Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor, who, prior to her service in Congress, was a practicing physician.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor and a former National Teacher of the Year.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I just want to comment about a letter that we received from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This letter states, in part: ``Enactment of H.R. 3 is needed because: ``It directs our government to stand on the side of all Americans and protect us from price gouging by directly negotiating for lower prescription drug prices. ``It creates a new $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drugs for people on Medicare. ``It reinvests Federal savings into much-needed new Medicare benefits to cover dental, vision, and hearing. ``The cost of inaction is too high. It is calculated in the suffering of individuals who are forced to ration their medicines or choose between buying medicines or paying for housing and groceries. Prescription drug companies must be made accountable. We urge you to send a clear message that Congress is on the side of all Americans by directing the government to directly negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. Please vote in support of H.R. 3.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I want to comment on a letter we received from the AFL- CIO, a legislative alert. It says, in part, that ``3 in 10 adults report that they were unable to take their medicines as prescribed at some point in the past year because of the cost, often worsening their medical condition, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet according to AARP, the average annual cost of prescription drugs rose nearly 58 percent between 2012 and 2017. Prices in 2019 increased for 3,400 drugs on the market, with an average price increase of 10.5 percent, a rate roughly five times the inflation rate. . . . `' ``The Lower Drug Prices Now Act takes bold action to address this relentless rise in drug prices. . . . `' ``H.R. 3 reinvests the estimated $500 billion in Federal savings in historic improvements to Medicare benefits and other important healthcare programs. Medicare part D prescription drug coverage is substantially improved by the addition of a $2,000 out-of-pocket maximum. Medicare benefits are further expanded by the inclusion of vision, dental, and hearing benefits. To help low-income seniors, the legislation expands subsidy eligibility to make premiums and out-of- pocket costs more affordable. ``Other investments in healthcare include $7.7 billion to support community responses to the opioid crisis and $10 billion for National Institutes of Health biomedical research toward the discovery of breakthrough drug therapies. ``The Lower Drug Prices Now Act will provide crucial assistance to working families who are currently unable to afford the medicines they need, while simultaneously making important investments to address other healthcare priorities. We urge you to vote for this bill.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will point out that the question of availability of drugs in the United States came up at a hearing we had on this legislation. It was pointed out that the target negotiated price will be approximately 120 percent of the international average. That is a lot better than the two, three, five, as much as 60 times higher Americans are paying for the same drugs here than in other countries. At that price, at 120 percent, that will be the highest price, and we will be the biggest market. They certainly won't take a drug away from the biggest market paying the highest price, so we don't have to worry about availability. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, last year, Congress made a promise to lower skyrocketing drug costs and strengthen our healthcare system for Americans. H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, delivers on that promise. The legislation not only lowers the costs of prescription drugs for taxpayers and those enrolled in Medicare, but it also lowers the costs for workers, businesses, and families. It improves the quality of healthcare by expanding Medicare benefits to include vision, dental, and hearing benefits, and it limits the out- of-pocket copays and deductibles to $2,000. It strengthens public health by investing in community health centers, and it provides historic funding for evidence-based student trauma services and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Both of these initiatives will help support children who have suffered abuse or trauma related to substance use disorder and the opioid crisis. The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act is a long-overdue step to improve healthcare and the lives of Americans across the country, both today and for decades to come. Again, I thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Neal, Speaker Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders for bringing this legislation to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this priority for the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and I want to thank all of my House and Senate colleagues who have worked diligently on this legislation. Historically Black colleges and universities, Tribally controlled colleges and universities, and other minority-serving institutions play a significant role in expanding access to higher education for low- income students and students of color. Collectively, they educate more than one-fourth of all undergraduates--nearly 6 million students--including many first-time college students and students from our Nation's most underserved communities. Historically Black colleges and universities specifically make up less than 3 percent of colleges and universities, yet they produce almost 20 percent of all Black graduates, half of all Black professionals, and over a third of all Black STEM graduates. Unfortunately, despite their outsized role in serving our Nation's most underserved students, HBCUs and MSIs have historically been underresourced compared to other institutions of higher education. That is why, 3 months ago, the House unanimously passed the FUTURE Act, a proposal to provide vital funding for HBCUs and other MSIs. Regrettably, that funding had expired on September 30. This bill will restore that funding. In fact, after careful negotiation and compromise, this bill we are voting on today does not just restore the guarantee of more than $250 million a year for HBCUs and MSIs; it permanently authorizes that funding. It also facilitates stronger cooperation between the IRS and the Department of Education to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, to make it easier for students to access student aid and repay their loans. I want to note that, as mentioned, the FUTURE Act streamlines the income-driven repayment process for millions of Direct Loan borrowers. For the 12.4 million borrowers with a Federal Family Education Loan, the loan from our old program that is winding down, this bill does not disturb the Treasury's authority to continue operating the data retrieval tool. This tool allows borrowers, including FFEL borrowers, to retrieve their own tax information