Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2270
Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

ID: M001233

Follow the money

The bill

Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

HR. 2270, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$52,844 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

65% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on H.R. 2270 is postponed.

January 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress who clearly have nothing better to do than concoct more ways to screw over working-class Americans.

Let's dissect this farce, shall we? The "Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act" (because who doesn't love a title that sounds like it was written by a committee of tone-deaf bureaucrats?) claims to be about helping employers provide child and dependent care services to their employees. How noble. Except, of course, it's not.

What this bill actually does is exclude these "benefits" from overtime compensation calculations. Translation: employers get to pretend they're being generous while simultaneously screwing over their employees by denying them fair pay for their work. It's a classic case of "we care about your family, but not enough to actually pay you what you're worth."

The affected industries? Any company that can afford to offer these "benefits" in the first place – i.e., large corporations with deep pockets and a vested interest in keeping labor costs down. The compliance requirements are laughable: just insert some boilerplate language into your employee handbook, and voilà! You're now an "empowering employer."

Enforcement mechanisms? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill relies on the honor system – because we all know how well that works in the corporate world. Penalties for non-compliance? Oh, I'm sure they'll be draconian... said no one ever.

The economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say this bill is a gift to employers who want to keep their labor costs low while pretending to care about their employees' well-being. It's a masterclass in corporate welfare, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood politicians.

In short, HR 2270 is a legislative disease that needs to be diagnosed and treated – with a healthy dose of skepticism and contempt for the politicians who peddle this nonsense. The real illness here? Corporate greed, enabled by spineless lawmakers who are more interested in lining their own pockets than actually helping working Americans.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and cowardice. Prognosis: bleak.

Related Topics

Labor & Employment Policy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$52,844
1 donors
PACs
$52,844
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
30 transactions
$52,844

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
3
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
8
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$2,900
Dec 19, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

ID: H001091

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

ID: H001090

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 26, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 18, 2024
3
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Nov 7, 2024
6
MIRANDA, LAUREL
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Feb 7, 2023
7
ELSON, DAVID
UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATESCEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
8
GOODMAN, COREY
VENBIO PARTNERS LLCLIFE SCIENCES VENTURE CAPITAL MANAGING
IndividualMARSHALL, CA
$6,600
Aug 29, 2023
9
SCHMIDT, ERIC
HILLSPIRE LLCMANAGER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
10
BROWN, SHELLEY
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA
$6,600
Aug 19, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

ID: T000467

Top Contributors

10

1
BUTLER MACHINE
OrganizationTULELAKE, CA
$3,300
Oct 15, 2024
2
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Oct 15, 2024
3
BUTLER MACHINE
OrganizationTULELAKE, CA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
4
CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP
OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
5
AG VENTURES
OrganizationELIZABETHTOWN, PA
$2,500
May 1, 2023
6
ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC
OrganizationST. LOUIS, MO
$2,000
May 18, 2023
7
RANCH 440
OrganizationMECCA, CA
$1,500
May 22, 2023
8
KOHL REAL ESTATE
OrganizationKITTANNING, PA
$1,000
Mar 11, 2024
9
DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY
OrganizationWELLBORN, FL
$1,000
May 30, 2023
10
HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC
OrganizationDAVENPORT, WA
$1,000
Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

ID: S001196

Top Contributors

10

1
MAGGIE'S LIST- EAMARKS
PACTAMPA, FL
$50
Oct 23, 2024
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$6,600
Mar 29, 2023
3
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
4
SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2023
5
FISHER, CYNTHIA A. MS.
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORGFOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Oct 10, 2023
6
BERK, MICHAEL
TA ASSOCIATESINVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
7
CUTLER, ROBERT
C3CEO
IndividualLEAWOOD, KS
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
8
DAVIS, ANN L.
N/AHOMEMAKER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Dec 30, 2023
9
KRAFT, DANIEL
THE KRAFT GROUPINTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT
IndividualFOXBORO, MA
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
10
FITZPATRICK, MARY
NONECOMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
IndividualOSPREY, FL
$6,600
Sep 21, 2023

Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6]

ID: F000484

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

ID: H001102

Top Contributors

10

1
CARSTEN, KATHERINE M
NO EMPLOYERHOMEMAKER
IndividualWAXHAW, NC
$10,000
Feb 14, 2024
2
HORNE, CHRIS
HORNE HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONINGPRINICPAL
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Nov 3, 2023
3
DIMICCO, DANIEL
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualWAXHAW, NC
$6,600
Jan 17, 2024
4
GREENBLATT, SCOTT
VETERANS GUARDIANOWNER
IndividualPINEHURST, NC
$6,600
May 17, 2024
5
HENDLEY, JOHN NANCE
BREWER-HENSLEY OIL COMPANYEXECUTIVE
IndividualMONROE, NC
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
6
BUTLER, DONALD R
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
7
CHERRY, LINDA
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
8
GOLDING, ERNEST G
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualADVANCE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
9
KIDD, VICKIE
SELFREAL ESTATE
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 12, 2023
10
LAMB, JOHN R
AMERICAN AIRLINESPILOT
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 21, 2023

Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]

ID: O000177

Top Contributors

10

1
O'BRIEN, FRANK
O'BRIEN INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGSOWNER
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
2
ONDER, JAMES G
ONDERLAW, LLCATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 26, 2024
3
BURNS, ROBERT
PATRIOT MACHINEVICE PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$13,200
Sep 5, 2024
4
POGUE, RICHARD W.
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualWRIGHT CITY, MO
$13,200
Jun 20, 2024
5
SCHULTE, STEVE
HENGES INTERIORSOWNER
IndividualWELDON SPRING, MO
$13,200
May 8, 2024
6
MUELLER, DOUGLAS
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualO FALLON, MO
$10,000
Mar 6, 2024
7
OBRIEN, JOHN
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLAKE ST LOUIS, MO
$10,000
Mar 11, 2024
8
SMITH, MENLO
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$7,500
Mar 21, 2024
9
STOFFA, ROBERT
WINDBER HOSPITALPHYSICIAN
IndividualLIGONIER, PA
$6,870
Mar 28, 2024
10
KOVAC, AMY
BAIN COBUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,818
Mar 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 19 nodes and 42 connections (90 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $86,894

Top Donors - Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

Showing top 1 donor by contribution amount

1 PAC

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

  • Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a) amends FLSA to exclude child/dependent care payments from overtime rate calculation, reducing overtime pay for workers, which labor unions oppose as it diminishes worker compensation.

  • Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.85

    Same provision reduces overtime compensation for school employees (e.g., paraprofessionals, custodians) who may receive child care benefits, negatively impacting members of teachers unions.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate64.8%
Pages: 624-626

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills