[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5926-H5935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 582, RAISE THE WAGE ACT
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 492
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 582) to
provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and
Labor now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; (2) the further amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by
the Member designated in the report, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
[[Page H5927]]
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported out a rule, House Resolution 492, providing for consideration
of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
The rule makes in order one amendment, debatable for 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Raise the Wage Act gradually increases the Federal
minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, thereby fulfilling a promise to
the American people that with hard work comes, at a minimum, a livable
wage. Not a wage with eroded purchasing power or a wage that keeps
workers from providing for their families, but a minimum wage that
empowers Americans and gives them a fighting chance at economic
mobility.
It has been over a decade, the longest stretch since the
establishment of the Federal minimum wage, since this body voted to
increase the minimum wage. This is a great disservice to the American
people, and I am thankful to Chairman Scott for making a gradual
increase of the Federal minimum wage a top priority of his Committee on
Education and Labor, of which I am a proud member.
In my home State of New York, we have one of the highest minimum
wages in the country. I was proud to support gradually increasing the
minimum wage to $15 an hour while I served as majority leader in the
New York State Assembly, and I look forward to doing the same here
today to ensure all Americans working full-time can live safely and
sustainably above the poverty line.
The benefits of increasing the minimum wage have far-reaching impacts
throughout our society. The Raise the Wage Act could increase wages for
over 30 million Americans, people who get up every day to work toward
their own version of the American Dream.
It empowers women, narrowing the gender wage pay gap through pay
increases for nearly 23 million women across America.
It would also lift the families of at least 1.3 million Americans,
600,000 of whom are children, out of poverty. Let's just think about
that for a moment: 1.3 million Americans who are working hard to make
ends meet but struggle below the poverty line because, for years,
Congress let the real value of their hard-earned dollars erode.
This isn't a handout for them. This is a fair and overdue adjustment
for employees who deserve to earn a livable wage.
Recently, a friend of mine, who is the administrator at Temple B'rith
Kodesh in Rochester, New York, where I worked to put myself through
college, sent me a copy of my pay stub from 1976.
At the time, I made the minimum wage, $2.30 an hour. People might
argue or debate whether or not I was worth $2.30 an hour, but that was
the minimum wage in 1976. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $10.35
in 2019 dollars.
Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, a worker who puts in
2,000 hours annually would make $20,700 today, but because the Federal
minimum wage is still at $7.25, or more than $2 an hour lower than if
the minimum wage had simply been adjusted for inflation since that
time, the same full-time worker today earns $14,500, a more than $6,200
erosion of purchasing power since 1976.
Even if you adjust for inflation since 2009 and look again at a
2,000-hour work year annually, the difference is $2,800.
When you are living paycheck to paycheck, as many minimum wage
workers do, an additional $6,200, or at least $2,800 annually, can make
a significant difference in your financial stability.
Gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour doesn't just
benefit those earning minimum wage. It boosts the local economy in
communities across this country.
A gradual increase to $15 will accelerate economic growth by putting
money in the pockets of workers who want--and now can afford--to spend
money beyond their basic needs.
Whether it be at the community grocery stores or family-owned shops,
by spending money back in their local economy, they contribute to a
positive economic cycle.
From narrowing the gender pay gap and lifting families out of poverty
to strengthening local economies, the Raise the Wage Act has clear
benefits we should all get behind. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
significant piece of legislation and urge all my colleagues to join me
in supporting its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage
Act.
This legislation would raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour,
a 107 percent increase over the current rate of $7.25 an hour.
An increase of this magnitude could harm American businesses, could
harm American consumers, and certainly will harm American workers.
The legislation does not consider the labor market, it
disincentivizes job growth, and it has the potential to leave nearly 4
million workers unemployed.
Let us consider the data. The Congressional Budget Office recently
released a report on the effects of mandating a Federal minimum wage in
the United States.
The report explains how more than doubling the minimum wage would
increase unemployment up to 4 million individuals. Four million workers
would have to be laid off to increase wages for a little over 1 million
people.
That means, for each person lifted out of poverty due to a wage
increase, another three individuals will lose their jobs. Why?
I ask my colleagues: Is this a fair tradeoff? This bill creates false
hope for low-wage earners who will be counting on a wage increase and
keeping their job. But what if they don't keep their job? Then it is no
wage at all.
In addition, those who are most likely to lose their jobs are likely
to be minorities, women, and our young people.
Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would have
unintended secondary effects, particularly increasing the risk of
inflation. As wages increase, the cost of doing business will rise as
well. Businesses will be forced to pass on these increased costs by
raising the price of their goods and services. As the costs are passed
on to the consumer, who will be hurt the most?
It is those vulnerable populations at the lower wage scale that this
bill supposedly helps: the Americans who live in poverty.
Congress cannot, in good conscience, pass this legislation, at least,
without understanding the full effects.
In January, the American Enterprise Institute released a report
detailing how the costs of goods have changed over the past 20 years,
controlled for inflation. This study included everything from
televisions to furniture to housing and more.
Unsurprisingly, the products with the most government involvement--
let's use as examples healthcare and education--saw the most rapid
increase in cost.
Is it the intent of the majority to increase prices of many consumer
products and services beyond what would be natural economic inflation?
Congress must also consider how this legislation will impact
different parts of the country in different ways.
Many urban areas have already raised their minimum wage to similar
levels. By the end of this year, New York City and San Francisco will
have minimum wages of $15 an hour. Seattle's two-tiered minimum wage
system goes even further by requiring small employers to pay $15 an
hour and large employers to pay $16 an hour.
[[Page H5928]]
However, in many parts of the country, they simply cannot handle the
burden of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Rural areas with small mom-and-
pop businesses and significantly lower costs of living do not have the
same needs or purchasing priorities as urban dwellers.
A Federal minimum wage should be a floor for all workers, not the
floor for those working and living in the heart of the most expensive
areas of the country.
Even the progressive think tank, The Third Way, lobbied for a
regional minimum wage in place of an across-the-board increase.
If this legislation goes into effect as currently written, it should
be renamed the ``Rural Jobs Killer Act'' because this one-size-fits-all
policy would accomplish just that.
{time} 1230
Another consequence of this legislation will be the pricing-out of
individuals who seek to enter the workforce.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly half of low-wage
earners are under 25 years of age. Increasing the Federal minimum wage
to $15 an hour will make it harder for these individuals to compete,
meaning that many will not be able to find work.
As a teenager growing up in Denton, Texas, I worked a lot of
different jobs. I bailed hay, delivered pizzas, and mowed lawns to earn
money for my education. Passing this legislation will eliminate such
opportunities for the young people of today.
