Joseph Morelle

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, I took the oath of office and was sworn in as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. It is truly the honor of a lifetime to represent New York's 25th District, and I am grateful every day for the opportunity to serve the community I love. I am so proud of the work we have done in the past year to improve the lives of everyday Americans. The House has passed landmark legislation to create universal background checks on all gun sales. We are taking action to lower the cost of prescription drugs and make healthcare more affordable for working families. We are fighting to protect our climate, strengthen our economy, close the gender pay gap, and ensure everyone has access to a quality education. Back home, I am working with community partners on strategies to reduce poverty and give opportunity to all of our citizens. I am proud of our work, but there is so much more still to be done, and I look forward to another year continuing my work for the people of my community and the people of the United States.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 660. Madam Speaker, I am deeply troubled that this process has become necessary at all, but we have no choice. We must continue to investigate alarming allegations of misconduct by the President, and we continue with a public process through which all Americans will have the ability to access and to assess the evidence. This has been and will continue to be a fair and sober inquiry. Members on both sides will continue to have the opportunity to question witnesses, seek evidence, and refute testimony presented during these proceedings. Indeed, the President will have strong protections as we weigh the evidence during our deliberations. Our only goal is uncovering the truth: Did the President pressure Ukrainian leaders with the threat of withholding critical military assistance in order to serve his political interests? Has the President endangered American interests abroad by engaging in domestic political intrigue? These are serious issues, not of politics, but of national security. This inquiry is our solemn obligation, but it is our obligation, nonetheless. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution so we may uphold our oath to the Constitution and preserve a transparent process on behalf of our Republic and the citizens it serves.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a critical piece of legislation that my colleagues and I in the Committee on Education and Labor are currently marking up next door, the College Affordability Act. For too many students across our Nation, the dream of pursuing higher education remains out of reach. Rising tuition costs and financially debilitating loans prevent young people from reaching their full potential, and that is simply unacceptable. That is why we are working to provide relief for students through the College Affordability Act. This reauthorization of the Higher Education Act restores Federal investments in public colleges, increases the value of grant opportunities, and makes student loans easier to pay off. Nothing should stand in the way of the success of our children's educational opportunities, especially not the fear of crippling long- term debt. Mr. Speaker, I am on my way back to the committee room to continue our work to make higher education accessible and affordable for all students.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 591 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 591, providing for consideration of S.J. Res. 54, relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and provides one motion to commit. Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, would terminate the national emergency declared by the President issued in July of this year. The same day that President Trump declared a state of emergency at our southern border, he, himself, said, ``I didn't need to do this.'' It is now clear that statement is true. The President used an authority commonly used for construction at military bases in foreign countries during a time of emergency. That authority is now being used to divert $3.6 billion away from needed military construction projects to build a wall that does not have the needed political support in the House and Senate to be funded through normal appropriations. This emergency declaration was a politically motivated power grab seeking to undermine congressional authority to oversee Federal spending. The executive cannot run roughshod over this constitutional principle when the President fails to gain enough support for his policies. And exaggerating the threat posed by asylum seekers at our border has not been a convincing argument. The American people have spoken. Over 60 percent of the public opposed this emergency declaration. What has been the result of the Presidential proclamation? Life safety violations and fire risks at dilapidated military facilities are going unaddressed. The Pentagon has been forced to defund billions of dollars from 127 different military construction projects around the Nation and the globe. In Portsmouth, Virginia, a warehouse has life-threatening conditions, but 330 servicemembers and civilian workers will continue to work in a building without enough fire exits and without a working fire alarm or sprinkler system. That doesn't seem to matter to President Trump, though. Fencing and barriers along the border are more important to our Commander in Chief. In Maryland, money is being diverted from a planned childcare facility to help soldiers balance their family commitments with their service to our country. In Kentucky, a middle school has lost out on $66 million in construction funding. In South Carolina, they won't be getting the fire station approved and funded by Congress. Our Armed Forces are also being denied a drone pilot training facility, a ballistic missile field, a submarine maintenance building, multiple training facilities, access improvements, and safety upgrades. In my home State of New York, a $160 million appropriation is being taken away from projects at the United States Military Academy at West Point, including a state-of-the-art engineering facility to support the Center for Innovation and Engineering. After being promised that Mexico would be paying for this wall, we are, instead, harming military readiness, safety, and innovation in response to a politically exaggerated threat. We, in Congress, have already done our job to put military construction dollars where they are needed most. Now it is time for Congress to do our duty again and prevent this overreach by the President. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and for the underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank my colleague. Let me just point out, I will admit, when I arrived here in November, having been elected in a special election, I was somewhat curious that--I think the last emergency meeting of the Rules Committee in the 115th Congress, the last one dealt with cheese curds. So I am not exactly sure how my friend and colleague defines emergencies. What I do know is that this section of the National Emergencies Act, really, was constructed to help the President and the country deal with emergencies that arise before the Congress can act, but it is not intended to overrule congressional action. The Congress did act on this issue--there can be no question about that--during the last appropriations process. The other thing that the gentleman mentions, which I do want to make clear, is the reason that we are doing this now, it is different. Perhaps the resolution is not different, but we now have a complete list of all of the projects that are now being defunded in order to move dollars over to the wall. I would also just point out that, not only was the original resolution bipartisan in the Senate, but the resolution which passed within the last few days had 11 Republican Senators support it. I think one was unavailable who had supported it in the past and indicated that he would continue to support the resolution. So it is bipartisan. This is truly the act of Congress. I know that my friend and colleague is well-associated with Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. . . .'' So we are bound, and the Congress has acted. The Congress made the decision not to fund this. The President is using powers in a way that were not intended and diverting dollars away from much-needed, necessary projects that enhance our military readiness. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The bipartisan Debbie Smith Act was included in the Violence Against Women Act that was supported by this House and was funded in the CR which we just enacted, which I was proud to support. I am not sure all Members voted for the CR, but I did, and the funding for the Debbie Smith Act is included in that. Obviously, to suggest that this majority in this House is not interested in supporting women and women who are victims of violence, is, frankly, reprehensible. But let me move back to the rule of law, which is what we are actually debating here, and it relates to our authority under the Emergency Powers Act. I do want to note, to Mr. Woodall's point, we are not adding new law. This is a resolution, which is clearly a provision in the National Emergencies Act that allows the Congress to make the point that the emergency, if it ever existed, no longer exists and this funding is inappropriate, this shift of funding. This is, again, a simple resolution passed by the Senate, and it indicates that, in our view, the congressional authority is where the appropriations process lies. It is articulated well in the Constitution, and the Congress has acted, has acted before and will act again. The projects that are necessary for military construction around the globe and throughout the United States are vital, and support of this resolution and the rule would be something that I would think Mr. Woodall and Members of the House would agree to. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge I am a bit of a football fan--not much of an expert, but a fan--and I know that from time to time a play will be called and a quarterback will follow all the offensive line moving to the right of the field and follow behind them and appear to be handing the ball off to a running back behind the offensive line, but actually the quarterback has the ball, turns around, and goes the other way. It is called misdirection. And that is what is happening on the floor, as we speak. I understand why my colleagues don't want to talk about the President's actions. I understand why the Members on the other side don't want to talk about actions that we consider to be considerably outside what was intended by the national emergency powers given to the President. So I would like to get back, if I may, though, to the issue at hand. I want to just read something. ``We will vote on a resolution to reverse the President's ill-advised national emergency declaration that funds the construction of a border wall using money that Congress has appropriated and the President has signed into law for other purposes, such as military construction. . . .'' ``By declaring a national emergency, the President's action comes into direct conflict with Congress' authority to determine the appropriation of funds--a power vested in Congress by the Framers of our Constitution in Article I, Section IX. That is why this issue is not about strengthening our border security, a goal that I support and have voted to advance. Rather, Mr. President, it is a solemn occasion involving whether or not this body will stand up for its institutional prerogatives and will support the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. ``Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that, `Only Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing moneys to be spent from the U.S. Treasury.' ``For the past 65 years, the courts have determined the boundaries of Presidential authority, vis-a-vis Congress, under the doctrine of Youngstown Steel Sheet & Tubing, the 1952 Supreme Court case which reversed President Truman's seizure of U.S. steel companies during the Korean war. As Justice Robert Jackson explained in his profoundly influential concurrence in that case, the question of whether a President's actions are constitutionally valid should be determined by examining the source of the President's authority, and in this concurrence, the Justice goes through three scenarios in which he assesses the President's power. ``According to Justice Jackson, when acts taken by the President are against the express or implied will of Congress, the President's power is at its lowest ebb. Mr. President, President Trump's declaration clearly falls in that category. ``Now, the President rests his declaration on the National Emergencies Act, and that act fails to define precisely what constitutes an emergency, but there is a commonsense rule that we can apply. It is a five-part test that was used by the Office of Management and Budget under former President George Herbert Walker Bush to determine whether or not requested funding merited an emergency designation under our budget rules. Under that test, a spending request was designated as an emergency only if the need for spending met a five-part test. It had to be necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent. Now, whether or not one agrees with President Trump that more should be done to secure our southern border--and I do agree with him on that goal--his decision to fund a border wall through a national emergency declaration would never pass all of this five-part test. ``Another concern that I have with the President's declaration is that it shifts funding away from critical military construction projects. We don't know which ones. We have not been able to get a list, but this could have very real national security implications. And, again, I would note that the military construction appropriations bill incorporated projects recommended by the President and his Department of Defense, was passed by both bodies and signed into law by the President. ``Let me emphasize once again that the question presented by this resolution is not whether you are for a border wall or against a border wall. It is not whether you believe that border security should be strengthened or whether it is sufficient. It is not whether or not we support or oppose President Trump. Rather, the question is a far more fundamental and significant one. The question is this: Do we want the executive branch now or in the future to hold the power of the purse--a power that the Framers deliberately entrusted to Congress? ``We must stand up and defend