come to order and turn the microphone on. A quorum uh is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider three bills. The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be postponed pursuant
to clause two of rule uh 11 of the rules of the house of representatives and committee rule 14B. Without objection, the chair may recess the committee at any point. But before we move any further, I would like to welcome
Representative Edelita Grahalva. The name is familiar. This is the place that you ought to be. the place that we enjoyed serving with your father for many years. And so
appreciate the fact that you uh you come to this committee. We want to welcome you today um and and uh wish you the absolute best in enjoying the best committee in the
entire House of Representatives. And I'd like to turn over now to ranking member Scott uh to welcome representative as well. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's my pleasure to welcome Congresswoman Natalita Graalva to the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce. It was an honor to work alongside of her father, Rael Graalva, who was a long time and senior member of this committee and a champion for his constituents. He fiercely defended unions and civil rights in the workplace
and his dedication to workers and students continues to inspire us today. A new member served on the Tucson Unified School District governing board. So she brings to the committee two decades of experience in applied
education experience policy. and she also served on the county board of supervisors where she championed educational equity and workforce initiatives. So, Congresswoman Garver brings invaluable expertise to this committee.
Now, after being becoming probably the most famous member elect in the history of the United States through no action of her own, we're excited to finally have her here and we look forward to working with her on behalf of her
students and workers. So, welcome to the committee. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that Representative Vanseri also from Arizona um has resigned from the committee and although she was only with us for a few
months, she was an active member of the committee and we thank her for her service. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Without objection and hearing none, Representative Grahalva will be added to the
subcommittee on higher education and workforce development and the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. I'd like to recognize Representative Gavo for one minute to make a brief statement.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm truly honored to be welcomed to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Thank you committee leadership for this opportunity and I look forward to beginning our important work together. As mentioned, I served on the Tucson Unified School District governing board for 20 years on the Pum County Board of
Supervisors for four years where we championed um preschool and investment in our workforce. And I also ran a juvenile diversion program for 26 years that was designed to break the school to prison pipeline. So I feel very much at home in the issues that are discussed
here and you know we have to our students face an uncertain world. Our workers um do as well and so the work of this committee is urgent because the current administration continues to attack public education and essential programs that ensure access and equity.
I understand the gravity of the work ahead even the unnecessary delay in my swearing in only underscore the necessity for representatives committed to standing up for what's right. I dedicate myself completely to protecting our public schools and the department of education, ensuring a future where the
next generation has the opportunity that they deserve. Thank you. I yield back. >> I thank you as well and u I will make it make it clear that we are not about attacking public education anyone else
and so your your insights will be very helpful here as well. Now we will turn to the markup portion of today's meeting. Today we'll consider three bills to modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act, FL LSA,
support employees, and promote freedom and flexibility at workplaces around the country. While some of these ideas have already been implemented by the Trump administration, passing LA legislation provides clarity
for businesses and avoids the confusion and burdensome regulations we saw under the Biden Harris administration. The first bill that we'll consider today, HR 2870, the Working Families Flexibility Act,
bills on a version of this legislation that passed the House in 2017. HR 2870 allows private sector workers to choose compensatory time off in lie of traditional overtime pay, an option long
available to workers in the public sector. Today's workers overwhelmingly value flexibility and there's no reason private sector workers should have fewer choices than those in the public sector. I'd like to thank Representative Miller
for introducing this important legislation. Next, we'll review HR 2312. The Tipped Employee Protection Act, the FSA, written in 1938, has not kept up with the modern
workplace. Tipped workers are not clearly defined in law, and we have seen several administrations and courts interpret their rights inconsistently. The Biden Harris administration even attempted to impose overly complex timekeeping requirements that were
nearly impossible to enforce. HR2312 introduced by Representative WAC gives businesses clarity and prevents them from being hampered by confusing regulations, all while protecting the rights of tipped workers.
Finally, HR 2299, the Ensuring Workers Get Paid Act, permanently authorizes the Payroll Independent Audit Determination Program, also known as the Paid Program at the
Department of Labor. This successful program allows employers to self- audit and self-report FLSA violations. During the first Trump administration, this program successfully returned back wages to workers and reduced compliance
cost for businesses. A win-win. I thank Representative Grathman for his leadership in inducing this bill. These three bills together provide clear, modern, and flexible solutions that expand flexibility for families,
boost earnings for tipped workers, and ensure workers get paid faster when payroll mistakes occur. Simply put, they are common sense solutions that put workers and families first. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an
opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we're here to mark up three labor bills. Consistent theme across the bills appears to be one message, and that is how do we as a Congress further tip the
scales in fa favor of corporations to harm workers in their ability to earn a decent wage. These bills are particularly egregious given this morning's announcement that the economy continues to slow and that the new numbers show that the Trump
administration has managed two months of job loss this year. the first months of job loss since um since the last time Trump was president um during the Biden administration. The
Biden administration created more jobs in four years than any other president in history and actually more jobs in four years than any Republican president created whe they served four or eight years. And President Biden did not have a single month of job loss in his entire
four-year uh four-year term. Uh and so in this with this news, we consider three bills. The first, the Working Families Flexibility Act, which undermines protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act by allowing
employers to give employees compensatory time or comp time instead of paying them the time and a half for overtime that they have earned. Under this bill, instead of getting paid overtime work in the next scheduled paycheck, the
employee loses the overtime pay and might not even get the comp time until much later when the employer decides to let him take that comp time. So, let's be clear, contrary to the bill's title, the flexibility it provides is not for
working families. of flexibility is for employers who can decide whether an employee can take comp time on a requested date or not. And this is because the employer determines whether the comp time would be an undue disruption to the business. Moreover,
this bill likely will result in inequities in the workplace, making it more likely that the only employees asked to work overtime are those who agree to get comp time instead of those who want extra hours at time and a half
extra pay. This uh bill represents a huge step backwards and does nothing to address the needs of working families, such as legislation raising the minimum wage or guaranteeing access to affordable health care. Moreover, it does nothing to address the cost of
living. So, I will be voting no on this bill as I've cons consistently done when Republicans marked up similar bills in prior congresses. Urge my colleagues to do the same. Next bill will consider HR 2312, Tipped
Employee Protection Act of 2025. Um the this bill will redefine the Fair Labor Standards Act to make workers more vulnerable to wage theft and give employers an excuse not to pay workers when what they would otherwise be owed.