for the purposes of certifying their income for an income-driven repayment plan. Many FFEL borrowers are currently enrolled in income-driven repayment plans and rely on this existing tool made available by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education. This legislation does not eliminate the authority for the data retrieval tool, and, indeed, we urge the Secretaries of Treasury and Education to maintain that tool to ensure that all FFEL borrowers, especially those whose loans are owned by the Department of Education, have streamlined access to manageable monthly payments. Before I close, I would like to give special thanks to Chairman Neal of the Ways and Means Committee for his dedication and hard work in negotiating to bring this bill to the floor. Thanks to his leadership, we are voting on a bill today that will expand access to both institutions of higher learning and student aid for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FUTURE Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank the Congressional Black Caucus and Representative Adams in particular for dedicating this time to discuss an issue affecting so many communities across the country, and particularly Representative Adams for her leadership in congressional support for historically Black colleges and universities. Since their conception, HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions have played a vital role in expanding access to higher education for low-income students and students of color. Many present leaders, like physicians, dentists, lawyers, judges, and other professionals, and many elected officials, would not be where they are today but for the opportunity provided by HBCUs, especially the two in the Third District of Virginia, Hampton University and Norfolk State University. That is why earlier this year, the House unanimously passed the FUTURE Act, a proposal to preserve funding for these institutions that expired on September 30. The FUTURE Act is fully paid for, and it would provide an immediate 2-year extension of funding, averting a financial crisis that could eventually result in lost jobs, program cuts, and reduced financial support for students. A month later, the Committee on Education and Labor advanced the College Affordability Act, a comprehensive overhaul of the Higher Education Act that would increase access and affordability to higher education and specifically would increase and permanently reauthorize mandatory funding for historically Black colleges and other minority- serving institutions. HBCUs and minority-serving institutions collectively serve more than one-quarter of all undergraduate students each year. That is more than 6 million students, including many from our Nation's most underserved communities. It is important that we pass legislation extending the funding for these colleges and universities so that they can continue to fulfill their mission.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding and for his untiring leadership on workplace safety issues. I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Healthcare and Social Service Workers Act. Healthcare facilities are where we should be going to get well, but too often, hardworking, highly skilled employees of these facilities are regularly beaten, kicked, punched, and sometimes killed while performing their jobs. Healthcare and social service workers are four times as likely to suffer serious workplace violence injuries compared to workers in other sectors. Many can never return to work after the assault. The Government Accountability Office has found the dangers to such workers has gotten worse over the past decade. From 2008 to 2017, workplace violence incidence rates have more than doubled at private hospitals and home healthcare services with the highest rates of violence found in psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals. Most acts of workplace violence in healthcare facilities are foreseeable, and they are preventable by implementing workplace violence prevention plans. Although OSHA and the Joint Commission for hospital accreditations have issued authoritative guidance, voluntary efforts alone are not enough to ensure the safety of these workers. Currently, OSHA has no standard for requiring healthcare and social service employers to implement workplace violence prevention programs, and it takes the agency from 7 to 20 years to issue a new standard. The new beryllium standard, for example, which has just been finalized, has been under consideration for about 17 years. And that timeframe is not unusual. Instead of waiting for years or even decades for OSHA to act, H.R. 1309 would first direct OSHA to issue an interim standard within 1 year and a final standard within 42 months, requiring healthcare and social service employers to implement a workplace violence prevention plan. And further, it protects workers from retaliation for reporting assaults to their employers or government authorities. Furthermore, since public employees in 24 states lack any OSHA protections, this legislation requires public hospitals and skilled nursing facilities receiving Medicare funds to comply with the workplace violence standards in this bill. Healthcare and social service workers play a critical role in healthcare for our families and our communities. At the very least, we must do whatever we can to ensure that these workers will come home uninjured at the end of the workday. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Pallone for his cooperation in moving this bill to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Courtney and Representative Alma Adams, chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, for their leadership in advancing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1309.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues to speak in support of H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act. The PRO Act was reported out of the Committee on Education and Labor on September 25, and it is the most comprehensive legislation in recent history to strengthen workers' rights to organize and bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. Labor unions have long fueled our Nation's prosperity. Wage growth and worker productivity rose steadily together when union membership was at its peak, around 30 percent, between the end of World War II and 1973. Union members earn significantly higher salaries, they are more likely to enjoy better benefits and also much more likely to work in a safe workplace. This had the effect of creating an economy where most working families could achieve a basic standard of living. But unfortunately, in the last 4 decades, union membership has plummeted, and income inequality has soared. Despite the clear benefits of strong unions, just one in 10 workers currently is a union member and only 6 percent of private sector workers are union members. Low union membership certainly does not mean that American workers have given up on unions. In fact, according to a poll of workers across the country conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 48 percent of nonunion workers say they would vote to join the union if given the opportunity. Regrettably, what