Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment appears to require GAO to submit a report to Congress that compares the returns generated through the brokerage windows with those of other investments available through retirement plans. Brokerage windows allow plan participants to invest outside the menu of designated investment alternatives available under their plan. Such investments can include mutual funds and, in some cases, individual stocks and bonds. Of the amendments that were filed at Rules Committee, my Democratic colleagues and I would have preferred one from the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, Mr. DeSaulnier of California, to be made in order. His amendment would have fixed the fundamental flaw of division A of the bill, which simply would have ensured that plan fiduciaries would be permitted to consider ESG investments if they can be done without sacrificing investment returns. Although I do not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, I do have a couple of observations about it. First, the effect of this amendment could be accomplished by just writing a letter to GAO, along with the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. That would be faster than sticking it on this bill and hoping the bill passes. We may draw the conclusion that this amendment was made in order so that the Republican majority could say they have an open process on this flawed bill and avoid yet another criticism of all of their closed rules. With respect to the substance of the amendment, I am concerned that it needlessly pits two things that are not in conflict, that is, brokerage windows and the plan's designated investments. My colleagues know, in 2021, the ERISA Advisory Council examined brokerage windows. They noted that fewer than one-third of the retirement plans even offer a brokerage window, and roughly 2 percent of plan participants with access to one actually choose it. When you look at the average brokerage window account, it exceeded over $300,000, which is far greater than what many Americans have in their total retirement funds. While few people are using the brokerage windows, the ones that do may be interested in exploring funds or stocks that are not affected by their plan. Of those mutual funds that are offered, some may be ESG- themed. If that is the concern of my colleagues, and if they are banking on the GAO to produce a report that shows ESG-themed funds offered in a brokerage account will underperform, they may be disappointed because researchers at New York University noted that ``empirical studies and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate a positive relationship between ESG integration and financial performance.'' GAO itself has already examined this issue in the past and stated: ``The vast majority, 88 percent, of the scenarios in studies we reviewed . . . reported finding a neutral or positive relationship between the use of ESG information in investment management and financial returns.'' Finally, the gentleman's amendment must be considered alongside the House Republicans' efforts to decimate GAO's budget. Last summer, House Republicans proposed cutting the GAO budget by 50 percent. Fortunately, that was restored in the final version, but it is curious that the House Republicans now want to give the GAO more work after they were so intent on cutting its budget. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it makes much difference whether it passes or not, but I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere appreciation to Coach Mike Tomlin for his extraordinary career and lasting impact on the game of football. His resignation marks the end of an era not only for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but for the entire National Football League. Coach Tomlin has been a model of leadership, consistency, and excellence. As one of the longest-tenured and most successful head coaches in the league, he demonstrated what it means to lead with integrity, resilience, and a commitment to both performance and people. His historic achievements--including never having a losing season-- speak volumes about his discipline, preparation, and ability to bring out the best in those around him. For those of us in Hampton Roads, Coach Tomlin's story is especially meaningful. A proud graduate of Denbigh High School in Newport News and a standout student-athlete at the College of William & Mary, he represents the very best of our region. His journey from our local schools to the pinnacle of professional football is a testament to the power of hard work, perseverance, and community support. Beyond the wins and championships, Coach Tomlin's legacy is also defined by the doors he helped open. As one of the few Black head coaches in the NFL, he has been an inspiration to countless young people who now see what is possible when talent meets opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I wish Coach Tomlin and his family the very best in this next chapter. His influence will continue to be felt for years to come--on the field, in locker rooms, and in the lives of the many players, coaches, and fans he inspired.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here, workers' rights are under attack, and working families are struggling to decide between paying rent and paying for groceries. Instead of lowering costs, this week, the Republicans are considering proposals that will reduce workers' wages, adversely affect their retirement savings, and give corporations and bosses loopholes to take money out of their pockets. This is untenable, and these are the proposals that Americans can least afford. That is why we must defeat the previous question, so we can bring up and pass H.R. 20, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to help workers organize. We know that when they organize, they will have higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces. The PRO Act will be the most significant upgrade in U.S. labor law in over 80 years. For too long, workers have suffered from antiunion attacks and toothless labor laws that have undermined their right to work safely and be paid fairly. The PRO Act will help hold lawbreaking employers accountable by imposing meaningful penalties for violating workers' rights. It will secure free, fair, and safe union elections by preventing employer interference. It will crack down on corporations that misclassify employees to stymie their right to organize. This is a critical moment for working families. We cannot abandon our workers, the backbone of the American economy, when they are under attack from antiworker politicians and lawbreaking corporations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in defeating the previous question so that, instead of reducing workers' wages, we can support this bicameral, bipartisan legislation to ensure that workers can earn the pay and benefits they are owed for their hard work.