Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

Floor Speech

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source