Specifically, this bill would expand the pool of workers employers can pay a subminimum wage or tipped wage rather than the full minimum wage. This is problematic because tipped workers get paid less per hour and have
less access to benefits such as paid sick leave, health care, short-term disability, or life insurance. In fact, the federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. Even though employers are supposed to pay more if a worker's tips
in a work week don't bridge the gap between the subminimum wage and the full minimum wage, many employers ignore these rules and many employees who want to keep their jobs are reluctant to complain. Workers are already struggling to make ends meet and regrettably wages
have stagnated despite workers increased productivity and that's why many Americans feel they cannot afford the current cost of living. So instead of giving workers a leg up, this bill offers bad actors an opportunity to cut corners further and short change their
their workers. So that's why I will oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. The final bill will is called the insurers ensuring workers get paid act which is anything what its title suggests. The
bill codifies the Trump administration's payroll audit independent determination P AID or paid act paid program which um the department of labor uh which was at the department of labor. The paid program would allow employers who
willingly acknowledge that they have committed wage theft to simply conduct a self audit and repay only the wages they already owe with no penalties. The program would also preempt state and local labor enforcement agencies from bringing their own enforcement actions
against lawbreaking employers. And this adds up to no real accountability and no meaningful deterrent. There's also evidence that the paid program is far from a success. The Government Accountability Office evaluated the paid program when it was piloted by the first
Trump administration and found that only 74 employers participated recovered only $4 million in back wages. Comparatively, the Department of Labor's wage and hour division, which is charged with combating wage theft, completed over
20,000 enforcement actions in fiscal year 2023 and recovered over $200 million in backed wages for employees. Wage theft is one of the largest forms of theft in the United States, costing workers an estimated $50 billion every
year. At a time when families are struggling in an increasingly unfavorable economy, the last thing Congress should do is to codify a flawed and ineffective program. We should be focusing on stopping wage theft, not
excusing it. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll be proposing this bill as well and urge my colleagues to do the same. And so, today's job report confirms what millions of workers already know that today's economy is not working for them.
Instead of addressing the the increasing cost of living, these bills we consider today will further tip the scales against workers, making it harder for them to earn a decent living and be protected from wage theft. With made
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentleman. Uh without objection, all members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk. electronically
by the end of the day today. Pursuant to the House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up uh was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to
amendment at any point and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their
amendment on block may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR2870 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the
bill. HR2870, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. >> Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without
objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Miller, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized?
>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2870, offered by Miss Miller of Illinois, identifier 2870_01.
>> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mrs. Miller for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both businesses and workers want freedom and flexibility when assigning or acrewing time off. But right now, federal law does not give private sector workers the same options for overtime that government workers
have. Since 1986, hourly government workers have been allowed to choose comp time instead of extra pay when they work overtime. Comp time means that for every extra hour worked, the worker can earn
1.5 hours of paid time off instead of getting paid 1.5 times their normal rate. HR 2870, the Working Families Flexibility Act, would give private sector workers the same choice. It's a
simple common sense change that allows employees to decide whether they want overtime pay or extra time off to spend with their families. This effort is not new. Similar legislation passed in the House in 2017.
HR 2870 keeps all existing worker protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act and it makes participation completely voluntary. Workers could also cash out their acred comp time if they want, giving them even
more control over how they manage their time and earnings. This ANS makes technical changes to HR 2870 and rearranges some sections to clarify the bill's intent. I urge all members to
vote yes on the ANS and I yield back. >> Thank you, gentle lady. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment nature of a substitute? Uh Mr. Tano, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, you
know, I move to strike last word and rise in opposition to the amendment and and after all the promises that the Republican party and the Trump administration made to the country about boosting overtime earnings, this is not what American workers were promised.
What good is a no tax on overtime uh, bill when you don't get paid for the overtime that you're working? This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow private sector employers to substitute compensatory paid time off
for overtime pay eligible uh uh for for eligible employees. To reiterate, instead of having to pay their eligible employees time and a half for working more than 40 hours a week as is the current law, private sector employers
would uh could instead compensate them with paid time off. Now, this is not fair pay for a day's work. This is a scam. Not only does this proposal mean that workers won't see monetary earnings for their extra hours they put in, this
compensatory time off that workers could receive is instead not uh is not the employees to control. Let me repeat that. It is not the employees to control. Let me me explain. Federal courts have interpreted law to give an
employer absolute power to deny compensatory time requests on particular dates and to delay the use of compensatory time for up to a full year. This bill does nothing to guarantee that workers could actually take uh their
paid time off. So, an eligible employee might put in the overtime thinking it would allow them to have a more flexible schedule only to find out that they could legally be denied the right to control the time that they've earned. Ultimately, it leaves the worker with
more hours, less pay, and far less clarity. In short, uh this amendment turns the Fair Labor Standards Act into the Unfair Labor Standards Act. To be clear, the provisions of this bill apply
only to salaried workers who make less than $35,000 a year, the overtime threshold set by the Trump uh administration. Now, these workers are already not making enough to live comfortably in any state in the country. And yet, my Republican colleagues say
that they should not have to be paid for the extra hours that they take on to make ends meet. Many workers rely on overtime pay to make ends meet, to save up to buy a house, to pay for college, or to fund their retirement. And by the
way, anxiety over not having enough money in their retirement funds is a is a is a huge, huge worry among Americans. This bill is conning American workers out of what they've earned and pushing the American dream further out of their reach. Why is it that when the m
majority says that they're introducing a bill to stimulate the economy, it's always the workers in the lowest salary brackets that end up paying for it? What we need is robust overtime reform. The current overtime threshold is disgracefully low. To say that a worker
making $36,000 at a full-time salary job is making too much to qualify for overtime pay is blatant neglect and disrespectful of the American worker. So, I am proud to lead the Restoring Overtime Pay Act, a bill which seeks to
raise the overtime threshold to a historic high of the 55th percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers nationwide. This effort paves the way for millions of American workers previously excluded from overtime compensation to receive overtime pay for
their hours worked. It will strengthen the economy, increase uh workers spending power, and take a significant step toward ensuring that the American economy works for all workers, not just those earning the in those those in the
highest earning brackets. We need to focus our time on putting money back in workers' pockets, not finding ways to skirt our obligations to them. So, I urge my my colleagues to vote against
this amendment and I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does a gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McMath, wish to be recognized? >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Um, I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment and the nature of substitute.
>> You're recognized. >> Thank you so much. Um, as my colleague from California just said, this bill will not provide more flexibility for workers. As written, it would encourage working people and their families to agree to something that may
not be in their best interest at all. It may say that these arguments are voluntary, but the reality is that when someone's boss or their manager tells them their preference, you know, it's obvious that it'll probably be easier for everyone if the worker just goes
along with it. The risk of retaliation if that worker doesn't necessarily agree is always there. That is just the reality of being a subordinate employee. Those at the very top of the managerial ladder have no reason not to speak
freely about their rights or their preferences at all at work. There's no risk of losing their job and their means of providing for themselves if they say something that the worker doesn't like or agree with. When a worker shares
their opinion or tries to exercise their rights at work, there is inherently far more risk involved because your boss's leverage over your livelihood and how you provide for your family and how you provide for yourself.
Saying no may mean and might be an option on paper, but it is not option in reality. If you say no and there's retaliation, the only thing a work a worker can do is try to appeal for back
pay and maybe sue at a later time, which they probably don't have the time or the money or the bandwidth to do. It could mean months of fighting for your job and losing your pay all because you didn't agree to take time off instead of the
overtime pay that you had every legal right to choose. It leverages the risk of someone losing their sole source of income, the way that they provide for themselves and for their families in exchange for making an agreement that is
not in their best interest. This is not something that Congress should be encouraging. There's nothing stopping Congress from supporting every company's ability to provide paid leave to everyone of their
workers. If the president can find $20 billion dollar here and there to bail out his political allies in Argentina, I'm certain that Congress has the ability and the resources to ensure that
every worker has access to paid leave without risking their employer not being able to afford it. This isn't a question of whether the country can afford to do it. That doesn't stop my Republican colleagues from offering more and more
tax breaks to billionaires and sending jobs overseas by cancelling tax credits and enacting tariffs. So, it shouldn't stop Congress from doing something that actually will provide the flexibility to make people's lives easier and more
affordable. True flexibility is allowing your workers to choose what works best for them, not dangling their livelihoods over their heads in exchange for getting them to accept time off instead of overtime pay.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill. Let's do what's right. Let's support our workers. Let's support their ability to be able to to provide for their families, to live the American
dream. We should not be cutting them off below the belt and making it harder for them to survive. And I yield. >> I thank the gentle lady. Uh does the gentleman from Pennsylvania >> see you recognized?