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2262, the so-called Flexibility for Workers Education Act. We have heard about these roadblocks and obstacles. Mr. Speaker, the roadblocks and obstacles are a requirement that people get paid for their time. Too many Americans still work too hard but can't afford the basics, such as groceries, rent, or utilities. Even more, they are struggling to afford the little extras that give you a slice of the American Dream, like owning a home, taking your family on vacation, or even occasionally going out to a restaurant. Yet, simply put, the economy just isn't working for everybody. According to Moody's Analytics, the top 10 percent of earners account for nearly 50 percent of all of the United States' consumer spending, so obviously something is out of whack. Despite this reality, House Republicans are attempting to pass three bills this afternoon that would cut workers' wages. This bill, H.R. 2262, would relieve employers of the obligation to pay employees for training outside of their regular working hours. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees must be compensated for employer-mandated education and training outside the regular work hours. Essentially, the FLSA protects workers from being compelled to volunteer their time for job-related training without wage and hour protections. However, this bill significantly weakens the protections because it would permit employers to provide job-related training after hours but off the clock so long as they do not state that it is technically required. However, employers can still lead workers to believe that the training is needed. You can just imply that if you want a raise or promotion, it would be nice to get the training. That is not really required. The legislation is based on the flawed premise that if you provide workers with certain opportunities or benefits, employers must be able to pay them less. That doesn't make sense. We should not let employers get away with failing to pay workers for their time while claiming that it is in the workers' best interests. These workers, if they are working on an employer-provided training, should not be required to work off the clock without any compensation. For that reason, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was just looking over the internet and found a Reddit discussion board and found one entry that said: ``I am bothered by unpaid 2-day training, which is going to be 9 hours each day.'' This kind of crosses the line, and they just wanted to know if that was legal in New York. In reference to the motion to recommit, I hope we would support the motion to recommit. It would give us an opportunity to vote on an increase in the minimum wage which hasn't been increased in over a decade. A few years ago, it was noted that a full-time minimum wage worker could not afford a modest two-bedroom apartment in any county in the United States. Since then, housing costs have gone up, but the minimum wage has stayed the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, according to last week's Bureau of Labor statistics, 2025 was the worst year for job growth in this country since the last Trump administration. 2025 had 3 months of job losses. Meanwhile, President Biden had 48 consecutive months without a single loss. At this point in President Biden's term, he had already created millions of jobs. At the end of the first year, President Trump has only created a few hundred thousand. Yet, despite this reality, the House Republicans are attempting to advance this bill which would allow employers to get away without paying workers for job-related training outside of regular hours so long as it is technically not required. It will do nothing to lower the costs of living or give working families a leg up. For this reason, I hope we will defeat the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't provide any additional child or elder care. What it does is take money out of people's pockets because, under current law, employers must pay hourly workers time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. That overtime rate is based on a worker's regular rate of pay, which includes not only the cash payment but also non-wage compensation and presently includes the value of child or dependent care services when employers decide to provide them as part of the benefit package. Existing law already provides incentives for these benefits, allowing employers to deduct them as a cost of doing business and offering tax preferences for certain child and dependent care assistance. This bill would change the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude the value of these services from the regular rate used to calculate overtime. Despite its name, the bill does not require employers to provide any child or elder care. Instead, it just reduces the cost of overtime if they provide it. That is the problem. In practice, this bill encourages employers to keep workers on the job longer rather than expanding access to affordable care. It increases the time away from families while offering no assurance that any support for childcare will be provided. Workers who already receive these benefits will see their overtime pay reduced. There is no evidence that these workers who do not receive this benefit are likely to get the benefit. The only group we know for certain will be affected is those who already have it, and they will lose money on overtime. That makes no sense. I don't know how that solves anything. I would hope that we would not reduce workers' pay. To do that, we have to oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is a distinguished member of the Education and Workforce Committee and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I encourage people to support the motion to recommit, which would actually create childcare availability. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO which says, in part: `` . . . there is no evidence that reducing the overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or elder care.'' AFL-CIO, Legislative Alert, January 12, 2026. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 15 million workers and 64 affiliate unions represented by the AFL-CIO, I urge you to oppose the following anti-worker bills scheduled for consideration on the House floor this week: the Flexibility for Workers Education Act (H.R. 2262), the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act (H.R. 2270), and the Tipped Employee Protection Act (H.R. 2312). H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act, would let employers require workers to attend job-related training without paying them for that time. The bill allows employers to label training as ``voluntary,'' even when workers feel pressured to attend to keep their jobs or advance, and removes current protections that ensure training closely tied to a worker's job is paid. As a result, employers could push essential training outside of regular work hours and off the clock, increasing unpaid work for low-wage workers. H.R. 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, would exclude from the calculation of an employee's regular wage rate any employer reimbursement for child or elder care when calculating an employee's overtime rate of pay. Under this bill, employees who receive these reimbursements would see their overtime wage rate cut. Reducing a worker's overtime earnings will not help them afford the cost of child or elder care. Instead, it will make life harder. And there is no evidence that reducing the overtime rate for employees will spur a widespread willingness of employers to offer reimbursement for child or elder care. Workers need both decent wages and access to affordable child and elder care. There are ways to achieve the latter without attacking the former. H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would change federal wage law in a way that makes pay more unstable for many low-wage workers by allowing employers to treat almost any worker as a ``tipped employee'' if they receive even small or occasional tips over a time period the employer chooses, whether that is a single day or an entire month. This could allow employers to pay the tipped subminimum wage to workers such as baristas, hotel staff, delivery drivers, salon workers, stadium staff, and other service workers who do not regularly earn tips. For example, a worker who waits tables would be paid the full minimum wage for non-tipped cooking shifts, but under this bill the employer could average tips earned earlier in the week and use them to justify paying $2.13 an hour for cooking shifts as well, which would cut weekly pay. By weakening existing rules that limit when the tip credit can be used, the bill would result in reduced take-home pay for workers, give employers greater control over how workers are classified and paid, make it harder for workers to know if they are being paid correctly, and increase the risk of wage theft in industries where it is already common. Collectively, these bills nickel and dime workers' pay at a time when so many struggle to afford the basics. Wages should be raised, not cut. Please vote no on H.R. 2262, H.R. 2270, and H.R. 2312. Sincerely, Jody Calemine, Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to solve, as I said, the elder or childcare crisis in this country. It does not create affordable care, and it does not guarantee a single new benefit for working families. What it does do is reduce overtime pay for workers who already receive these benefits while encouraging employers to keep people at work longer without fully paid compensation. That means more time away from loved ones, less money in workers' pockets, and probably more need for childcare. If we are serious about supporting families, then Congress should be expanding access to affordable care, not cutting wages under the guise of helping workers. We could really do some help by supporting the motion to recommit and passing the Child Care for Working Families Act. That would actually lower costs for families and create childcare opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I hope we would support the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act. It is actually the tipped employer protection act. Today, we are discussing one of several bills that House Republicans claim will benefit workers but ultimately falls short of what workers need. H.R. 2312 would redefine the Fair Labor Standards Act, the FLSA, to make workers more vulnerable to wage theft and give employers an excuse not to pay workers what they are otherwise owed. Under present law, the FLSA allows employers to take a tip credit only if employees are in jobs where they regularly and customarily earn at least $30 a month in tips. If workers split their time between jobs that regularly earn tips and jobs that don't, such as one shift as a restaurant server and another as a restaurant line cook, the employer can apply the tip credit today only to the tip-earning shifts. This bill would tear down that distinction. Ultimately, the bill seeks to expand the pool of workers that employers can pay a subminimum wage rather than the full wage. This is problematic because tipped workers are paid less per hour and have less access to benefits such as sick leave, healthcare, short-term disability, and life insurance. In fact, the Federal tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour. Instead of giving workers a leg up, this bill offers bad actors an opportunity to cut corners and shortchange their workers. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we received a letter from the Union SEIU, which says in part that this bill, the so-called Tipped Employee Protection Act, would amend Federal minimum wage and overtime law by broadening the definition of tipped employee and increasing the employer's power to move workers in and out of tipped employee status, including allowing employers to decide on a daily or weekly basis whether a worker counts as a tipped worker. This is a harmful and ill-conceived bill in every possible way. Most tipped workers already struggle to make ends meet. We should be doing away with the subminimum wage for tipped workers, not incentivizing and expanding tipped work. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a January 13, 2026, letter from SEIU. January 13, 2026. Dear Representative: On behalf of SEIU's 2 million members and worker leaders, I write to urge you to vote NO on a slate of ``labor'' bills expected to come to the floor for a vote this week. The bills Republicans are bringing to the floor do not represent serious attempts by Speaker Johnson or the GOP to help working people or working families. This is the party that just this last week stripped five states of $10 billion in childcare funding and funding to needy families. This is the party that shut the government down because they were unwilling to save 22 million people from having their health care costs dramatically rise or are lost. These pieces of legislation do not represent any serious effort at curbing costs or making life better for everyday people. The bills are as follows: H.R. 2988--Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings, H.R. 2270--Empowering Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, H.R. 4366 Save Local Business Act, H.R. 2312--Tipped Employee Protection Act, H.R. 2262-- Flexibility for Workers Education Act. Far from making conditions better for working people, these bills weaken existing protections and further stack the deck in favor of employers and against workers. H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to codify Trump Administration rules that undermine workers' retirement security by, among other things, chilling fiduciaries' consideration of a set of important financial risks and I opportunities. This bill misguidedly attacks Environmental, Social, and Governance (``ESG'') considerations in fiduciary decision-making as ``woke'' rather than legitimate and important factors to be considered in decision-making. H.R. 2270, the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, would allow employers to pay their workers less overtime than they are owed by excluding child and dependent care services and payments from the rate used to compute overtime compensation. Rather than incentivize employers to subsidize care, this bill could encourage excessive work without fairly compensating the workers or doing anything to make childcare or elder care more affordable or accessible. H.R. 4366, the Save Local Business Act, would limit workers' protections under labor and employment laws by adopting a single, weak, joint employer test for both the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Joint employer tests are used to determine who is responsible for wrongdoing when there are multiple entities with the power to determine employment conditions. An improperly narrow FLSA or NLRA standard would make it harder for workers to hold the right entities responsible for abuse. Further, a narrow NLRA joint employer standard effectively extinguishes the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers by permitting companies that control their jobs to escape the bargaining table. SEIU represents tens of thousands of workers, including janitors, security guards, and healthcare workers, who would have their rights weakened if this bill passes. H.R. 2312, the Tipped Employee Protection Act, would amend federal minimum wage and overtime law by broadening the definition of tipped employee and increasing employers' power to move workers in and out of tipped employee status, including allowing employers to decide on a daily or weekly basis whether a worker counts as a tipped worker already struggle to make ends meet. We should be doing away with the subminimum wage for tipped workers, not incentivizing and expanding tipped work. H.R. 2262, the Flexibility for Workers Education Act, would carve out time spent participating in education or training related to employment from the calculation of a worker's paid time. This bill would undercut the longstanding principle that FLSA requires minimum wage and overtime protections for all time that employees spend working for the benefit of the employer, and would enable employers to steal time from employees by scheduling unpaid--but essential to the job-- training. As stated above, these bills would hurt working people by chipping away at existing legal protections meant to protect workers from harm. They are unnecessary and burdensome new legal requirements that do nothing to improve working conditions. We strongly urge you to vote NO on all the above bills. If you have any questions, please contact Sarah Heydemann. Thank you, John Gray, Director, Legislation, Service Employees International Union.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a January 13, 2026, letter from the Economic Policy Institute to Speaker Johnson. January 13, 2026. Re Opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act. Hon. Mike Johnson, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations dedicated to worker rights and building a just and inclusive economy write in opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act. If enacted, these bills would harm workers by weakening longstanding labor and employment laws, leading to lower pay, reduced employer accountability, and more precarity. H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act The Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to block retirement plan fiduciaries from considering climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors when they select retirement investments. The bill would constrain plan fiduciaries' ability to account long-term financial risks in their investment decisions, which would undermine workers' retirement security. H.R 2270, Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act The Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act would exclude child, dependent, and elder care payments from the rate used to compute overtime compensation for eligible workers. This would result in workers receiving less overtime