With this concern in mind, I offered an amendment to the Raise the
Wage Act to protect opportunities for entry-level workers. My amendment
would ensure that those individuals with less than a year of work
experience have the opportunity to compete in the job market by
allowing an entry-level wage for workers with less than 1 year's
experience.
The initial wage would be set at the current minimum of $7.25 an hour
for the first year. Following that year, the Secretary of Labor would
be authorized to update the entry-level minimum wage using a market-
based analysis. The Secretary would be tasked to update this wage every
5 years to keep up with the changing labor and business environment,
instead of a heavyhanded government mandate.
Young Americans and new workers deserve a chance to gain experience
without being priced out of the job market by more experienced job
seekers.
The final downside of a significantly higher Federal minimum wage is
the risk this action has on the rapid automation of many jobs
throughout the economy. Automation in stores, vehicles, and assembly
lines could make many of our everyday tasks more efficient and
convenient. However, the new technologies will likely displace those
who are not trained for other occupations.
There is a compelling commercial that one of our fast-food franchises
has today that details the path of a young woman who gets her first job
at one of these restaurants. Then, it sort of details her progress in
every stage along the way. They say her name, and she gets the job. She
gets promotions. She gets into school. She is the first in her family
to walk across the stage at graduation.
But wouldn't it be ironic if, instead of that young woman's name,
they would have a kiosk from the same fast-food franchise. The kiosk is
actually advancing through the university, the artificial intelligence
university. Eventually, the kiosk may sit in the Speaker's chair one
day.
Look, that is not the future we want. We want to empower our young
people. We want to be able to give them work experience and allow them
to work and grow.
It is a beautiful commercial. I think they have done a wonderful job
telling that experience. But ironically, I think of that now when I go
into that same restaurant. I am able to order a cup of coffee off the
kiosk, and I never have to interact with an actual human at all.
Increasing the minimum wage by 107 percent across the country will
expedite this process quicker than the pace of innovation ever would.
My fellow Texas Representative, freshman Representative Ron Wright,
brought this concern to the attention of his colleagues at the House
Education and Labor Committee. During consideration of this bill, Mr.
Wright offered an amendment that required the Government Accountability
Office to study the impact of the minimum wage on the loss of jobs due
to automation and would stop the minimum wage hike if this job loss
rose to half a million jobs. That seems reasonable.
Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the dais in the
Education and Labor Committee rejected his concerns and his amendment.
With that said, I commend my Democratic colleagues for their efforts
to support the disability community with the inclusion of H.R. 873, the
Transformation to Competitive Employment Act.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Department of Labor is able
to grant employers 14(c) certificates. These certificates give
employers the legal right to pay disabled employees' wages below
minimum wage, officially called subminimum wages. This unfair policy
enables individuals with disabilities to be exploited under the guise
of integrating them into society.
However, a 2001 GAO report found that only 5 percent of disabled
workers at workshops that used the 14(c) certificates found employment
outside of these facilities. Little to no training took place, and
there was minimal integration into our modern society. Some workers,
unfortunately, were paid as little as 4 cents an hour.
This issue was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine,
Blake Pyron. Blake is a hardworking Texan. He owns his own business in
Sanger, Texas.
Blake happens to have Down syndrome. He was the first person with
Down syndrome in the State of Texas to start his own business, and he
has been an advocate for those with disabilities for years. Blake is
proof that being differently abled does not change the value of one's
life or one's labor.
Congress should continue to allow real wage growth to take place
through a thriving labor market. By avoiding burdensome Federal
mandates, by reducing expenses, by reducing red tape, Americans will
see gains in productivity and wages, allowing for more employment, not
less.
We don't have to look very far to see an example of this. Over the
past 2 years, the United States has seen unprecedented low levels of
unemployment and record-high rates of wage growth. Due to comprehensive
tax reform passed by the last Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
American companies have been able to reinvest in their employees and
projects like never before.
Due to the Trump administration's effort to reform and rein in
overbearing and obstructive Federal regulations, the economy is no
longer being held back.
With 7 million unfilled jobs in the United States today, the best way
to raise wages is to let the power of capitalism work and allow
companies to compete for workers. I urge opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate hearing from my distinguished friend and colleague on
the Rules Committee, Mr. Burgess. There is a lot to unpack from what he
said. Let me make a few points before I yield to my colleagues on my
side of the aisle.
First of all, as it relates to the economic numbers, the picture that
Mr. Burgess painted is heavily overstated. What it doesn't take into
consideration is the full picture here, which is the question of, if
you are going to establish as a matter of public policy that there
ought to be a minimum wage throughout this country, you do so
recognizing that that minimum wage ought to continue to keep pace so
that it doesn't get eroded over time. I will come back to that in a
minute.
I want to remind the gentleman that this change alone would lift 1.3
million people out of poverty--600,000 of whom are children who live in
poverty--even though they might work 2,000 hours a year, what we
consider full-time, full employment.
It is extraordinary. The savings alone to the government for people
who are no longer in poverty and who might rise out of the need for
public programs will be significant. Thirty million people would
benefit from this. Thirty million Americans benefit from the
legislation that Mr. Scott has advanced.
[[Page H5929]]
I also note that this economy has been growing for a decade now, what
I call the Obama recovery, which has continued. I also have the view
that Presidents probably get too much blame and certainly take too much
credit, perhaps, for economic growth.
This has been a sustained recovery. During times when there are labor
shortages is exactly the time that we would want to raise the minimum
wage. To do it during a labor market in which there was an excess labor
capacity would be the wrong time, it seems to me, from an economics
point of view.
Nonetheless, the point here is that the value of this has been agreed
to since 1938, when the minimum wage was first enacted under Franklin
D. Roosevelt.
I note, too, that in Mr. Burgess' district in Texas alone, 26 percent
of workers would see a raise of $3,900 a year, on average. That is just
in that district. That is a significant change in the economic well-
being of people in his district in Texas.
I certainly don't ever doubt the sincerity of my colleague, but what
would the minimum wage be?
Perhaps my colleagues could argue we get full employment at $2 an
hour. Unfortunately, people would make $4,000 a year. So if we are
going to be truthful to and have fidelity to the notion that a floor
needs to be established--and that is what this is; States and
communities are free to raise beyond the Federal minimum wage--then the
question is, what do we set it at?
I note that in 2007, when the question was last before the House and
when we raised the minimum wage that was at $5.85 per hour, and it is
now at $7.25, Mr. Burgess voted ``no,'' as did many of his colleagues.
Should the minimum wage still be $5.85? I think the question is, what
do we value as Americans? What is the appropriate public policy for
establishing the floor for what an individual works in America?
We feel very strongly about it. We feel lifting 30 million Americans'
economic prospects make this the appropriate thing to do, particularly
in an economy that is growing and an economy that can certainly not
only afford it, but we believe there is a moral imperative to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this very important
legislation, the Raise the Wage Act.
Mr. Speaker, they are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters,
your grandmothers. They are your childcare workers, your home health
aides, your retail workers, your maids. They, too, have to pay rent,
buy food for their families. By the time many retire, they live in
poverty.
Women play an essential role in the economy of the United States of
America yet make up two-thirds of minimum-wage workers. They are our
mothers, our sisters, our grandmothers, our daughters. They deserve a
raise, and they need a raise.
When women succeed, America succeeds.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of
response.
The gentleman, Mr. Morelle, was not here in 2007, the last time the
minimum wage vote was taken.
The Speaker of the House was the same Speaker of the House that we
have now. The minimum wage was raised. I don't know if the gentleman
remembers what happened in the year and a half following that, but job
losses in this country were staggering. I am not saying it was a one-
to-one relationship, but it certainly set the stage. The economy may
have already been softening, but it really did accelerate the job
losses that occurred in the recession of 2008.
Now, the gentleman correctly points out that 1.3 million people would
get a raise. That comes at the expense of 4 million people who would
see their employment eliminated by raising the minimum wage. Is that
really the direction we want to go?
His jurisdiction has raised the minimum wage. Any jurisdiction that I
represent is free to raise the minimum wage to whatever level it wants.
A city in my district may say that it is not going to negotiate with a
contractor that pays less than $15 an hour. That is fine. That is its
job. That is its prerogative. It may do so, but it will find itself in
competition with other jurisdictions that perhaps will not be so
onerous.
Look, I was an employer not too terribly long ago, and I recognized,
in the full-employment economy of the 1990s, that if I posted a job,
the most entry-level job in my medical practice, for a minimum wage
hire, I was wasting my money. No one was going to respond to that ad
because no one worked for minimum wage in the late 1990s during the
tech boom. Everyone had jobs that paid higher than the minimum wage.
That should be our aspirational goal, to have an economy that pays
more than what a baseline economy would pay.
I sat on the Joint Economic Committee for the first several years of
the Obama administration. It was a difficult time in this country.
Christina Romer and Mr. Summer would tell us that the country's best
days were behind us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
Now, we find ourselves emerging into a new area of our economy, a new
area of economic freedom. Why don't we embrace that?
Look, if we really wanted to do something to help people at the lower
end of the wage scale, we would be working seriously on border
security. We wouldn't have off-the-books labor competing with the
lowest wage earners in this country. We would fix that problem as a
United States Congress. That might have been a better effort than what
we spent our day doing yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will admit I think this is the first time I have heard that the
great crisis of 2007-2008 was caused by or a contributing factor was
the increase in the Federal minimum wage from $5.85. That sort of
ignores the problems in the housing industry, credit default swaps, and
a whole host of things in the financial community, not to mention what
happened in the automotive industry. So this is the first time I have
heard that theory promoted by anyone, and I think it varies
dramatically from what history will write about 2007 and 2008.
Nonetheless, I do want to just correct a few things that I thought I
heard my distinguished friend say.
First of all, the 1.3 million people who will receive a raise, that
is not what I said nor is it what CBO said. 1.3 million people will be
out of poverty. It will be a raise for 27 million Americans. So that is
the right number. It is not 1.3 million; it is almost 30 million
Americans.
I just note that nowhere in the CBO does it talk about 4 million
people being displaced. What it says is that there will be zero to 3.7,
a two-thirds chance that will happen. The median loss will be 1.3
million. So nowhere is there 4 million.
But, again, the point here that I think we should take from this is,
using the logic that has been posited by my friend and colleague, you
could argue that, using that logic, there would be no minimum wage.
Just let the States do whatever the States choose to do, localities do
whatever localities choose to do. That is not the public policy
decision we made in 1938, and we continue to have fidelity to this day
and this time and place.
Now, there may be people who disagree with that who think there ought
not be a Federal minimum wage at all. I guess that is certainly their
right to do that and make that argument. But the most important thing
here is that, if we are going to establish this--which we on this side
of the aisle certainly believe in the Federal minimum wage--if you are
going to allow it to continue to function without the erosion of
inflation and the loss of purchasing power, making adjustments--which I
think is one of the things that most advocates for this bill is that
there may be other changes in time to wage rates, et cetera, under
law--this will establish, for the first time in Federal law, a wage
inflation adjustor each year so that we will stop, for the first time
since we initiated the minimum wage,
[[Page H5930]]
the erosion of purchasing power, and we won't need to wait 10 years.
This is the longest period of time, as I mentioned in my opening
comments, the longest period of time since the establishment of the
Federal minimum wage, that we have waited to make those adjustments.
I would just note that, while I was not here and I was laboring in
the State legislature in New York creating what I think was good
economic policy, I noted that the Committee on Education Labor, during
the intervening time while my friends were in the majority, not only
did they not attempt to raise the minimum wage, they did not hold a
single hearing on the erosion of the purchasing power of the minimum
wage, which at the time was $7.25 and remains, to this date, $7.25.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, corporate America and Wall Street are awash
in profits and cash, but American workers haven't had the benefit of a
Federal minimum wage increase in over a decade, while the prices of
everything have gone up--medicine, housing, food, cars. A recent study
found there isn't a single congressional district in our Nation where a
full-time minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment.
While many States and cities have raised their own minimum wage
requirements, millions of Americans are stuck at $7.25 an hour.
What does this really mean? A person working full time for minimum
wage takes home an annual salary of just a bit over $15,000 a year.
With inflation, these workers have effectively had their wages cut by
an astonishing 17 percent.
That is why I rise today in support of the Raise the Wage Act, a bill
that will gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2025, lift 27
million American workers out of poverty, give roughly 40 million
Americans a raise--nearly a third of our workforce--and stimulate local
economies as Americans have more money to spend.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an
additional 15 seconds.
Ms. KAPTUR. Such a raise would put $3,200 in the pockets of more than
128,000 workers just in northern Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, the Raise the Wage Act will dramatically improve the
lives of millions of hardworking people and families and communities
across our country. Let's come together and really help the American
people who are working and pass this much-needed legislation without
delay.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to read from
the Congressional Budget Office report.