>> I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. Appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentle lady from Illinois for uh for this piece of legislation. Here we go again. My colleagues across the aisle are treating private sector workers like puppets that are incapable
of making decisions that is what's best for them and their families. Uh instead imposing government restrictions and government mandates. You know, 40 years ago, as a gentle lady from Illinois noted, Republicans and Democrats both amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to give public sector workers, that would
be government workers, the option of earning compine instead of cash wages as overtime. But current law prohibits private sector workers from exercising this choice, from having access to that benefit. And it's time to erase this double standard and stop treating
private sector employees like puppets to be manipulated. workers, not the federal government, should have the freedom to choose what's best for them and their families. Hardworking men and women need more flexibility to balance work, life, and family. And there should be fair workforce policies that don't put
private sector employees at a disadvantage to those to the public sector. uh HR2870 uh the working families flexibility act will improve the quality of life for many Americans by offering private sector workers a choice between paid off
uh paid time off and overtime cash wages and the bottom line is decision to choose comp time is completely voluntary. Those who want to continue receiving cash wages as overtime pay are always free to do so. And additionally,
employees, as the gentle lady uh in uh in introducing uh in speaking on this bill, the sponsor of this bill, um employees will have the ability to cash out their comp time whenever they choose, and they can also switch back to receiving cash payments for overtime if
their needs change. Seems like that's tremendously uh a lot of freedom in a decision to self-direct uh over their their own pay and compensation. And I thank the chairman for recognition. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentle
lady from North Carolina carol Carolina, Miss Adams, seek recognition? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word to speak in opposition to the bill. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you. I I rise in strong opposition to the Working Families Flexibility Act. Here we go again. You're right.
Discussing another Republican bill that allows employers to stop paying workers. House Democrats, on the other hand, are focused on expanding overtime access, not taking it away. I am a proud co-lead uh on uh Mr. Tano's bill, the Restoring
Overtime Pay Act. Uh our bill would raise the threshold for the White Collar Exemption to allow administrative and professional workers to receive overtime pay. Currently, administrative and professional workers must make under $35,000
uh per year to qualify for overtime pay. Our bill would raise that threshold to ensure that all administrative and professional workers within the bottom 55 percentile of earnings for full-time salary workers nationwide would be
entitled to overtime pay. Uh this bill on the other hand would allow employers to compensate workers and comp time I use rather than money. Uh the worst part is that workers are not guaranteed immediate access to pay time off earned
through the system. Workers may think that they have time saved up, but if an emergency strikes, their boss does not have to immediately provide the time off that they have already earned. And this bill disrespects workers. It disrespects
good faith efforts by Democrats to expand paid time off to all workers. And I just wanted to add that, you know, when you think about the private sector, um they could uh fire you at will. Uh unlike um the the federal employees, you
have to be fired or you should be fired for just cause if that's the case. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. I recognize myself for brief comment. Uh the gentleman from Pennsylvania again
made a wonderful point of the common sense of this bill and of the fairness of this bill to allow the same opportunity and benefit that the that the public sector has to the private sector. That's something we must not forget. That's the main purpose
of this bill. I now yield time to Miss Miller for comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make it clear that this bill, HR 2870, is simply giving private sector workers
the same options for overtime that government workers have. And I I don't know why they're misrepresenting the bill, but definitely I want to say again, this is giving private sector workers the same options
that government workers have. Thank you. and I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady for reiterating that point. I now uh recognize the ranking member for for comments on on this amendment. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You
move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment nature of substitute does nothing to address the fundamental concerns I have with the underlying bill and namely that workers will lose access to overtime pay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, covered
non-exempt employees must be paid one and a half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked beyond 40 hours in a single work week. The FLSA is designed to protect workers from overwork. It was designed to encourage
employers to hire additional workers rather than overwork a few. HR 2870 would encourage overwork and take money out of hardworking people's pockets. Under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put money in the bank where it can earn
interest and use it to cover the costs of taking unpaid time off later with the permission of the employer, which is essentially what this bill uh would provide. The employee can employee employer can work that out today without
this bill. But under this bill, instead of getting paid for overtime work in the next scheduled paycheck, the employee might not even get the comp time until much as much as a year later when the employer decides to let them take the comp time. In addition, this legislation
puts scheduling of any resulting comp time at the discretion of the employer. For workers generally looking for flexibility, this legislation effectively only gives flexibility to employers who decide whether or not time
off would be an undue disruption to the business. Now, many workers count on extra overtime pay to make ends meet, using it to help put their kids through college, finance a car, save for retirement. Among workers who are paid less than 22,500 a year, for example,
roughly 40% report working some overtime in the previous month voluntarily. Legislation makes it cheaper for employers to assign overtime to employees who agree to accept comp time instead of actual cash time and a half
wages. Making it extremely likely that the only employees who will be asked to work overtime are those who agree to get comp time instead of those who insist on getting paid in cash. In addition, 2870 undermines the enforcement of existing
wage and hour laws. workers who are workers are routinely cheated out of their overtime pay. In a survey of low-wage workers, 76% of those who reported working overtime said they were not paid time and a half for their work.
It could be diff it will be diff more difficult to determine if overtime violation has occurred where an employer can just assert that future comp time was granted in lie of overtime pay. de department of labor's resources to prevent wage theft are already woefully
inadequate and this legislation would greatly increase the complexity of enforcing overtime profession protections without increasing funds to hire staff to do that extra work. Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that u this
um provision already applies to the public se sector u so let me just respond to that first. In addition to two wrongs don't make a right, public employees have protections against arbitrary and capricious
activity by employers that many private sector employees do not. Uh and this is um you keep talking about an employee would have the choice. This is not going to be an employes choice. This is going to be an employer's choice. I think we
have to be honest about that. Instead of reducing pay, my Democratic colleagues and I believe strongly that workers deserve more pay so that they can enjoy dignity on the job and in retirement. We have real solutions that would help boost the wages for working people and
help them balance work and family life. For example, the Healthy Families Act, which would allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days. the raise the wage act which would raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour and provide gradually to
70 $17 an hour and provide the first increase in the minimum wage in 16 years. The wage theft protect protect prevention and wage recovery act would make sure workers actually get paid what they are earned. and the Let's Protect
Workers Act, which would responsibly strengthen civil monetary penalties to save workers lives, prevent disability, and protect welfare of children. Instead of these bills, we're considering legislation to strip employees out of
their ability to increase their income by working overtime. And that's why I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back. >> I thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized to speak on this
amendment? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration to vote on the bill there. >> Consideration.
>> Oh, are there are there excuse me are there any members who would like to offer further amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2870.
All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. >> We will now move to consider the next
bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR2312 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
>> HR2312, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise the definition of the term tipped employee and for other purposes. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without
objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Bombgardner, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk uh shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2312 offered by Mr. Bombgartner of Washington, identifier ANS2312_01.
>> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Bumgardner for 5 minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, let me just say a short word rec welcoming our new member. Uh I did not know your uh father well. I'm new here, but he had a very good reputation and everyone says nice things about you as well too. So, let me join the chairman in welcoming you to the committee. Uh regarding the
amendment, uh Mr. Chairman, the Fair Labor Standards Act, F LSA, defines a tip worker as someone who usually makes more than $30 a month in tips. While that standard worked for decades, in 1988, f federal regulators added what's
called the 8020 rule. This rule said tip workers could spend no more than 20% of their time or 30 minutes at a stretch doing tasks that don't directly earn tips. For example, a bartender who occasionally helps clean or restock could only spend a limited amount of
time on these untipped duties. As one can imagine, the 8020 rule was essentially impossible for the federal government to enforce or for job creators to comply with. Restaurants and similar businesses already run on thin margins. We know how tough their businesses are, and keeping track of
that kind of detail adds unnecessary red tape and stress. That's why Representative Steve Ma Steve Wulmarmac and I introduced HR2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act. This bill replaces the outdated definition of tipped employers with a simple and more
realistic definition. This 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 specific tasks.
Less red tape and more opportunity. This change give businesses more flexibility and protects them from unfair crippling pen penalties for minor recordkeeping mistakes. The bill resolves a long-standing issue that has been the subject of expensive litigation and
ensures that federal government does not set a standard that it cannot reasonably expect to enforce. Also, it helps the Department of Labor focus on real wage violations instead of technical paperwork issues. I urge all members to
vote yes on the ANS which makes minor technical changes to the bill and to support HR2312 because businesses don't need federal bureaucrats micromanaging their timekeeping. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any
members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute? The representative from California, Mr. Tucano, do you wish to be recognized? >> Uh yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word and rise not amendment. >> Uh once again, uh my Republican
colleagues are selling Americans on a bill with a flashy title and hoping that they in hoping that they don't read the fine print. The Tipped Employee Protection Act, quote unquote, implies something in this bill that might
actually benefit workers who work for tips. when in reality, this bill manipulates labor law to decrease their earning power and allow employers to skirt minimum wage requirements. HR2312 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act by
altering the definition of tipped employees and empowering employers to manipulate pay periods and job definitions in order to qualify for a what is called a TIP credit. or in other words, an ability to pay less than the
minimum wage. For for jobs like waiting tables, which regularly generates 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 that amount as long as as long as the amount they make in tips makes up the rest. However, this bill opens the opportunity for employers to manipulate FL LSA definitions and classify other workers who receive tips
only sometimes sometimes and also be paid the subminimum wage. Under this bill, hotel keepers, valet, manicurists, and others could have their paychecks manipulated so that any tips they
receive end up paying for what their employer owes them rather than an occasional boost in extra take-home pay for a job well done. In short, it expands the subminimum wage and offers
more opportunities to pay workers less. 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 soarses 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've earned so that employers can save a few dollars on the hour. Shame on this committee. Shame on this
legislation. And once again, this Republican proposal to stimulate the economy relies on Americans in the lowest income brackets to get squeezed the most. It's shameful. We need to eliminate the subminimum wage entirely
and ensure that Americans make enough money to live with dignity and not invent new ways to pay them less. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize gentle lady from Georgia, Miss Mcbath,
for comments on this amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I move to strike the last word uh in opposition to the amendment and the nature of the substitute. >> Thank you. Um, as my colleague from California before me just stated, um,
this bill flies directly in the face of President Trump's campaign promise to help our ch workers. Help them to keep their hard-earned money. What good is tax relief on tips if you end up give having to give more of these tips
directly to your employer? When a worker pays taxes, they at least get something in return. While my Republican colleagues may not agree with how much is being taxed or where that tax revenue is going, there
is no argument that people who pay taxes get something in return. While my Republican colleagues may not agree, um, but like many of my Republican colleagues, I do not think that the average American sees the benefit that
they really should for what they pay in taxes. But that is because the Republican majority chooses to spend that revenue on tax breaks for billionaires instead of making people's lives more affordable. And we hear that
every single day from our constituents. What is the worker getting in return in this situation? Just the opportunity to work. I think most Americans and certainly those who punch a clock instead of receiving a salary would
agree that their employers should be paying them to work, not the other way around. The way this bill is written will classify workers who receive very little in tips as tipped workers, making it so
they don't qualify for minimum wage, which I would like to remind everyone is just only $7.25 an hour. Many states have raised their own minimum wages, but my state of Georgia, we haven't. With a federal
floor of $7.25, 25 cents. Workers in Georgia could be legally paid just over $5 an hour because the state minimum wage is just $5.15.
Instead of trying to find ways to pay people less, Congress should be raising wages and helping Americans keep more of the hardearned dollars so that they can afford to live
a decent life. And especially in this culture and in this age when we've just come through a government shutdown because people are screaming and crying out for an affordable cost of living. lowering the cost of living, giving them
a better ability to be able to keep food on their table, pay for their child care, and also have access to affordable health care that they deserve. This is not the direction that this committee should be should be taking, and I yield.
>> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentle lady from North Carolina wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill. >> Miss Adams, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Tipped
Employee Protection Act. Uh this bill would change the definition of a tipped employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under this bill, any worker, regardless of their workplace responsibilities, could be classified as a tipped worker. Let's say you you have
a checkout clerk at at a grocery store who receives gifts from customers during the holidays. If that checkout clerk uh during a oneweek period made more than minimum wage when combining tips from parents and a $23
uh 13 cent hourly wage uh then they could be qualified as a tipped employee. This bill offers such a a loose definition of of tipped employee and it provides so much power to bosses in determining uh that definition. So if
this bill were to pass, countless workers could be classified as tipped employees and paid a subminimum wage. I think that we can all agree that that doormen, daycare providers, uh, housekeepers, and barbers are not
tipped employees. This bill violates common sense, and I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Thank you, gentle lady. Does the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, speak to seek to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word and speak in opposition. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many of you have been on the faith and politics trip. Um it's it's a wonderful trip um to Selma to look at the civil rights movement to learn about
it. And I was on the trip a few years ago and was having a conversation about somebody who had been in a cafe that morning and had breakfast and was talking with a server who was a single mom with a couple of kids trying to get by. and they were talking about how much
she made and it was $2.13 an hour because state of Alabama assumed that she'd get enough tips to get up to $725 an hour. And it was pretty shocking because I don't know if you've had conversations in your districts like I have about how people are struggling to
get by right now. They're having trouble paying for housing. They're having trouble paying for groceries. They're having trouble paying for basically everything. Child care if they can find it. And and I thought, how in the world could a single mom h get by with those low wages? I mean, my state of Oregon
doesn't we don't have a separate tip minimum wage. Everybody gets minimum wage, and that's the way it should be. Um, this this should not be looked at as like a way to benefit employers by paying their uh employees less and expecting the customers to make up the
minimum wage. That doesn't make any sense. We we have a pretty thriving restaurant scene. certainly not hurting us to have minimum wage a a real minimum wage paid to everybody who works there. So a better approach to this problem uh is to pass the raise the wage act to
increase the federal minimum wage finally uh for all workers and phase out the trip tip credit so tip workers can actually enjoy a stable predictable minimum wage. U that uh Mr. Mr. Chairman and committee members is what we should
be looking at rather than something that continues a practice that really does leave people struggling uh in a time when uh we should be doing something to help them, not to hurt them. So, I uh oppose this bill and support uh passing
the raise the wage act and uh doing what my state has done and phasing out the tip credit. Our our workers deserve it. I thank you and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other me members who wish to speak on this amendment? >> I recognize the the ranking member for
comments on this amendment. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to this ANS because the so-called tipped employees protection act doesn't protect anything but an employer's ability to shortch change employees. This in this one short provision, the
bill would make three significant changes to current treatment of t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t tipped workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. First, it would drop the limitation of tipped credit rules to employees who regularly and customarily receive tips.
