuse. H.R. 2312, the so-called Tipped
Employee Protection Act, tears down that protection. Under this bill,
an employer could say that you earned a tip once this week, so every
hour you work now counts as tipped work.
A worker could wait tables one night, earn a few tips, and then spend
the rest of the week cooking, cleaning, or washing dishes and still be
paid as little as $2.13 an hour for that work. That is not tip work.
That is a pay cut.
That is why we need to pass my TIPS Act, which would raise the wages
for tipped workers--which has not been raised since 1991, the year I
graduated from high school--not cut them.
This GOP bill lets employers average tips however they want over
whatever time period they choose and use that as an excuse to lower
wages for hours when workers are not earning tips at all.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest: Tips aren't guaranteed. They depend on
the customer, the shift, the economy, and pure luck. That is why tips
are gifts, not a guarantee and not wages. No worker should have to
gamble with their paycheck just to make rent or to put food on the
table.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with working people, stand
with tipped workers, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2312.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Committee on
Education and Workforce.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to fight for some of the most overworked
and underpaid people in our country to ensure that the money that they
work so hard for goes to them and their families, not to someone who
didn't work for it.
The true purpose of this bill is not to protect tipped employees. The
true purpose is to make it easier to pay people less for their work and
to pay them less than $7.25 an hour.
This bill allows employers to classify anyone who may receive a
seasonal or random tip as a tipped employee, meaning they can now be
paid below minimum wage by their employer. Those tips should be in
addition to a worker's wage.
Employers should not be able to pay their workers less because that
worker happened to receive a Christmas bonus or an occasional tip from
a customer, but that is exactly what this bill would do.
This bill flies directly in the face of President Trump's campaign
promise to help tipped workers. What good is no tax on tips if you have
to give those tips directly to your boss so that they can take it out
of your base pay?
When someone pays taxes, they at least get something in return. Like
many Americans, I do not think that the average person sees the benefit
that they really should for what they pay in taxes. That is because the
Republican majority chooses to spend the American people's money on tax
breaks for billionaires instead of spending it on our kids, and instead
of spending it on childcare, housing, healthcare, on things that really
make people's lives far more affordable.
What is the worker getting in return in this situation? It is just
the opportunity to work. I think the American people agree that their
employers should be paying them to work and not the other way around.
No worker in this country should be paid this low. I don't care who
they are. Many States have raised their minimum wages. Unfortunately,
my State of Georgia has not. Without the Federal floor of $7.25,
workers in Georgia could legally be paid just over $5 an hour because
our State minimum wage is just $5.15. Who can live on that?
Instead of trying to find ways to pay people as little as possible,
this body, Congress, should be raising the wages and helping Americans
keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pocket, the money that
they worked so hard for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Babin). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Georgia.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, before I came to this body, I was a flight
attendant for a national air carrier. The money that I am making today
is far more than I ever made as a contract employee for an airline.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that during the hard, 16-hour days that
I had, much like what I have here, we weren't allowed to receive any
tips. We weren't allowed to receive any of those kinds of benefits.
Basically, if we did, if someone really, really pushed a tip on us, we
would spread it among our crew. It was the right thing to do because in
the airline industry, there is a cap on what you can make. There is a
cap on your salary.
Mr. Speaker, having been a contract employee and having done all of
that before I came here, I am so grateful every time I come across an
individual in the customer service industry who has really done a good
job. Paying them tips is the least that we can do to make sure that
they are honored for their service.
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 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).
Ms. BUDZINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation.
This bill, deceptively named the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would
change Federal wage law to allow employers to treat almost any worker
as a tipped employee, even if they receive small or occasional tips.
This means lower wages for everyday Americans who are struggling daily
with higher costs.
Mr. Speaker, think of a restaurant worker who both waits tables and
covers with some back-of-the-house shifts. This legislation would allow
her employer to average her tipped wage from waiting tables with the
standard minimum wage she earned during her back-of-the-house hours.
By doing this, the employer could justify paying her a subminimum
wage for all hours worked. If this bill were to become law, the
employer could classify her as a tipped employee and could legally pay
her as little as $2.13 an hour.
In a time of rising costs and an uncertain economy and working
families all across my district struggling to make ends meet, this bill
to reduce take-home pay for workers is tone-deaf, at best. At worst, it
is a handout to corporations at a time when workers can least afford
it.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permitted,
I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this
bill.
