[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.

                          ____________________