Second, it would undermine current wage protections for workers who split their time between distinct tip producing and non-tip producing occupations. Third, it would give employers enormous power to gain the calendar periods for
applying the tip credit to disadvantage of workers who receive tips on a work week. Instead of allowing an employer to choose from a menu of time ranging from one month to a single day. Now, taken together, these changes would not
protect tip tipped employees. and said it'll empower empower employers to pay their employees less and make income less predictable for many workers. Let's start with workers who receive tips only occasionally and intermittently. They
would be at risk of losing income. Consider a janitor for a building. Janitors do not usually re earn tips, but many janitors will on occasion receive tips around holidays or the end of the year as a token of gratitude from
building tenants. Under current law, this janitor would not be considered a tipped employee because he does not meet the basic threshold of customarily and regularly earning at least $30 a month in tips. That means that all of his holiday tips would be a bonus directly
in his pocket on top of his regular uh regular wage. Under this bill, his boss would be able to take advantage of the tenants's holiday spirit and in effect reduce the janitor's paid to the subminimum wage. The employer could then
convert the janitors um the janitor into a tipped employee for the whole month that he received the holiday tips. So instead of the full tips being a bonus on top of regular wages, the employee would be able to cut the
janitor's pay to a mere $2.13 an hour for the whole month and tell the janitor to use his tips to cover the difference between the subminimum wage and the full minimum wage. The problem doesn't stop there. The legislation will also create perverse
incentives for employers to exploit the tipped credit and decrease wages in jobs that never earn tips. Under current rules, employers must be careful about handling their minimum wage requirements if they hire uh workers into jobs where
they split their time between distinct occupations such as a small hotel might hire someone to spend part of the day as a bellhop and part as a maintenance engineer. Now, if the employee regularly earns decent tips as a bellhop, the the
hotel would be allowed to take the tip credit and count the tips to make up the difference to the full minimum wage or the work as a bellhop. But for the time the worker spends on maintenance and cannot earn tips, the hotel will be required to track that time and pay at
least a full minimum wage for those hours. This is important protection for workers who split their time, but this bill would destroy it. By rendering an employees duties irrelevant to the application of the tip credit, the bill would allow employers to treat the
entirety of the worker's time as though it were all tipped employment. Under the bill, in the case of the hotel worker, the hotel applies a tip credit across the entire time the employee works, not just his shifts as a bellhop. This is
dangerously powerful incentive for the employer to create more hybrid jobs. Imagine for example a restaurant creating jobs that create job create uh jobs that combine line cook shifts with table service shifts. This would dilute
the value of tips for tip employees even more than the current law already does. This bill in effect would lower wages for millions of workers at a time when the Trump economy has raised prices painfully for everything from coffee to gas. And finally, I want to point out
the problem this bill would create in its confusing provision empowering uh empowering employers to decide who is a tipped employee for any period of time from one day to an entire month. Initially, it is it seems to be part of
the provision that eviscerates the language in the current law limiting the subminimum wage only to those workers who regularly earn tips. But it gets exploited by employers. It but it but as it gets exploited by
employers, it also wrecked the minimum wage and overtime requirements for tipped workers which are based on a calculation of hours worked during a work week. This would give enormous power to game the calendar in order to claim as much tips as possible to apply
to their workers's wages when the work when the math works in their favor. For example, when an employer seeks when an employer seeks uh who sees a worker earning substantial tips in one good week of an otherwise bad month. They
could opt to dilute the value of that week by deciding to assess the tip credit and pay the subminimum wage over the whole month and use those tips to make up the difference for the whole month. The same employer could switch to a week-by- week assessment when the week
when the math works in his favor. Jobs that are already economically precarious would then become even more so. And I'd like to stress that if the majority wanted to take meaningful action to protect tipped workers, it could consider a lot of different bills. We've
heard of the raise the wage act, which would put more money in the hands of workers by increasing the full minimum wage and phasing out altogether the subminimum wage. So tips would become bonuses on top of a decent predictable
wage. the Labor Enforcement to Securely Protect Workers Act or the Let's Protect Workers Act would raise the civil penalty for tip theft and make it equally make it equal to the civil penalty for other forms of wage theft. and represented the gentle lady from
Connecticut, Miss Hayes, has a bill, the Tipped Worker Protection Act, which would ensure that millions of American workers receive their full tips in addition to the federal minimum wage and increase transparency for service charges that may or may not be paid
directly to employees. So, I would hope that we would consider those bills, not this one. So, I'd urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back. >> Gentleman's time has expired. And I now uh recognize a gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, to speak on this amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the recognition. Again, um you know, I I think obviously history shows that since 1967, Department of Labor has issued guidance and regulations attaching
restrictions on tasks that tip workers may perform in order for their employer to remain eligible for the TIP credit. that that included the uh Biden Harris administration's recent rule which required no more than 20% of the work performed by tipped employees be
categorized as on tip work. The so-called 8020 rule. Non-TMP work could also be for no more than 30 minutes at a time. This essentially required supervisors to monitor workers task minute by minute, which in the
restaurant and hospitality industry is is nearly impossible. Thankfully, a federal appeals court vacated this role in 2024. Safe to say that there may be further guidance, regulations to clarify the definition of a tipped worker in the
FLSA. HR 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would put an end to the regulatory whiplash brought about by the long history of regulations and court decisions uh creating uncertainty uh in
these for these workers. The um uh the bill uh this bill qu clarifies who qualifies. Uh the bill preserves the current uh well the bill clarifies who
qualifies as a tipped worker under FLSA and blocks DC bureaucrats from imposing rigid unworkable rules like the 8020 mandate on small businesses. The the bill preserves a current tip credit system in 2024. survey. 90% of tip
workers survey said that they prefer the current system over higher flat wage models. Uh the bill also retains independent state authority to set tipped minimum wages higher than the federal minimum. So this bill is a common sense solution to what has become
a regulatory whiplash mess over many decades. And I urge all members to vote yes on HR 2312. I yield back. >> I thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Representative
Hayes, do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania that yes, DC bureaucrats should not have ownership over the way tip workers receive their tips. As we
heard Ranking Member Scott say, I've had a bill that was introduced over not before even this Congress, the Tip Worker Protection Act, that aims to ensure that tip workers receive their full tips and a fair minimum minimum wage. It addresses some of the issues of
wage theft and would improve working conditions for this vital workforce. My legislation also seeks to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to eliminate the subminimum wage for TIP employees and ensure they receive their full tips. We saw the challenges faced by TIP workers
during particularly highlighted during COVID when many people who lost their jobs found that they were ineligible for unemployment or any other benefits because of their pay structure. So, if we really want to make sure that employees have control over it, some of
the provisions of my legislation are to gradually increase the tip minimum wage, starting at $3.60 an hour and increasing by $1.50 50 cents each year until it reaches the federal minimum wage. Which of course raising the federal minimum
wage is another issue that this committee can be attempting to tackle in this moment, especially when families are under collapsing under the pressure of the high cost of living and the failure to address the affordability
crisis or the inflation that is skyrocketing. My bill also ensures that all tips received by employees, whether directly from customers or through service charges, go to the employees. And it prohibits managers and supervisors from participating in tip
pools. If we truly want the employees to have ownership over this, they should be the one to decide. There are many, many times where I go to get a cup of coffee or even at a restaurant and you tip and employees will tell you that the tips
don't go directly to them. There's something deeply wrong with that system, especially in places around the country where you have people working for a subminimum wage. We have the ability on this committee to ensure that no person
in America works for $360 an hour, no matter what state or community they live in. My bill would require the disclosure of any service charges added to the bill, added to a person's bill, including the portion that goes to employees. It's full
transparency, and I think that's what we've heard over and over that we're looking for on this committee. Uh my legislation also empowers employees to establish and modify their own tip pooling systems so that once again they
have control over this. We have seen multiple ways to say the exact same thing. The legislation put forth in this Congress uh has been to the benefit of the wealthiest, the most well-connected, the employees but not the most the
employers but not the most vulnerable. the the people who have to work every day, who depend on their paycheck, who are living from paycheck to paycheck. So, I would just say that if the majority really wanted to take some meaningful action, then perhaps we can
at least begin to consider some of the legislation that is being presented by the minority members on this committee. Perhaps we can consider working together to take the best out of all these bills and put it together and have something that is truly meaningful and impactful
for the American people and the American workers and stop having us come in here uh and only be able to consider, vote on, or even pass legislation that is straight down partisan party lines and
really leaves out an entire swath of the American people and doesn't address the issues that are of major concern. And with that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on this amendment?