My amendment would attach the Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery
Act to this bill, which would establish new and increased penalties for
violations of overtime and minimum wage requirements, a real
commonsense solution for working people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Ms. BUDZINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in
voting for the motion to recommit.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we received a letter from the Union SEIU, which says in
part that this bill, the so-called Tipped Employee Protection Act,
would amend Federal minimum wage and overtime law by broadening the
definition of tipped employee and increasing the employer's power to
move workers in and out of tipped employee status, including allowing
employers to decide on a daily or weekly basis whether a worker counts
as a tipped worker.
[[Page H689]]
This is a harmful and ill-conceived bill in every possible way. Most
tipped workers already struggle to make ends meet. We should be doing
away with the subminimum wage for tipped workers, not incentivizing and
expanding tipped work.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a January 13, 2026, letter from
SEIU.
January 13, 2026.
Dear Representative: On behalf of SEIU's 2 million members
and worker leaders, I write to urge you to vote NO on a slate
of ``labor'' bills expected to come to the floor for a vote
this week. The bills Republicans are bringing to the floor do
not represent serious attempts by Speaker Johnson or the GOP
to help working people or working families. This is the party
that just this last week stripped five states of $10 billion
in childcare funding and funding to needy families. This is
the party that shut the government down because they were
unwilling to save 22 million people from having their health
care costs dramatically rise or are lost. These pieces of
legislation do not represent any serious effort at curbing
costs or making life better for everyday people.
The bills are as follows: H.R. 2988--Protecting Prudent
Investment of Retirement Savings, H.R. 2270--Empowering Child
and Elder Care Solutions Act, H.R. 4366 Save Local Business
Act, H.R. 2312--Tipped Employee Protection Act, H.R. 2262--
Flexibility for Workers Education Act. Far from making
conditions better for working people, these bills weaken
existing protections and further stack the deck in favor of
employers and against workers.
H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement
Savings Act, amends the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) to codify Trump Administration rules that
undermine workers' retirement security by, among other
things, chilling fiduciaries' consideration of a set of
important financial risks and I opportunities. This bill
misguidedly attacks Environmental, Social, and Governance
(``ESG'') considerations in fiduciary decision-making as
``woke'' rather than legitimate and important factors to be
considered in decision-making.
H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care
Solutions Act, would allow employers to pay their workers
less overtime than they are owed by excluding child and
dependent care services and payments from the rate used to
compute overtime compensation. Rather than incentivize
employers to subsidize care, this bill could encourage
excessive work without fairly compensating the workers or
doing anything to make childcare or elder care more
affordable or accessible.
H.R. 4366, the Save Local Business Act, would limit
workers' protections under labor and employment laws by
adopting a single, weak, joint employer test for both the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Joint employer tests are used to
determine who is responsible for wrongdoing when there are
multiple entities with the power to determine employment
conditions. An improperly narrow FLSA or NLRA standard would
make it harder for workers to hold the right entities
responsible for abuse. Further, a narrow NLRA joint employer
standard effectively extinguishes the collective bargaining
rights of millions of workers by permitting companies that
control their jobs to escape the bargaining table. SEIU
represents tens of thousands of workers, including janitors,
security guards, and healthcare workers, who would have their
rights weakened if this bill passes.
H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would amend
federal minimum wage and overtime law by broadening the
definition of tipped employee and increasing employers' power
to move workers in and out of tipped employee status,
including allowing employers to decide on a daily or weekly
basis whether a worker counts as a tipped worker already
struggle to make ends meet. We should be doing away with the
subminimum wage for tipped workers, not incentivizing and
expanding tipped work.
H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act, would
carve out time spent participating in education or training
related to employment from the calculation of a worker's paid
time. This bill would undercut the longstanding principle
that FLSA requires minimum wage and overtime protections for
all time that employees spend working for the benefit of the
employer, and would enable employers to steal time from
employees by scheduling unpaid--but essential to the job--
training.
As stated above, these bills would hurt working people by
chipping away at existing legal protections meant to protect
workers from harm. They are unnecessary and burdensome new
legal requirements that do nothing to improve working
conditions. We strongly urge you to vote NO on all the above
bills.
If you have any questions, please contact Sarah Heydemann.