The paragraph that says, ``Effects of the $15 option on employment
and income,'' ends with the sentence ``a reduction of 3.7 million
workers.'' And there is also the little item of an $8.7 billion loss in
family income.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, socialist Democrats support open
borders. Open borders mean a literal tsunami of illegal alien labor
that artificially inflates the labor supply and suppresses American
wages. This is economics 101. If the supply goes up, everything else
being constant, the price goes down.
The way to raise wages is simple: America must stop importing cheap
foreign labor that takes American jobs from American workers and
suppresses the wages of hardworking Americans who need that money for
their families.
The question is: Do we care enough about American family incomes to
secure our borders and stop the flood of illegal alien labor that
suppresses American wages? Of course not. Instead, there are those who
seek an imperial decree for a $15-per-hour minimum wage.
Well, that all sounds fine and good. Socialist policies always have a
cost, and according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,
that cost is a loss of as many as 3.7 million jobs.
You heard right. The policies being advocated today really are
advocating the firing of as many as 3.7 million American workers from
their jobs. That is like firing the entire population of the State of
Oklahoma.
Mr. Speaker, if the advocates of this legislation really cared about
American workers, they would not fire them; rather, they would help
secure our borders, save American jobs, save American incomes, and, as
an added bonus, help prevent the deaths of over 30,000 Americans who
die each year because of America's porous southern border.
But that is not what the advocates of this legislation prefer.
Rather, out of a lust for political power, they prefer open borders and
the firing of 3.7 million American workers.
Mr. Speaker, I say yes to border security; I say no to killing jobs;
and I say no to this job-killing socialist legislation.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I note that using that logic, people might have said the
same thing about my grandparents who came over from Italy at the turn
of the previous century, who came to work in this country as carpenters
and bricklayers and pipefitters.
What we really need, if the gentleman is serious, is a path to
citizenship to allow people, as we did a century ago, to come and
fulfill and be a part of the American Dream.
The truth is it also avoids what is happening, which is we have a
shortage of workers in the country. Every week I try to visit employers
in my community and get a sense of the pulse of what the challenges are
that they face in continuing to seek economic growth and more
opportunities. Repeatedly, I hear the same thing over and over again:
We need good workers. Send us more workers. Do whatever you can.
This is the time while our economy continues to grow following the
policies of the Obama administration, continuing today, economic growth
is now at a 10-year sustained path, but we need workers. You see this
all the time.
We can talk, and I am happy to talk about the impacts of automation
and robotics and AI, but the truth is that, even among some of the
biggest technology companies in the United States, there are thousands
and thousands of openings for jobs. This is hardly a job killer. This
is rewarding people who put in long hours, who look to climb that
ladder of success in the American economy.
I just note, also, for my colleague, Mr. Brooks, that 34 percent of
the workers in his district in Alabama would receive an average raise
of $3,700 a year by implementation of this wage increase.
And I would also remind my colleagues, 65 percent of Americans, when
asked, believe that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024
is the right policy for Congress to take.
So this has the backing and support of the American public. It has a
clear path to making sure that there isn't erosion of income in the
United States by people at the lowest end of the economic scale. It is
an opportunity for us to think about a path to citizenship, to end the
challenges faced by so many employers who seek good, hardworking
workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline), my good friend and a distinguished gentleman.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. It has
been more than a decade since working people got a raise in this
country. Americans are working harder than ever, and labor productivity
is overperforming expectations.
However, the profit of this increased productivity is not being felt
in the checkbooks of working people. In fact, American workers have
experienced a 20 percent pay cut in real income due to inflation and
the government's failure to raise wages.
It is unconscionable that people working full time in the wealthiest
nation in the history of the world are unable to afford basic
essentials or live in poverty. That is why it is critical that we pass
the Raise the Wage Act.
Here are the facts: The bill will increase wages for nearly 34
million American workers. About 28 percent of workers in my district in
Rhode Island will get a raise of about $2,100 a year. It will lift 3.1
million Americans out of poverty, including 600,000 children, and it
will stimulate economic growth. And
[[Page H5931]]
we know that when workers earn more, they spend more money.
While the top 1 percent of Americans continue to amass Gilded Age
amounts of wealth, working men and women have been left behind. It is
time to reaffirm our commitment to hardworking Americans and pass this
critical legislation. Americans deserve a raise, and that is what this
bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by many LGBTQ
organizations and human rights organizations in strong support of this
legislation.
July 16, 2019.
Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,
write to express our strong support for the Raise the Wage
Act (H.R. 582). As lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations, we believe raising
the minimum wage is a critical LGBTQ issue. Raising the
federal minimum wage would benefit LGBTQ people by helping to
reduce poverty and increase stability and economic security
for LGBTQ people and their families.
Because of discrimination in employment, housing,
education, and other areas, LGBTQ individuals are more likely
to be jobless, homeless, and poor than the general
population. Nearly 40 million workers, including LGBTQ
people, would receive increased wages from the Act. In light
of the disproportionate rates of poverty among LGBTQ people,
passing this measure is a critical priority for our
community.
The Raise the Wage Act would raise the federal minimum wage
to $8.55 this year and increase it gradually over the next
six years until it reaches $15 an hour in 2025. After 2025,
the minimum wage would be adjusted annually to keep pace with
growth in the typical worker's wages. In addition, the Act
would phase out the outdated subminimum wage for tipped
workers, which has been stagnant at $2.13 since 1991. It
would also sunset the ability for employers to pay a
subminimum wage to workers with disabilities and phase out
the subminimum wage for workers under the age of 20.
An increase in the federal minimum wage would help the
LGBTQ community, especially its most marginalized members.
Incomes would rise above poverty level for nearly 30,000
people in same-sex relationships. Raising the minimum wage to
$15 would decrease poverty by almost 50% among female same-
sex couples and by 35% among male same-sex couples.
Transgender people would be particularly impacted by this
bill. Almost one-third of transgender people live in poverty,
which is more than twice the rate of the U.S. general
population.
The bill would also have a profound impact on LGBTQ youth,
who make up between 30% and 40% of homeless youth. 47% of
these LGBTQ homeless youth are persons of color. Since 55% of
homeless LGBTQ youth were forced out by their parents or ran
away because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,
more than 50% of LGBTQ homeless youth remain homeless for
longer periods of time than non-LGBTQ homeless youth. Raising
the wage and phasing out the subminimum wage for workers
under age 20 will help reduce homelessness among LGBTQ youth
by helping them afford housing and achieve economic security
independent of their families.
