H. Res. 988 (119th)Bill Overview

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2988) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2262) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude certain activities from hours worked, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2270) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude child and dependent care services and payments from the rate used to compute overtime compensation; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2312) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise the definition of the term ''tipped employee'', and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4366) to clarify the treatment of 2 or more employers as joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Congress|Congress

Sponsor

Michelle FischbachR

Cosponsors

Support

Republican

Introduced

Jan 12, 2026

Discussions

Bill Text

View ↗

Current stageFloor

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Introduced

Committee

Floor

President

Law

Congressional Activities

01 · The brief

This House resolution (H.

Res. 988) provides the terms for floor consideration of five separate bills concerning retirement-plan investment factors (ERISA) and several Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and labor-law changes (overtime hours definitions, overtime rate calculations related to child/dependent care, tipped-employee definition, and joint-employer treatment).

It waives points of order, deems committee substitutes as adopted, limits debate (typically one hour), allows a designated amendment in one case, and preserves one motion to recommit for each bill.

Passage30/100

House consideration likely; enactment depends on Senate agreement and reconciliation of contentious labor and ERISA provisions.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is a well-constructed House floor rule that clearly and specifically sets the terms for consideration of the named bills, with appropriate procedural mechanics for debate and amendment.

Contention75/100

Liberals focus on worker pay and ESG protections; conservatives prioritize regulatory relief.

02 · What it does

Full Analysis

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%

WorkersWorkers

Likely helped

WorkersSpeeds congressional consideration of five labor and retirement policy bills, reducing legislative delay.
Targeted stakeholdersCreates predictable, uniform debate limits, shortening time uncertainty for lawmakers and stakeholders.
Targeted stakeholdersPrevents procedural challenges by waiving points of order, making floor votes more certain.

Likely burdened

Targeted stakeholdersRestricts opportunities for amendments and extended debate, reducing minority and outside input.
Targeted stakeholdersWaiving points of order reduces procedural safeguards and may limit legislative scrutiny.
WorkersCould hasten passage of substantive changes that critics argue decrease worker protections or overtime pay.

03 · Why people split

Full Analysis

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals focus on worker pay and ESG protections; conservatives prioritize regulatory relief.

Progressive20%

Likely critical of the rule because it fast-tracks bills that appear to narrow worker protections and constrain retirement plan consideration of social factors.

Will view many underlying measures as favoring employers and potentially reducing wages, protections, or ESG considerations.

Concern will focus on limited debate and waived points of order.

Likely resistant

Centrist50%

Mixed view: welcomes procedural certainty and clarified rules that reduce legal ambiguity, but cautious about potential negative effects on wages and retirement fiduciary responsibility.

Wants targeted fixes, factual cost-benefit analysis, and preservation of core worker protections before full backing.

Split reaction

Conservative85%

Generally favorable: sees the resolution as a pragmatic vehicle to advance bills that reduce regulatory burden, limit employer liability, and constrain ESG considerations in retirement plans.

Supports limiting debate to expedite pro-business reforms.

Leans supportive

04 · Can it pass?

Full Analysis