Thank you,
John Gray,
Director, Legislation, Service Employees International Union.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a
January 13, 2026, letter from the Economic Policy Institute to Speaker
Johnson.
January 13, 2026.
Re Opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of
Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and
Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business
Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R.
2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations
dedicated to worker rights and building a just and inclusive
economy write in opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent
Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering
Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local
Business Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and
H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act. If enacted,
these bills would harm workers by weakening longstanding
labor and employment laws, leading to lower pay, reduced
employer accountability, and more precarity.
H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement
Savings Act
The Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act
would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) to block retirement plan fiduciaries from considering
climate change and other environmental, social, and
governance factors when they select retirement investments.
The bill would constrain plan fiduciaries' ability to account
long-term financial risks in their investment decisions,
which would undermine workers' retirement security.
H.R 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions
Act
The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act
would exclude child, dependent, and elder care payments from
the rate used to compute overtime compensation for eligible
workers. This would result in workers receiving less overtime
than they are owed under current law, which would in turn
incentivize employers to impose longer workweeks on already
over-worked employees. Further, workers who face longer
workweeks as a consequence of H.R. 2270 would likely
experience higher childcare costs as childcare providers who
operate during nontraditional hours (including evenings and
weekends) tend to cost more. H.R. 2270 would contradict the
basic premise, going back to 1938. that employers should be
deterred from requiring employees to work excessive and
burdensome hours.
H.R. 2262, The Flexibility for Workers Education Act
The Flexibility for Workers Education Act would amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act to excuse employers of their
responsibility to pay workers for trainings or other
professional development opportunities that are outside of
regular work hours. Despite the bill's generous-sounding
title, this bill would not give workers any more flexibility.
Instead, it allows employers to hold trainings and
professional development opportunities after work hours and
not pay workers who attend--as long as the employer does not
say it's required. However, employers can still lead workers
to believe these trainings and professional development
opportunities are required, which would result in workers not
being paid for their time.
H.R 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act
This bill amends the FLSA's definition of ``tipped
employee'', by allowing employers to classify workers as
tipped employees--and thus allow employers to take a tip
credit--if workers receive (1) any amount of tips (2) over a
period of time selected by the employer, (3) regardless of
the employees' duties. Eliminating the requirement that
workers must be ``engaged in an occupation in which he
customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in
tips.'' And allowing employers to choose any time period
would give employers nearly unfettered discretion to re-
classify almost any worker receiving any amount of tips for
any amount of time as tipped employees and pay them a
subminimum wage of $2.13 an hour, including for time spent
doing non-tipped duties. This goes well beyond reversing the
80/20 rule challenged by the restaurant industry and would
only further exacerbate the precarity of workers in an
industry that already includes many of the nation's lowest-
paid occupations and suffers from already high rates of wage
theft. If Congress truly wants to protect tipped workers, it
should pass the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the
federal minimum wage floor and gradually phase out the
subminimum wage for tipped workers.
H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act
The ``Save Local Business Act'' would ensure that trillion-
dollar corporations like Amazon can use subcontracting and
outsourcing arrangements to escape accountability to their
workers. Businesses have long relied on subcontracting
arrangements--such as hiring workers through temporary
staffing agencies--to avoid their responsibility to comply
with the FLSA and NLRA, even though they maintain power to
control working conditions and that the workers are integral
to their business. These contracting work-arounds were
present when the FLSA and NLRA were passed in the 1930's, and
versions of this outsourcing are used today by companies.
Indeed, businesses across the economy--including in labor-
intensive and low-paid sectors like construction, home and
health care, janitorial and
[[Page H690]]
building services, hotels and hospitality, and warehousing
and logistics--use similar contracting arrangements to
insulate themselves from accountability. Limiting employer
accountability and enabling corporations to avoid
responsibility for violations of workers' rights under the
FLSA and the NLRA will hasten race-to-the-bottom on labor
standards, with businesses that treat their workers fairly
finding it harder to compete.
Should H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of
Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and Elder
Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act; H.R.
2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R. 2262,
Flexibility for Workers Education Act be brought to the
floor, we strongly urge all Members of Congress to vote No.
With any questions, please reach out to Charlotte Dodge,
National Employment Law Project; Sam Sanders, Economic Policy
Institute or Michelle Feit, National Partnership for Women &
Families.
Sincerely,
Economic Policy Institute.
National Employment Law Project.
National Partnership for Women & Families.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is an open invitation for
employers, particularly those involving restaurants and hotels, to
lower their employees' wages by combining traditionally tipped
occupations with nontipped occupations. For example, they will be able
to put a line cook on the floor for a few hours a day and then apply
the tip credit to all of the hours that the employee works.
Tipped workers already are paid less per hour and have less access to
benefits such as paid sick leave, healthcare, short-term disability and
life insurance, and under this bill employers would be given a pass to
not pay workers what they otherwise would have been owed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject the bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
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. BUDZINSKI. 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. Budzinski of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2312 to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Budzinski is as follows:
Ms. Budzinski moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2312 to the
Committee on Education and Workforce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Wage theft occurs when an employer does not pay an
employee for work that the employee has performed, depriving
the worker of wages and earnings to which the worker is
legally entitled. This theft occurs in many forms, including
by employers violating minimum wage requirements, failing to
pay overtime compensation, requiring off-the-clock work,
failing to provide final payments, misclassifying employees
as being exempt from overtime compensation or as independent
contractors rather than as employees, and improperly
withholding tips.
(2) Wage theft poses a serious and growing problem across
industries for working individuals of the United States. Wage
theft is widespread and is estimated to cost workers more
than $15,000,000,000 per year. In certain industries,
compliance with Federal wage and hour laws is less than 50
percent.
(3) Wage theft is closely associated with employment
discrimination, with women, immigrants, and racial and ethnic
minorities being disproportionately affected. Women are
significantly more likely to experience minimum wage
violations than men, foreign-born workers are nearly 2 times
as likely to experience minimum wage violations as their
counterparts born in the United States, and African Americans
are 3 times more likely to experience minimum wage violations
than their White counterparts.
(4) Wage theft is closely associated with unsafe working
conditions.
(5) Wage theft--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who are already
struggling to make ends meet;
(B) strains social services funds;
(C) diminishes consumer spending power and hurts local
economies;
(D) reduces vital State and Federal tax revenues;
(E) places law-abiding employers at a competitive
disadvantage with noncompliant employers;
(F) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods; and
(G) lowers labor standards throughout labor markets.
(6) Low-wage workers are at the greatest risk of suffering
from wage theft. A survey of 4,387 low-wage workers in New
York, Los Angeles, and Chicago found that 68 percent of the
workers surveyed had experienced some form of wage theft in
the workweek immediately before the survey was conducted.
These workers experienced a range of wage and hour
violations: 26 percent of such workers were not paid minimum
wage; 76 percent of such workers who worked more than 40
hours in the workweek immediately before the survey was
conducted were not paid at the overtime rate; and, in the
year before the survey was conducted, 43 percent of the
workers who attempted to address such issues by filing a
complaint with their employer or who attempted to form a
labor organization experienced retaliation by their
employers, including by being fired, suspended, or receiving
threats of reductions in their hours or pay.
(7) In 2012, State and Federal authorities as well as
private attorneys recovered at least $933,000,000 in wage
theft enforcement actions, which was nearly 3 times the value
of all bank robberies, residential robberies, convenience
store and gas station robberies, and street robberies in the
United States during that year.
(8) A Department of Labor study of wage theft in California
and New York found that wage theft deprived workers of 37
percent to 49 percent of their income, pushing at least
15,000 families below the poverty line and driving another
50,000 to 100,000 families deeper into poverty.
(9) A study analyzing wage theft claims in the State of
Washington from 2009 to 2013 estimated that the total
economic cost of wage theft to the State totaled more than
$64,000,000 resulting from the lower economic activity and
spending of low-wage workers due to their lost wages.
(10) A Department of Labor study of wage violations in
California and New York found that wage theft deprived
families of $5,600,000 in possible earned income tax credits
and resulted in a $22,000,000 loss in State tax revenue, a
$238,000,000 loss in payroll tax revenue, and a $113,000,000
loss in Federal income tax revenue.
(11) Barriers to addressing wage theft continue to exist
decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). These barriers have
resulted, in significant part, because enforcement of such
Act has not worked as Congress originally intended and
because many of the provisions of such Act do not include
sufficient penalties to discourage violations. Improvements
to enforcement and amendments to such Act are necessary to
ensure that such Act provides effective protection to
individuals subject to wage theft.