There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will now move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? >> Have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair. Okay, never mind.
>> We'll be ready to give you the time when the time has come. amendments. There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2312.
All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. will now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR2299 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR2299, a bill to establish the payroll audit
independent determination program in the Department of Labor. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized?
Mr. Grthman, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized? >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2299 offered by Mr. Gothamman of Wisconsin identifier ANS2299_01.
>> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Gothman for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Okay. uh the first Trump administration launched a program called the paid which is an acronym for payroll audit independent determination program. The idea was simple. If businesses fi uh
discover honest mistakes made uh they can on their own make sure workers get paid what they're owed and avoid draw down drawn out costly investigations. underpaid. Employers could review their own payrolls, find any problems, and
report them voluntarily to the Department of Labor. In exchange for the employer acting in good faith to resolve issues, the employer would avoid expensive penalties. The program worked. In fact, workers at businesses that took part in the paid program received four
times more back pay on average than those covered by traditional investigations. That's real money going straight into the workers's pockets. faster and with less red tape. Unfortunately, the Biden administration eliminated this program. Uh the Trump
administration has since relaunched it and that's good news. The ensuring workers get paid act would make the paid program permanent. So no future administration can simply get rid of it. Furthermore, it provides uh a certain degree of consistency for employers who
want to participate in it. It's a win-win for both workers and employers. Um workers get what they've earned and businesses get clarity and consistency and are not penalized for inadvertent mistakes. Uh this this proposal has been
backed by the National Retail uh Retail Federation, the Chamber of Commerce and NFIB. Um I encourage everybody to support this bill and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Are there any
members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? >> Mr. Chairman, >> um does the gentleman from California seek to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word and rise in opposition to the
amendment. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, the Ensuring Workers Get Paid Act of 2025 really has nothing to do with ensuring anything other than that employees who commit wage theft won't face any civil
monetary penalties. This is not about little innocent mistakes. Wage theft is a multi-billion dollar problem, robbing more than $50 billion annually from uh from unscrupulous employers. Let me
repeat $50 billion. I should have said robbing more than 50 billion annually from unscrupulous employees. This is a rampant issue that affects workers in all stretches of the country. When workers are not properly compensated for the full wages that
they've rightfully earned, that should alarm all of us. No one should have their wages stolen from them. The bill before us today seeks to codify a program called the payroll audit independent determination effort,
otherwise known as paid, a program of the Trump administration that allows employers to conduct internal audits to self-report minimum wage and overtime infraction infractions. The Department of Labor then assesses the amount owed to
employees and employers subsequently would pay only those costs. No civil monetary penalties or damages or further investigations of the violations would follow. Furthermore, any employee who accepted the back wages from the program
had to wave their right to sue the employers for claims. Now, the notion of having unscrupulous employers voluntarily self-report is naive at best. At worst, it's an effort to allow these employers to avoid serious
culpability or accountability at all. If this bill is intended to truly help workers, I question the motives and sincerity of a program that takes away the right to sue and seek redress, both by an individual worker and by state and
local labor enforcement. Slapping bad actors on the wrist does nothing to actually address the root of the issue and help the workers that need it most. Now, notably in 2021, the Biden administration scrapped the Trump era
program, citing that the program quote deprived workers of their rights and put employers that pay but play by the rules at a disadvantage. End quote. Capitulating on wage theft and enforcement is not the solution. We
cannot create easy offramps for bad actors if we actually want to attack the problem of wage and hour violations. This bill does nothing to further the goal of protecting workers. And I urge my colleagues vote against it and I yield back.
>> I thank the gentleman. Does the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBth, seek to be recognized for five minutes? >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um, I asked to speak in opposition to the amendment and the nature of substitute. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Thank you. I think that we can all agree that Congress should be encouraging more cooperation between employers and the Department of Labor to ensure that working people are paid what they are really legally owed. Unfortunately, the
decept deceptively named Ensuring Workers Get Paid Act would really do the exact opposite of what the title says that it would. It will only make wage theft more common
and harder to prevent. Current labor law is already stacked against our workers across this country, and this bill only makes that problem far more worse. This bill redirects limited resources at the wage and hour division to a program that
does more to protect bad employers who may be knowingly paying their workers less than they are owed than it does to protect employees who are having their wages illegally withheld. It redirects limited dollars from preventing wage
theft to fund a program that essentially allows companies to self-report their violations in exchange for protection from being held accountable from stealing from their employees. Any employee who accepted back wages
through this program was forced to wave their right to sue the employer for those claims. This is really what this bill is about. It's about protecting certain interests from being held accountable for breaking the law, all while trying to convince the American
people that something is in their best interest when it clearly isn't in their best interest at all. Why should anyone in the greatest country in the world be forced to choose between their right to hold someone accountable for stealing from them or getting paid for their
work? No entity should be allowed to dangle someone's rightful pay over a working mother or father's head in exchange for an agreement that protects someone from being held accountable for breaking the law. That pay is the
difference between someone being able to provide for themselves and their families or not. It's whether a family can make their rent or mortgage payment every month or whether a family can afford to have meatballs on their spaghetti for the
week. That's what truly matters. Using that leverage against a person to get them to agree to something they normally would not is something that Congress should not be encouraging. Wage theft is exactly that.