Additionally, the Act will have enormous impacts on LGBTQ
people of color and LGBTQ women. 37% of the LGBTQ community
identify as people of color. Under the Act, 40% of Black
workers and 34% of Latino/a workers will benefit. Women
account for nearly 56% of the workers benefiting from an
increased minimum wage. Women also account for \2/3\ of the
country's tipped workers, who are more than twice as likely
to live in poverty than the rest of the workforce. LBTQ women
are more likely than their non-LBTQ counterparts to receive
public assistance, be unemployed, and be near or under the
poverty level.
Critics of the bill have argued against raising the federal
minimum wage, proposing instead that minimum wages should be
established by region. However, a minimum wage of $15 by 2025
is not unrealistic in any part of the U.S. In addition, rural
communities have a strong incentive to support the Act
because they are experiencing a housing affordability crisis
in part due to flat incomes for low- and moderate-income
workers in those communities.
Additionally, the Act's plan to phase in the $15 wage over
six years allows for lower-wage states and regions to adjust
to the new wage. Opponents of the bill also contend that
small businesses do not benefit from raising the wage.
However, 61% of American small business owners support
raising the minimum wage.
For these reasons, we support the Raise the Wage Act and
urge you to consider the enormous benefits the bill will
bring to the LGBTQ community. LGBTQ workers need jobs that
allow them to have security and take care of themselves and
their families.
Sincerely,
9to5, A Better Balance, AIDS Action Baltimore, AIDS
Alabama, AIDS Foundation of Chicago, AIDS Legal Referral
Panel, AIDS United, Alaskans Together For Equality, Albany
Damien Center, American Association of University Women
(AAUW), Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Athlete Ally,
Black AIDS Institute, Cascade AIDS Project, Center for
American Progress, Center for Black Equity, Center for
Disability Rights, CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers,
Coalition on Human Needs, DC Fights Back.
Equality California, Equality Federation, Equality
Illinois, Equality North Carolina, Equality Utah, Fair
Wisconsin, Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Howard
Brown Health, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's
Reproductive Justice Agenda, Interfaith Worker Justice,
Lambda Legal, Latinos Salud, LGBTQ Allyship, Modem Military
Association of America, MomsRising, Movement Advancement
Project, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
(NAPAWF), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center
for Transgender Equality.
National Coalition for the Homeless, National Council on
Independent Living (NCIL), National Employment Law Project,
National Equality Action Team (NEAT) National LGBT Cancer
Network, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National
LGBTQ Workers Center, National Women's Law Center, National
Working Positive Coalition, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social
Justice, New York City Anti-Violence Project, Oasis Legal
Services, Open Health Care Clinic, Oxfam America, PathWays
PA, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, Positive
Women's Network-USA, Poz Military Veterans USA INTL, Pride at
Work.
PROMO, Reframe Health and Justice, Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Shelter
Resources, Inc., Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Silver State
Equality-Nevada, Southerners On New Ground, The DC Center for
the LGBT Community, The National LGBTQ Workers Center, The
Well Project, Thrive Alabama, TRANScending Barriers,
Transgender Law Center, Treatment Action Group (TAG), UCHAPS,
United States People Living with HIV Caucus, United We Dream,
US People Living with HIV Caucus, Voices for Progress,
Workplace Fairness.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I, first, just want to remark that--I think, the last 11 months are
the last figures I saw--over the last 11 months wage growth in this
country has increased more than at any time in recent memory.
Wage growth is a lagging indicator, but it is happening, and that is
a good thing, and we should celebrate that. There would be no reason to
put the brakes on that that I can see.
I think we should be encouraged that that is happening, and I don't
think we should be doing things to the economy that would be
detrimental and reverse that trend.
But let me just say at this point, if we defeat the previous
question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately bring up H.R.
748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act, or Cadillac Tax
Repeal Act, and include the text of H.R. 1398, the Health Insurance Tax
Relief Act, and H.R. 2207, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, or the
medical device tax repeal.
Legislation in previous Congresses to repeal the Cadillac tax has
gathered strong support and brought employers and labor unions together
in their efforts to eliminate this tax.
Since the Cadillac tax is calculated only based on insurance
premiums, it could unfairly target those already struggling with higher
healthcare costs and affect middle-income workers, including teachers
and nurses, due to the continuing rise of health insurance costs.
H.R. 748 would repeal this tax in its entirety.
I would also like to note my support for the repeal of the medical
device tax and to delay the health insurance tax.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.
{time} 1300
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote
down the previous question.
If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule
to include the repeal of the medical device tax and the health
insurance tax as part of H.R. 748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax
Repeal Act of 2019.
H.R. 748 is an important piece of legislation that would permanently
repeal ObamaCare's 40 percent tax on employer-provided health
insurance, commonly referred to as the Cadillac tax. Ending the
Cadillac tax will provide important relief to both employers and
employees and ensure employers can remain leaders in utilizing new
technologies to reduce healthcare costs and ensure better patient
outcomes.
However, this bill doesn't include repealing other burdensome taxes,
like the medical device tax and the health
[[Page H5932]]
insurance tax. We all know that Americans are facing rising costs and
fewer healthcare options. Raising taxes on health coverage would only
make matters worse for families, small businesses, and Medicare
Advantage enrollees. That is why we should also include a bipartisan
provision to provide seniors relief from the burdensome health
insurance tax.
Hoosiers are proud to be leaders in medical innovation, with more
than 300 medical device manufacturers in my State that support nearly
55,000 good-paying jobs. However, after ObamaCare's medical device tax
took effect, the medical technology industry lost almost 29,000 jobs
nationwide from 2012 to 2015, according to the Commerce Department's
data.
Medical devices have changed the way we think about healthcare. New
technologies diagnose illnesses earlier, lowering the impact of care on
a person's daily life. All these notable gains will be wiped out if the
medical device tax is reinstated. By defeating the previous question,
we can repeal this job-killing tax as well.
It is critical that we repeal all three of these burdensome taxes
before they go back into effect. Doing so will help lower premiums,
improve access to care, and boost American manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text
of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, although the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski)
did not actually talk about the minimum wage increase which is before
us, I do note that about 40 percent of the workers in her district
would be affected by this, with annual average raises of $3,200 a year.
Before I just make a couple of other points, Mr. Speaker, I include
in the Record the following letters: The first letter is from the
Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the second is from the
Communications Workers of America, both sharing overwhelming support
for H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act.
SEIU,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members
of the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), I
write to urge you to vote YES on H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage
Act of 2019, and oppose any Republican Motion to Recommit.