(12) The lack of a Federal right for employees to receive
full compensation at the agreed upon wage rate for all work
performed by the employee has resulted in workers being able
to recover only the applicable minimum wage, or the overtime
rate if applicable, when employers engage in wage theft.
(13) The lack of a Federal requirement to provide employees
with paystubs indicating how their pay is calculated or to
allow employees to inspect their employers' payroll records
significantly impedes efforts to identify and challenge wage
theft.
(14) The lack of a Federal requirement to pay employees
their final payments in a timely manner upon termination of
the employment relationship between the employer and employee
has led to unreasonable, and sometimes indefinite, delays in
compensation after an employment relationship ends.
(15) While the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, as in
effect on the day
[[Page H691]]
before the date of enactment of this Act, require employers
to compensate employees at the minimum wage rate and to
provide overtime compensation when appropriate, the lack of
civil penalties for most violations of these requirements has
dampened their effectiveness.
(16) While the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act,
provide employees who are subject to wage theft with the
right to unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation
plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, this
low level of damages has proved insufficient to deter
employers from stealing the wages of their employees.
(17) While the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act,
require employers to keep records of employees' pay, the lack
of remedies beyond injunctive relief for this requirement
diminishes the effectiveness of the requirement.
(18) While the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act,
provide for limited criminal penalties when employers violate
the provisions of such Act, the Secretary of Labor rarely
resorts to these penalties, causing them to serve as a hollow
threat.
(19) The statute of limitations under section 6 of the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 255), as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act, precludes
employees from commencing a claim for wage theft more than 2
years after the cause of action accrued, or more than 3 years
after the cause of action accrued if the claim is with
respect to a willful violation by the employer. Additionally,
the statute of limitations is not automatically suspended
while the Secretary of Labor investigates a complaint. These
strict confines of the statute of limitations sometimes
result in employees being deprived of their ability to
institute a private lawsuit against their employer in order
to recover their stolen wages.
(20) Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. 216(b)), as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of this Act, requires employees to affirmatively
``opt-in'' in order to be a party plaintiff in a collective
action brought by another aggrieved employee seeking to
recover stolen wages in court. This provision limits the
ability of employees to unite and pursue private lawsuits
against employers.
(21) Under the penalty structure of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act, many employers who are caught
violating such Act continue to violate the Act. A Department
of Labor investigation found that one-third of employers who
had previously engaged in wage theft continued to do so.
(22) The Government Accountability Office and the
Department of Labor have recognized that when employers are
assessed civil penalties, they are more likely to comply with
the law in the future and other employers in the same
region--regardless of industry--are also more likely to
comply with the law.
(23) States that have enacted legislation to address wage
theft by increasing the damages to which employees are
entitled following violations of wage and hour laws have
positively impacted the workers in such States. However, many
States have not enacted such legislation and, worse still,
some States do not have any laws protecting workers from wage
theft or even agencies to enforce workers' rights to
compensation for work. This discrepancy in State laws has
resulted in a fragmentation of workers' rights across the
United States, with some workers having a measure of
protection from wage theft and other workers being left
extremely vulnerable to wage theft.
(24) Effective enforcement of wage and hour laws is
critical to increasing compliance. Given the limited
resources available for enforcement, enhanced strategic
enforcement of Federal wage and hour laws is crucial.
(25) For enhanced strategic enforcement to be effective,
government regulators must work with community stakeholders
who have direct knowledge of ongoing violations of Federal
wage and hour requirements and who are in a position to
prevent such violations.
(26) Partnerships between regulators, workers, nonprofit
organizations, and businesses can increase compliance by
educating workers about their rights, collecting evidence,
reporting violations, identifying noncompliant employers, and
modeling good practices.
(27) Partnerships between regulators, workers, nonprofit
organizations, and businesses have been successful in
combating wage theft. In 2006, the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement of the State of California created a
janitorial enforcement team to work closely with a local
janitorial watchdog organization. As of 2015, the partnership
had resulted in countless administrative, civil, and criminal
actions against employers and in the collection of more than
$68,000,000 in back pay for janitorial workers.
(28) The Comptroller General of the United States has
recommended that the Department of Labor identify ways to
leverage its resources to better combat wage theft by
improving services provided through partnerships.
[For full text, please see H.R. 5402 from the 118th
Congress.]
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. BUDZINSKI. 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 will be postponed.
____________________