Congress' institutional powers as the Framers intended that we would, even when doing so is inconvenient or goes against the outcome that we might prefer. ``I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and our Constitution.'' Now, some might think that was authored by a Democrat, but it was not. Senator Susan Collins of Maine issued that back in March of 2019 when we considered the resolution for the first time, and, frankly, she is far more eloquent than I. I think I will let it stand at that, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my colleague that we all grow weary. I never do of spending time with him on the floor. I just want to acknowledge that. I would say a couple of things, because there is a lot to unpack here. But fundamentally this resolution should--I think he read it--say that, Pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, the emergency declaration finding is hereby terminated. That is actually in the law. What we are doing in this resolution that was already passed by the Senate and it, hopefully, will pass--not only the rule, but the underlying resolution as well--and do exactly what the law does. There is no need to change the law. We may disagree, and obviously we do, about whether or not the President's use of the provisions violates the Constitution. I say, yes, my learned colleague differs, but what is clear is we are using this within the context of the existing law, and so that is why we are here. I think the one difference, however--and I apologize, I have to put my eyeglasses on to see this fine print--but one of the differences that I note is--and I may have noted this earlier, I apologize if I am repeating myself--but we now have a specific list of projects. So when I look at, for instance, in Virginia the Joint Base Langley-Eustis in January of 2020 is expected to have dollars for the construction of a cyber-ops facility. That is money that is being redirected. If you look at in Oregon, Klamath Falls, replacing fuel facilities at the base there. If you look at--I mentioned the child development center, I believe. In Florida the Fire/Crash Rescue Station at Tyndale Air Force Base. The list goes on and on. We now have more evidence of the fact that these projects are vitally needed by the military and by members of our Armed Forces and advance the security interests of the people of the United States and around the world. So we have details now of, in my view, what amounts to an unconstitutional move of dollars without congressional approval. We have that. We are acting, once again, in conjunction with our colleagues in the Senate to end the national emergency declaration by the President. While we might agree or disagree as to whether or not that is really an emergency, and we might disagree or agree on whether or not the use by the President of the act in the way he did is constitutional. What is incontrovertible is that the current law allows us to do what we are doing today to end the emergency, and that is really the question before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, I should note that I probably shouldn't get into a football argument with the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, with its long history of that sport. I also shouldn't do it because if my wife is watching, she will be very unhappy that I used a sports analogy, which she decidedly does not like. But just to torture the analogy a little more, because Mr. Woodall raised it, misdirection does have a quarterback, but the whole point is to fool the opposition. I think that is what, frankly, some of my colleagues here today were trying to do, is to fool the American public about what this resolution before us is all about. I think that is unfortunate because the resolution on the floor is critically important. Before I close, I want to compliment my friend. I do enjoy this. I know this is a serious topic--and no one should see it as anything else--but I always appreciate his passion, his intellect, his eloquence. It is always a joy to be with him in the Rules Committee and here on the floor, and I so appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank all of my colleagues in the Rules Committee for their support of S.J. Res. 54, relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, every student deserves the opportunity to pursue higher education and achieve their goals, but for too many Americans, especially low-income students or families in poverty, unexpected financial emergencies like sudden medical costs, transportation issues, or loss of employment can prevent them from completing coursework or even cause them to drop out of school altogether. A broken-down car or a brief hospitalization should not derail a lifetime of hard work for any student. That is why I am proud to have partnered with Congresswoman Katie Hill to introduce the CAMPUS Act, which provides emergency grants to students in need so they can continue their coursework and stay on track academically. This legislation provides a critical safety net for low-income students and brings us one step closer to making higher education accessible and affordable for all young people.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my longtime friend and Monroe County Board of Elections commissioner, Tom Ferrarese, as he begins his retirement. For more than two decades, Tom has served our community with distinction at the Board of Elections, working tirelessly to expand access to voters, safeguard our elections, and uphold the democratic process. Tom has been a passionate political and community activist, working diligently to advance the ideals of the Democratic Party, not just through his work at the board, but through his extensive volunteer and community advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ individuals. It has been a true privilege to work alongside Tom, and our entire community is grateful for his many years of service. I wish him nothing but a well-deserved rest, relaxation, and best wishes in retirement.

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Paul Haney, a longtime leader in Rochester and Monroe County, and my very dear friend, who passed away on Sunday. As a former county legislator and city councilman, Paul was a fixture in our community; a man who truly embodied the high ideals of public service. Paul was kind, honest, smart as a whip, and deeply passionate about improving the community he loved. He devoted his life in service to his neighbors and was always the first to lend a hand to those in need. Paul Haney's contributions have left a profound and lasting impact on his beloved city. His legacy will never be forgotten. I join all of Rochester County and Monroe County in mourning his loss, and extend my thoughts, prayers, and deepest sympathies to the Haney family

Mr. MORELLE

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 15 seconds.

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, 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).

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. 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).

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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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, 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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.