For years, working people and allies have taken to the
streets to call for a $15 an hour minimum wage and to have
their voices heard in the workplace. By ensuring a path to
$15 in every part of our country, Congress will make sure
that everyone--no matter where they are from or what the
color of their skin is--is closer to having what they need to
get by. This is one of the most important changes we can make
in this country. Airport workers, home care workers, child
care providers, and all SEIU members are proud to stand with
the Fight for $15 and a Union and support this legislation.
It has been more than ten years since Congress raised the
federal minimum wage--the longest stretch in history. While
wealthy corporations have been handed tax cut after tax cut,
working families have been forced to scrape by with less than
they need. As a result, one in nine of our nation's full-time
workers struggle to support themselves and their families on
wages that leave them in poverty. There is currently no place
in America where a full-time worker making the federal
minimum wage can afford the basic essentials.
A $15 federal minimum wage would be life-changing for tens
of millions of working families, lifting an estimated 1.3
million Americans out of poverty, and helping to create an
economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. It
is no surprise that poll after poll confirms widespread
support among Americans for this proposal.
The overwhelming share of low-wage earners would
unambiguously benefit from a $15 minimum wage, but enactment
of this bill is particularly critical for women who make up
nearly two-thirds of the workforce earning the federal
minimum wage or just above it, as well as Latinx and black
workers. Currently, black workers are significantly
overrepresented in states where the minimum wage has stayed
at $7.25 an hour. Many of the same states with low minimum
wages also have so-called ``Right-to-Work'' provisions that
weaken collective bargaining and the voice of working people.
These same jurisdictions are also places where voting rights
are under attack, Medicaid has not been expanded, and pre-
emption laws block many localities from raising the minimum
wage. Underpaid people in these regions and across the
country are depending on Congress to take immediate action to
raise the wage.
People like Terrence Wise, a worker at a McDonald's in
Kansas City, Missouri, have been on the front lines fighting
for a $15/hour minimum wage knowing it would be
transformative for him and his family. In his own words:
``Just like me, a lot of folks in fast-food work two or more
jobs because pay is so low. What if every U.S. worker just
had to work one job, and that was enough to make ends meet? I
want to know that when I get my paycheck, it'll be enough to
pay the rent, feed my kids and keep the lights on--and maybe
even a little extra, like enough to take my girls out to ice
cream. It's not a lot to ask of Congress, and it would change
the lives of millions of workers like me. It would give us a
fair shot at the American dream we all hear so much about.''
We urge Congress to heed the call to action from workers
like Terrence Wise, and raise the wage so that millions of
working people can be paid enough to lead a decent life,
provide for their family and build a better future. SEIU
strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 582, and to vote NO on
any Republican Motion to Recommit. We will add votes on this
legislation and the Motion to Recommit to our legislative
scorecard. If you have any questions, please reach out to
Jaya Chatterjee.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
Communications Workers of America,
July 11, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the officers and 700,000
members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am
writing to urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 582, the Raise
the Wage Act of 2019, and against any amendments that
undermine the bill. At a time when wage stagnation and income
inequality hold back our families and our economy, the Raise
the Wage Act will begin to reverse that cycle and raise pay
broadly across the bottom of the workforce.
It's been a decade since the federal minimum wage has
increased. Meanwhile, the cost of living has continually
increased for working Americans. For many Americans, working
40 hours or more a week is not enough to support themselves
and their families. Airline employees, call center workers,
retail store employees and bank workers are among those who
work full time for some of the most highly profitable
corporations, but still earn poverty level wages. It's time
for an economy that works for working families and especially
for the people who work full time but who earn poverty level
wages.
If enacted, the legislation will raise the federal minimum
wage to $8.55 this year and increase it over the next five
years until it reaches $15 an hour in 2024. Raising the
minimum wage to $15 an hour will give roughly 40 million
workers a pay increase, which is nearly 30% of the workforce.
After 2024, the minimum wage will adjust each year to keep
pace with growth of inflation. In addition, the legislation
will phase out the subminimum wage for tipped workers,
individuals with disabilities and workers younger than 20
years old.
All workers deserve to earn a living wage so they can live
with dignity and respect. It is time Congress takes action to
raise the wages of these low income workers and ensure the
economy works for everyone, instead of those in the 1%.
Therefore, I urge you to support H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage
Act of 2019. CWA will include votes on this bill and any
amendments that would undermine the bill in our Congressional
Scorecard. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shane Larson,
Director of Legislative, Political and International
Affairs, Communications Workers of America (CWA).
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the
American Association of University Women, the Patriotic Millionaires,
the National Education Association, and the NAACP, all in support of
H.R. 582.
AAUW,
July 15, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 170,000
bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association
of University Women (AAUW), I urge you to vote for the Raise
the Wage Act (H.R. 582) when it comes to the House floor for
a vote and oppose any harmful amendments and any possible
motion to recommit. The Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 582) is
critical legislation which would gradually increase the
federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour and then
require that the minimum wage increase be based on changes in
the median wage. It would also eliminate the tipped minimum
wage and prohibit the use of subminimum wages for employees
with disabilities.
Today, millions of women live in poverty because our
federal minimum wage is inadequate for ensuring the economic
well-being
[[Page H5933]]
of workers and their families. The federal minimum wage is
currently only $7.25 per hour and just $2.13 per hour for
tipped workers. Women comprise a majority of the low-wage
workforce, and African American women and Latinas are
significantly overrepresented in the low-wage workforce.
Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers in the United
States are women, as well as two-thirds of workers in tipped
jobs. Some workers with disabilities are paid a subminimum
wage through certificates issued by the Department of Labor.
This is not even close to a living wage, which is necessary
to lift workers out of poverty. A woman with two children
working full-time at minimum wage earns a yearly salary of
$14,500, $5,000 below the poverty line.
Congress must take action to increase the minimum wage by
passing the Raise Wage Act of 2019 (H.R. 582). If enacted,
this legislation would raise the federal minimum wage to
$8.55 this year and increase it over the next several years
until it reaches $15 an hour, phase out the outdated
subminimum wage for tipped workers, and also sunset the
ability of employers to pay workers with disabilities a
subminimum wage.
Women's overrepresentation in low-wage jobs is a
significant factor contributing to the gender pay gap.
Currently, women working full-time, year-round are typically
being paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men. The
pay gaps have grown even wider for women of color. African
American women and Latinas make, respectively, 61 and 53
cents on the dollar as compared to non-Hispanic, white men.
Women make up nearly 58 percent of the workers who would
benefit from a $15 minimum wage, making this bill
instrumental for helping to close the gender wage gap.