than they are owed under current law, which would in turn incentivize employers to impose longer workweeks on already over-worked employees. Further, workers who face longer workweeks as a consequence of H.R. 2270 would likely experience higher childcare costs as childcare providers who operate during nontraditional hours (including evenings and weekends) tend to cost more. H.R. 2270 would contradict the basic premise, going back to 1938. that employers should be deterred from requiring employees to work excessive and burdensome hours. H.R. 2262, The Flexibility for Workers Education Act The Flexibility for Workers Education Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to excuse employers of their responsibility to pay workers for trainings or other professional development opportunities that are outside of regular work hours. Despite the bill's generous-sounding title, this bill would not give workers any more flexibility. Instead, it allows employers to hold trainings and professional development opportunities after work hours and not pay workers who attend--as long as the employer does not say it's required. However, employers can still lead workers to believe these trainings and professional development opportunities are required, which would result in workers not being paid for their time. H.R 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act This bill amends the FLSA's definition of ``tipped employee'', by allowing employers to classify workers as tipped employees--and thus allow employers to take a tip credit--if workers receive (1) any amount of tips (2) over a period of time selected by the employer, (3) regardless of the employees' duties. Eliminating the requirement that workers must be ``engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.'' And allowing employers to choose any time period would give employers nearly unfettered discretion to re- classify almost any worker receiving any amount of tips for any amount of time as tipped employees and pay them a subminimum wage of $2.13 an hour, including for time spent doing non-tipped duties. This goes well beyond reversing the 80/20 rule challenged by the restaurant industry and would only further exacerbate the precarity of workers in an industry that already includes many of the nation's lowest- paid occupations and suffers from already high rates of wage theft. If Congress truly wants to protect tipped workers, it should pass the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the federal minimum wage floor and gradually phase out the subminimum wage for tipped workers. H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act The ``Save Local Business Act'' would ensure that trillion- dollar corporations like Amazon can use subcontracting and outsourcing arrangements to escape accountability to their workers. Businesses have long relied on subcontracting arrangements--such as hiring workers through temporary staffing agencies--to avoid their responsibility to comply with the FLSA and NLRA, even though they maintain power to control working conditions and that the workers are integral to their business. These contracting work-arounds were present when the FLSA and NLRA were passed in the 1930's, and versions of this outsourcing are used today by companies. Indeed, businesses across the economy--including in labor- intensive and low-paid sectors like construction, home and health care, janitorial and building services, hotels and hospitality, and warehousing and logistics--use similar contracting arrangements to insulate themselves from accountability. Limiting employer accountability and enabling corporations to avoid responsibility for violations of workers' rights under the FLSA and the NLRA will hasten race-to-the-bottom on labor standards, with businesses that treat their workers fairly finding it harder to compete. Should H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering Child and Elder Care Solutions Act; H.R. 4366, Save Local Business Act; H.R. 2312, Tipped Employee Protection Act; and H.R. 2262, Flexibility for Workers Education Act be brought to the floor, we strongly urge all Members of Congress to vote No. With any questions, please reach out to Charlotte Dodge, National Employment Law Project; Sam Sanders, Economic Policy Institute or Michelle Feit, National Partnership for Women & Families. Sincerely, Economic Policy Institute. National Employment Law Project. National Partnership for Women & Families.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is an open invitation for employers, particularly those involving restaurants and hotels, to lower their employees' wages by combining traditionally tipped occupations with nontipped occupations. For example, they will be able to put a line cook on the floor for a few hours a day and then apply the tip credit to all of the hours that the employee works. Tipped workers already are paid less per hour and have less access to benefits such as paid sick leave, healthcare, short-term disability and life insurance, and under this bill employers would be given a pass to not pay workers what they otherwise would have been owed. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to extend the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits through a clean, 3-year extension. Last year, the Republicans blocked the extension of these credits in the big, ugly bill. With the expiration of the tax credits last month, the health premium costs have skyrocketed, causing millions to lose their coverage. When more people lose coverage, costs go up for everyone. Uninsured patients often delay seeing a doctor and end up needing more costly care at the emergency room. When there are more uninsured, hospitals, especially in rural areas, face financial hardships and may be forced to close. In other words, those unpaid bills do not disappear. They are shifted onto everybody else, and everyone suffers. Today, Congress can step in to address the sharp premium increases and provide stability for working families across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support affordable healthcare.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record, two letters of opposition to H.R. 6703, the Lower Health Care Premiums for Americans Act, from AFL-CIO and AFSCME.