It's theft. It is stealing. And there's no reason that we should be making it easier for companies to take what they didn't earn while making it harder for everyday people to be paid what they are owed. What is due them? House
Republicans have failed in their attempts to fully defund the agencies that protect workers on the job. And now they're looking for ways to weaken the Department of Labor by forcing the agency to use what little funding and power they do have on efforts that
really don't do anything at all to ensure that people get paid what they are owed or kept safe on the job. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote no on reporting this bill out of committee and to oppose efforts that are
more focused on trying to squeeze as much money as possible from everyday people than they are on helping them keep what they rightfully have earned and I yield. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentle
lady from Oregon, Miss Badamichi, wish to speak on this amendment? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition. >> You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to align myself with the comments made by Mr. Takano of California and Miss McBath of Georgia. But I want to add something.
The paid program would also preempt state and local labor enforcement agencies from bringing enforcement actions against their own law-breaking employers. Because under the paid program, once the settlement is approved, all claims to unpaid minimum wage and overtime are waved. And then no
action could be taken against the employer. And in many states like mine uh uh with these waiverss, we have uh wage and hour laws that are stronger and more protective than the standards provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, savvy lawbreaking employers can
then just seek out a settlement with the Department of Labor and then block state and local enforcement agencies from investigating and enforcing uh the workers potentially stronger ra wage and overtime claims. And several state attorneys general have raised this issue and it continues. So, I support the
rights of my state to enforce their laws and I oppose this bill and I yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentle lady. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Scott to speak on this amendment. >> Thank you. >> Grossman amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, too often dishonest employers cheat their employees out of wages they're legally entitled to receive, known as wage theft. These practices can take many forms. Whether it's paying workers less than the minimum wage, withholding
overtime pay, forcing workers to work off the clock, or withholding tips. This is a multibillion dollar problem. Each year, dishonest employers seal at least 15 billion from workers paychecks with minimum wage violations, with all forms
of wage theft likely exceeding $50 billion a year. In fact, wage theft is actually larger than all forms of property crime combined. And while current damages and penalties under the FLSA provide
compensation for victims for wage theft and deterrence for lawbreaking employers, we must do more to hold unscrupulous employers accountable. According to one study, some companies are doing a costbenefit analysis and
realize it's cheaper to violate the law even if you get caught. However, instead of proposing ways to strengthen the enforcement, ensure workers are protected, and hold law-breaking employers accountable, committee Republicans are proposing to
codify the flawed and ineffective paid program that was piloted during the first Trump administration. As codified in the bill, the paid program would allow employers to self-report wage violations to Department of Labor and pay workers back wages without any
damages, penalties, or even acrudeed interest. By allowing dishonest businesses to self-report when they have broken the law and wave other penalties, the paid program would enable them to treat their workers stolen wages as interestf free loans. Settlements under
the paid program would also deprive workers of the damages to which they'd be entitled under a successful FLSA claim. Waving liquidated damages, penalties, and interest. paid settlements do not take in the actual harm to workers, do not take harm to
workers into account. This bill also undermines the ability, as the gentle lady from Oregon just pointed out, of local and state governments to protect their own workers. If an employer is under investigation by state and local governments for stealing wages, there's
nothing stopping the lawbreaking employer from applying to the paid program, receiving a settlement, and blocking those very state and local enforcement agencies from completing their investigation. Finally, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the pro paid program didn't even work. According to the Government
Accountability Office, in the 14 months this program operated between April 2018 and September 2019, a poultry $4 million was recovered in back wages for workers. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars stolen from
workers during the same period of time. And we know from studies of state wage laws and expert opinions that strong damages and penalties better protect workers in recovering solding wages wages and better deter wage theft and in
addition stronger strong in addition stronger damages and penalties level the playing field for honest businesses who compete with lawbreaking employers. That's why that's what we should be doing. stronger enforcement instead of codifying the deficient paid program.
Those reasons I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield back. >> Thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members that wish to be recognized for further discussion on the growth of an amendment
there? I recognize myself on the Growthman amendment and uh appreciate the fact that we are attempting to codify something that will work, has worked and will be in law at this point in time. And I now yield
time to uh Representative Growthman. >> Right. I I um I think the purpose of this is to save money on the lawyers and the time and that sort of thing. Not to mention, I think uh you're going to create a situation in which sometime
clerical errors are going to be found by the employer that maybe wouldn't have been found otherwise or wouldn't be reported because the potential for fines and that sort of thing. So, we're just trying to get rid of the n get rid of
the acrimony that the current system may have uh causing acrimony between the employer and employee. Uh the numbers weren't that big the first Trump administration, but that's because it was a new program. People
didn't know about it. As time gets time gets out there, more and more employers are made aware of the program. we have more and more employers voluntarily giving back wages to employees that might not have been identified or reported otherwise. So, it's a it's a
good program and just trying to um improve the relationship, not only save money, but improve the relationship between business and the government. That's all we're trying to do here. So, thank you very much for paying careful attention to my bill, my humble bill.
I reclaim my time and now yield back. Again, are there any further members who wish to be recognized? There being no further discussion on the amendment and nature of the substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who
would like to offer amendments? Representative Omar, would you like to offer an amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. M >> Mr. Chairman. >> Uh uh are there a members who would
>> not yet? >> Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment and in the nature of a substitute to HR2299 offered by Miss Omar of Minnesota identifier AMD_01. >> I recognize Representative Thompson.
>> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Minnesota uh for for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you. Uh despite a positive sounding name, the Ensuring Workers Get
Paid Act will do the opposite. It ensures that employers who steal wages get to get a doover with no real consequences. It ensures workers get the pair bare minimum of what they are already owed. It ensures the federal
government steps back from actively holding bad actors accountable. Under this bill, if an employer self audits and admits to minimum wage or overtime violations, they can quietly pay back their workers while avoiding liquidated
damages or serious penalties. As long as the employer is not a repeat violator under investigation, they can use the paid program as an easy safe harbor and ask workers to sign away their right to
go to court. That is not fair or effective enforcement. It lets dishonest businesses treat stolen wages like an interestfree loan from workers. It also rigs the playing field against honest businesses. If you follow the law and
pay people what they are owed, you are forced to compete with a bad actor who can undercut you on labor cost, but then self-report and later and walk away with a slap on the wrist. It weakens the government's capacity and effectiveness
to protect, serve, and support workingclass people. The wage and hour division is already stretched thin from years of funding and staffing cuts. This bill pushes DO to spend scarce resources
processing special deals for employers who choose to come forward instead of pursuing strategic proactive investigations in the industries where violations are rampant. And all of this is happening while workers are still losing billions of dollars to wage theft
every single year. And this administration has already announced that it will no longer seek liquidated damages in wage and hour cases. So what problem is this bill really trying to solve other than making life easier for
employers who break the law? To make matters worse, this bill would re preempt state and local enforcement actions so long as there is no active investigation or litigation. That means states like Minnesota, which have stronger labor laws and more active
enforcement agencies, could be undermined if a dishonest employer can simply run to the federal government, cut a quiet deal, and pressure workers to take that deal. This is why my amendment takes a different approach. It
strikes the underlying bill and replaces it with the Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act led by Representative Delloro and Ranking Member Scott. This bill would actually go after wage theft. It requires clear paid disclosures so
workers can see how their wages are calculated and whether anything is being stolen. It strengthens penalties and damages so wage theft is never cheaper than compliance. It restores workers access to justice by limiting forced
arbitration and class action waiverss that hide wage theft claims. And it infests us on the ground part partners with worker advocacy centers and community groups to build real capacity instead of outsourcing enforcement to
the very employers who are breaking the law. So our choice here today is very simple. We can pass a bill that invites wage thieves to police themselves or we can adapt a serious bill that protects workers and rewards honest businesses. I
urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and to stand with workers in all of our districts who deserve to be paid every dollar they have earned. Thank you and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman
from Pennsylvania assist on a point of order? >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> A point of order is withdrawn. Uh does anyone else wish to speak on this amendment? Uh, I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin.