According to recent estimates from the Economic Policy
Institute, increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2024
would give more than 31 percent of all working women a raise,
including 41 percent of African American working women, 38
percent of working Latinas, 29 percent of white working
women, and 18 percent of Asian working women. Even the
Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the impact of the
bill shows that workers overall will be better off and have
higher annual earnings on average.
Raising the minimum wage is one action that Congress should
take to ensure the economic security of families across the
country. I urge you to vote for the Raise the Wage Act (H.R.
582) when it comes to the House floor for a vote and oppose
any harmful amendments and any possible motion to recommit.
Cosponsorship and votes associated with this bill may be
scored in the AAUW Action Fund Congressional Voting Record
for the 116th Congress. Please do not hesitate to contact me
or Anne Hedgepeth, Director of Federal Policy, if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Deborah J. Vagins,
Senior Vice President,
Public Policy and Research.
____
Patriotic Millionaires,
July 15, 2019.
Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the
Patriotic Millionaires organization to urge you to support
the Raise the Wage Act (H.R 582). Our members are deeply
committed to raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour,
and we hope that you will take this opportunity to show your
commitment to ensuring that all working Americans are able to
afford their basic needs.
We understand that you may have some hesitations about
supporting the bill, but I believe that this letter should
adequately address those concerns.
While we understand that legislation is always changeable
until it is voted on, for us this policy has a few ``red
lines'' as follows:
$15 per hour by 2024
One Fair Wage (no sub-minimum for tipped workers or anyone
else)
Indexing
``No'' on the vote to recommit
Within that framework, we will gladly support whatever
piece of legislation you all decide to advance.
Our members believe that current levels of economic
inequality pose an existential threat to the nation, and that
wealthy Americans have an inescapable responsibility to
engage in the fight for an inclusive economy. That is why we
were such an early adopter of the $15 wage, first endorsing
it in 2013. We will fight urgently and publicly for this
critical policy until it becomes law. Once the House passes
the bill, we will formally launch a robust public education
and advocacy campaign that will continue through next year
and into the 117th Congress.
As business leaders and investors, our members are well
acquainted with building profitable business models and plan
to spend quite a bit of our public education efforts on
outreach to the business community, particularly owners of
small and medium sized companies. A few thoughts to share
with business owners in your district:
First, because every business in the country will be
required to raise wages, no establishment will gain or lose a
competitive advantage based on wages as the cost ``input''
will change at the same rate for each of them simultaneously.
From a macroeconomic point of view, 70% of the American
economy is based on consumer demand. It is only logical that
putting more money in the hands of more consumers will be a
net positive to the economy. Picture a bar on a Saturday
night filled with patrons. Should the owner of the bar be
more concerned about how much money all of those potential
customers have to spend, or the higher wage he is paying the
single bartender who is serving them? It's simple math.
And to the small (but very vocal) group of business owners
who insist their businesses will go under if they are
required to pay a living wage, we have a simple message. If
you cannot afford to pay someone a livable wage, you cannot
afford to hire an employee.
You may have concerns that a higher minimum wage will lead
to greater automation. To that, we say that automation is
coming no matter what--in fact it is already here--and rather
than speeding that inevitable process, a livable minimum wage
will ensure that the jobs that cannot be automated pay
enough. The fact is that companies will automate to the
extent that they believe the capital outlay of automation
will be offset by higher future profits. In that sense, as
technology advances, automation is inevitable regardless of
the minimum wage.
If you've been in a McDonald's recently, you've likely seen
that truth in action. McDonald's pays many of its workers
minimum wage, yet it has already heavily invested in
automation technologies. Raising the minimum wage will not
speed up automation, but will instead ensure that as the
process unfolds, people who are working will be stable enough
(because of the higher wages) to have the time and energy to
do the extra education or training necessary for other
positions.
There is real urgency to our efforts on this policy. June
16th marked the longest period in American history--since the
minimum wage was first implemented in 1938--that the federal
minimum wage has not been raised by Congress, just shy of a
decade. Because the wage was not indexed, that means we've
spent nearly ten years where each passing day marks another
decrease in the purchasing power of millions of working
Americans, adding up to the wage being worth nearly 15% less
than it was in 2009.
Every day that Congress does not act is another day where
millions of paychecks decline in real value. Clearly it is
time to act. Unfortunately in the political dynamic we are
currently suffering under, bipartisan action is difficult to
come by (despite the bipartisan popularity of this issue).
The only way to force the Senate to act is for the House to
act first, and to act decisively. Keep in mind, this issue
polls incredibly well, with 83% of registered voters
believing we need to raise the minimum wage, and 55% of
registered voters, including 53% of independents and 37% of
Republicans, supporting a $15 federal minimum wage.
Senators Mitch McConnell and Alexander Lamar clearly have
no interest in passing a minimum wage bill. To force their
hand, we need to change the perceived consequences of their
inaction by pushing this issue into the public debate and
keeping it there.
To be clear, the choice is not between this bill and some
other more perfect bill, the choice is between this bill and
no bill. While there is another minimum wage bill that has
generated support, it will not reach the threshold of support
required to pass. Nor should it. With all due respect to
Third Way and other ``centrist'' think tanks, the so-called
regional approach will not solve the problem.
First, there already is a regional approach to this issue
in that states and localities are reasonably free to set
wages higher than the federal wage if their economies and
politics support it. The purpose of federal legislation is to
set a floor for the entire country, to ensure that at a
minimum everyone is ok. That floor for everyone should be
$15. A study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that by
2024, there will be no county in the country where a person
can support themselves on less than $15 an hour.
In terms of expecting different things from different
localities, $15 is already not enough in several areas of the
country, but we are not demanding $25 or $30 an hour in these
areas. To say that $15 is ``too much'' in some places while
not being equally as concerned that $15 is ``far from
enough'' in many others challenges the credibility of the
argument.
Furthermore, the regional approach puts the $15 figure for
rural counties off to 2033. Frankly, a 14 year timeline is
absurd on its face.
Lawmakers in the House have a simple choice to make--do
something, or do nothing. Move the minimum wage to $15 an
hour, or keep it at $7.25. The Raise the Wage Act has 203
voting cosponsors, and needs 218 votes to pass the House.
This simple policy will help stabilize the economic lives of
40% of working people. And it is supported by a bipartisan
majority of Americans. This is a no-brainer.
We recognize that you might disagree with our assessment,
that there might be other approaches you think are more
appropriate. But as I stated before, the choice before you is
this bill or no bill. You might not believe that $15 an hour
for the entire country is the best option, but surely you
must see that it's better than $7.25 an hour. We've reached a
critical point where inaction is simply no longer an option.
The Patriotic Millionaires believe that a fair minimum wage
is a fundamental building block of an economy that works for
all Americans, not just the ultra-wealthy. We also believe
that every member of Congress who stands with working
Americans will ultimately recognize the importance of this
[[Page H5934]]
bill, and will vote to support it. We hope that you will be
one of them.
Thank you so much.
Morris Pearl,
Chair.
____
National Education Association,
July 11, 2019.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our 3 million members and
the 50 million students they serve, I urge you to VOTE YES on
H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. Votes on this issue may be
included in NEA's Report Card for the 116th Congress.
This legislation will benefit working people across our
nation, including NEA's education support professionals--the
school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and other
members of school communities who are the first ones to
arrive in the morning, and the last to go home at night.
Their work is tremendously valuable, and the support they
provide students often goes well beyond their job titles.
Yet, they struggle to make ends meet.
The Raise the Wage Act would:
benefit all low-wage earners, not just teenagers
or restaurant workers;
benefit nearly one-third of manufacturing workers,
one-fourth of health care workers, one-fifth of construction
workers, and one-sixth of educators;
reduce poverty and income inequality by raising
the total annual income of the lowest-paid workers; and
help to close racial earnings gaps.
As you know, the federal minimum wage has not increased
since 2009. During that decade, many working families have
lost ground, and lost hope. Several states have raised their
minimum wages in the past 10 years, but it is time for the
federal government to act. Doing so will improve the
circumstances not only for the workers themselves, but for
their family members and communities. Please VOTE YES and
Raise the Wage.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan,
Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
____
NAACP Washington Bureau,
July 8, 2019.
Re: NAACP strong support for H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based
civil rights organization, urge you to vote for and support
through passage H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. People of
color, women, families and too many others have been left
behind by our economy and our policies far too often, for far
too long. Adopting the Raise the Wage Act would mark a
crucial step toward ensuring we can all work towards greater
equity, dignity, and a living wage.
The Raise the Wage Act will make significant contributions
in the economic security of millions of American women, men,
and families by raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25
to $15 an hour by 2024, then indexing it so that it continues
to rise along with wages overall. H.R. 582 will also end
unfair current exclusions for tipped workers, people with
disabilities, and youth so that they too, can benefit from a
decent minimum wage.
The NAACP has a long and strong history of supporting
federal laws that improved the lives of hard working
Americans, and ensuring that all people are covered. From the
Fair Labor Standards Act to the very first federal minimum
wage bill in 1938, we were active supporters of a fair day's
wage for a hard day's labor. We continue to advocate for an
increase in the buying power of the minimum wage to keep up
with the cost of living in the United States, and that
minimum wage earners, who by definition are working men and
women, are able to keep their families out of poverty.
Thank you for your consideration of our position; the NAACP
is proud to endorse H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. Should
you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director, NAACP Washington Bureau &
Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, one additional point that I wanted to make
listening to my friend and colleague who talks about, during the last
several years, the income and the wages of the lowest earning Americans
have gone up. I do note with some irony that the reason for that,
largely, is due to the increases in the minimum wage at the State
levels: California, New York, many places around the country, Missouri.
The list goes on and on.
About half of the States in the United States have now raised the
minimum wage beyond the Federal number. That is the signal significant
reason for wage rates going up for the lowest earning Americans. That
is exactly the point of doing this, so that all Americans at the lowest
end of the economic scale, the lowest wage earners, will see a
significant increase in their earning power.
That will expand further the number of people at the lowest end in
terms of increases in their wages. That will benefit their families--
those families benefit--and make stronger neighborhoods and stronger
communities and, ultimately, a stronger nation. That is why this needs
to get done.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)
pointing that out because I think it helps make our case.
Mr. Speaker, can I ask the gentleman whether he is prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, with this bill, the Democrats seek to
increase wages for millions of low wage earners, but the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that it will also result in nearly 4 million
lost jobs. These job losses will disproportionately impact entry-level
workers and students.
That is why I offered an amendment to allow a market-based entry-
level wage for workers with less than a year of experience, but
Democrats on the Committee on Rules rejected that amendment during the
Rules meeting. There was no reason not to make the amendment in order;
they just rejected it.
A $15 Federal minimum wage is a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate
that does not consider differences in cost of living or employment
patterns across the country.
Federal assistance is meant to be a temporary hand up to aid
individuals on the path to a better economic future, but rather than
pulling people up, this bill will leave more Americans reaching for
assistance.
Republican concerns with this bill are not partisan; they are
American.
If the majority is serious about increasing the wages of all
Americans throughout the country, they should work--they should work--
in a bipartisan manner to draft a bill that has a chance of passing in
the Senate and making it to the President's desk. Unfortunately, this
bill is another partisan political priority that really has no chance
of becoming law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time on the
floor with my distinguished colleague from Texas, though we disagree
strongly about this.
I would just once again reiterate that the CBO estimate on this is
nowhere near 4 million jobs lost. That is not mentioned anywhere in the
CBO report. It talks about a range from zero to 3.7 million. The median
is 1.3 million.
But, again, this is as much a question of values and what we stand
for and a moral imperative as it is for statistics, because the
statistics would argue for it.
1.3 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty the moment we
pass this and this becomes law. Nearly 30 million Americans would see
their annual wage increased, in some cases dramatically.
And this, as I indicated earlier, makes certain that, as a matter of
public policy, we make certain that there is no erosion of the
purchasing power of the minimum wage because of the indexing on this.
I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that those are the statistics that we
ought to be mindful of, not just the worst possible, which is
overstated by my colleague and friend.
There should be, Mr. Speaker, no place in this great Nation where a
minimum wage employee working full-time cannot afford the basic
essentials.
The work we are doing here today does not dictate a one-size-fits-all
model for every State. It simply creates a floor, but a floor that is
important, a Federal standard that says, if you work full-time in this
country, if you put in the effort to earn for yourself and your family,
you will achieve, at a minimum, a wage that lets you afford the basic
necessities of life.
I believe this bill is just; I believe it is moral; I believe it is
long overdue;
[[Page H5935]]
and I look forward to supporting its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their words of
support for H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. I would especially like
to thank Chairman Scott for his leadership and his commitment to this
effort, and Chairman McGovern of the Rules Committee for his work to
move this significant legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule; I urge a ``yes'' vote
on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 748) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
repeal the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health
coverage. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the texts of H.R. 748, H.R. 1398, and H.R.
2207, each as introduced, shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 748.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________