>> Just an observation. I've been an elected official for over 25 years now. I pride myself on being a retail politician. Uh, you know, I show up every farmers market, um, church
festival, fireman's picnic, I rang doorbells. I have never yet run across a person who complained they were victim of wage theft. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just saying I've yet to run into that person. But maybe it's a big I've never I've never seen it. Um it it
seems >> Would the gentleman yield? >> Certainly. >> Well, I would love to have a conversation with you because the whole country has a problem of wage theft and I can send you multiple articles especially in my district. >> Okay. Um,
in any event, like I said, uh, one of the problems we have in this country, one of the reasons people don't like to go into business is there are some governmental agencies who I guess would say both on a state and in local and federal level who kind of have a a
hatred towards business. They view business as the enemy. We just try to throw a bill out here so that a I think you're going to get more renumerations coming on the employees because the employers are not going to be afraid to
report errors, but secondly, we're going to have a better relationship between employers and employees. And um I I know there are people who have an attitude of employers are automatically trying to break the law and screw their employees. I just don't think that's true at all.
All the employers that I know think, you know, that you want to treat your employees as good as possible to keep them around and you pride yourself on having happy employees. But um in any event, I hope the bill passes out of
here today and becomes law and we permanently remove this uh some unnecessary friction between our government and business. Thank you. Gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek
recognition of the amendment? The gentle lady from North Carolina. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move strike the last word in support of the amendment. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I rise in support of the gentle lady from Minnesota's amendment. Here's yet another bill offered by Republicans that
claim to protect workers, but in fact does the opposite. Unlike the so-called ensuring workers get paid act, this amendment will will actually ensure that working people are paid the wages that they are owed. As much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think
that the paid program was a success, the evidence shows otherwise. The paid program allows businesses to conduct internal audits and self-report wage and hour violations. Companies in the program receive blanket immune imu
immunity from state level wage and hour investigations. And employees of paid program companies are prohibited from seeking liquidated damages for violations. For an employer to qualify for the paid program, they cannot have
had any wage and hour violations in in the past three years. Now, that sounds like a strong guard rail, right? But but that's a problem. Uh the wage in our division is at a 50-year staffing low for investigators. So most companies
that violate wage theft laws get away with it. And so if you think employers are going to self-report wage violations out of the goodness of their hearts, then then they have some beachfront then I have some beachfront property that I can sell you in my district. But but
here's the bottom line. This bill will make wage theft easier to get away with. American workers lose billions of of dollars per year from wage theft. And workers lose more than than wage theft from from all other forms of property uh
theft combined. In North Carolina alone, minimum wage violations um take at least $238 million from workers paychecks every year. Clearly, employers are having no problem with getting away with stealing
from their workers. With weak enforcement and and low fines for violations, many companies realize that it's cheaper to violate the law than pay workers what they're owed. Rather than supporting additional funding for wage and hour division enforcement
activities, House Republicans have put forward a spending package to cut wage and hours budget by $25 million. This amendment would impose stricter fines on employers who who willfully violate the
law and strengthen worker workers rights. And I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to to give up on that that soft on crime approach. Enforce our nation's wage and our laws and and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I I yield back.
>> Gentle yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman and the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support uh this amendment
in inserting instead of the underlying language inserting the wage theft prevention and wage recovery act. The substitute amendment is an example of what Congress actually ought to be doing, fighting for workers and holding lawanking businesses accountable and not
offering them get out of jail free cards. This amendment rectifies the problem inherent in HR 2299 and will ensure workers right to be paid all of their legally owed wages as well as hold unscrupulous employers accountable for
violating Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, it requires detailed payubs be delivered to employees regularly as well as providing reasonable access to recordkeeping necessary to hold employers accountable in court for violating the FLSA.
Amendment also prevents employers from exploiting mandatory arbitration and collective action waiverss and pro and protects employees ability to pursue remedies for stolen wages under the FLSA. Finally, the amendment increases
civil monetary penalties and liquidated damages to deter wage theft and make certain that unscrupulous employers do not profit stealing their employees wages. This amendment and stronger wage and hour laws in general also help
law-abiding businesses as well as working as well as workers. That's because businesses that play by the rules are left at a competitive disadvantage as lawbreaking employers rob their workers of their wages and exploit loopholes like those present in
the paid program to get an unfair advantage. This um amendment helps fix that problem and is firmly on the side of those businesses that play by the rules for holding rule breakers accountable. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to do what is right
for workers. So, I want to thank the gentle lady from Minnesota for offering this amendment and for her leadership in this issue. I urge a yes vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment by the the gentle lady from Minnesota. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
>> I ask for a recorded vote. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute HR 2299?
Mr. Chairman, >> for what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized? >> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters in opposition to the bills being considered today from the FLCIO, Labor's International Union of North America,
the Economic Policy Institute, Center for Law and Social Policy, and a coalition of organizations including the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Education Association, National Employment Law Project, the National Women's Law Center
Action Fund, and Service Employees International Union. If there be no objections to that, they will be entered. Hearing none, uh, they'll be entered. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess
subject to call of the chair. We expect to reconvene promptly at 3 p.m. uh for the votes. Thank you. The committee stands in recess. The committee will uh reconvene and come to order following our recess.
Thank you for uh making it back here uh close on time. We'll proceed to postpone to postpone requests for record votes. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR2870
to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed? No.
>> No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. >> Recorder vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I.
>> Thanks to vote now. >> Clerk will open the vote. Just leave this one. Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded? Do any members
wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 18 yays and 15 nays. >> The eyes have it. And >> Mr. Chairman, before you announce the
vote, can we get in? >> Can we can Can we We do that. How does Representative Bombgardner wish to wish to be recorded? >> Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 19 yays and 15 nays.
>> Thank you. Thanks. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2870 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Here I
move that the committee uh report the bill HR2312 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All oppose? No. >> In the opinion of the chairs, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote. >> Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic
voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. >> Ranking member intends to vote no. >> Uh clerk, please open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their
vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 19 yays and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2312 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be
transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record. The quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2219.
>> The amendment offered >> what's the bill number? >> 2299, excuse me. 2299, HR 2299. The amendment offered by uh Miss Omar titled
AMD-01. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Then chairman intends to vote no. >> Rank member intends to vote yes. >> Will the clerk please open the vote? Have all members been recorded who wish
to be recorded? >> Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 yays and 19 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2299. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. >> No.
>> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of the substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR2299 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with re recommendation
that the amendment be agreed to and the bill due pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. >> Recorded vote.
>> Recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. >> Ranking member intends to vote no. >> The clerk, please open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20 ys and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 2299 as amended and the
accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant
to House Rule 11, clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file supplemental minority additional or desending views without objection. So ordered. Without objection, any members who wish to insert materials into the
record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there's no further business before the committee without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> Thank you.
>> You can