is keeping workers from joining unions are weak labor laws, aggressive employer opposition to unions, and relentless political attacks that have dismantled workers' rights to organize. To that point, the PRO Act would deter employers from violating workers' rights to form a union in five key ways: First, the PRO Act puts some teeth into the law by authorizing civil monetary penalties for companies that inflict serious economic harm on employees by violating the National Labor Relations Act, in doing things such as firing union supporters for engaging in protected activities. This would update the current law, which provides no civil penalties today for employers who violate the NLRA, leaving no meaningful deterrent for employers who choose to violate workers' rights. Second, the PRO Act would streamline procedures and guarantee swift remedies for workers. Currently, if workers prove that they were unlawfully fired for organizing, they may have to wait years before being reinstated and receiving back pay. The PRO Act would guarantee temporary reinstatement for workers whose cases are found to have merit while their cases are being adjudicated. This would also make the National Labor Relations Board orders immediately applicable to all parties involved in proceedings, just like those of other Federal agencies. Third, the PRO Act would protect the integrity of union elections by providing remedies when employers interfere with union representation elections. It also establishes mediation and arbitration procedures to encourage employers and unions to reach a first collective bargaining agreement after the union is formed. Fourth, the PRO Act would modernize labor law by clarifying exactly which employees and employers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Too often employers misclassify their employees as independent contractors or anything but employees. This tactic allows employers to avoid their legal obligations to their workers. The PRO Act safeguards against these practices and also protects workers' First Amendment rights to engage in peaceful picketing and other free speech activities. Finally, the PRO Act fosters transparency, so employees know their rights under the law. Other labor laws require employers to post notices of employee rights like Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and OSHA. The PRO Act will similarly guarantee the employers notify the employees of their rights. At its heart this legislation is about restoring workers' rights to organize and restoring balance to the economy. By passing the PRO Act, we can take an historic step towards improving the quality of life for workers and families across the country. So I thank the Progressive Caucus for sponsoring this Special Order and giving us the opportunity to promote the PRO Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the American Legion Braxton-Perkins Post 25 in Newport News, Virginia. Since its inception, the American Legion has advocated for benefits for veterans and helped create many important programs for families, children and communities. While the American Legion has posts all over the nation, I want to highlight the history and work of Braxton-Perkins Post 25. In 1918, when the Armistice was signed and World War I ended, the process of demobilization began. This brought many Army and Navy veterans back to the city of Newport News. Many ex-service members were war-weary but looking for ways to keep the spirit of comradeship alive with the men and women with whom they served overseas. In August 1919, Fred H. Skinner, a young lawyer who served as a captain in the 119th Infantry, tapped his local social circle of former servicemembers and gathered the required number of signatures to apply for a charter from the Legion. The charter was approved on August 25 of that year. The first meeting of Braxton-Perkins was held in Newport News City Hall in September of 1919. After that, the Post contacted the War Camp Community Service to use their building for meetings and office space. Later, this building was purchased by the Post from the War Camp Community Service after they had stopped utilizing the facility. Post 25 is named after two local Newport News men who died overseas during World War I. Elliott Muse Braxton was killed in action in the Meuse-Argonne fighting and Lieutenant Pryor Richard Perkins, a member of the Air Service, died in a plane crash on the Argonne front. The Post began its activity in earnest in 1920 with a variety of social activities and civic endeavors. Since then, it has come to be one of the most respected organizations in Newport News because it has constantly given back to our community. The Post set up a kindergarten and free health clinics for children, they aid the sick and wounded and have helped many veterans financially. The Post has provided many veterans with food, clothing and access to employment. They also help arrange hospitalization and military funerals for veterans regardless of whether or not they were members of the Legion. Madam Speaker, as our nation observes Veterans Day this Monday, Newport News is fortunate to have an organization like Braxton-Perkins Post 25 serving and supporting our veterans and their families for the last 100 years. I look forward to seeing all the good they will continue to do in the years ahead as a pillar of our community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Bonamici, Stefanik, Lee of Nevada, Comer, Wild, and Johnson of South Dakota for their work on this bipartisan bill. I want to specifically recognize Ms. Bonamici, who serves as the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services for the Committee on Education and Labor. Because of her leadership, we are here today to consider the Dignity in Aging Act and to reauthorize the Older Americans Act and, thereby, support and invest in our Nation's seniors. Congress first passed the Older Americans Act in 1965, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and other civil rights legislation as part of President Johnson's great society. Fifty-four years later, this act continues to support a range of programs that now help 11 million aging Americans retain their independence and avoid costly institutional care. This includes 3 million Americans who regularly use OAA services to address their basic needs, especially food, transportation, and social interaction. Unfortunately, the OAA funding has not kept pace with inflation and the growing population of aging Americans. In 2010, the annual funding was $42.95 per senior in today's dollars. Today, it is not $42.95, it is only $27.25. This disinvestment has weakened the OAA programs at a time when services are in high demand. According to a 2015 GAO report, OAA services fail to reach a vast majority of low-income Americans who experience food insecurity. The investments we make through this legislation will not only allow us to help seniors, but also help us save money. OAA services allow older Americans to delay or altogether avoid costlier care by promoting healthier behaviors and promoting critical supportive services. The bill funds OAA services at record levels. It focuses on the vital role of family caregivers, as well as direct care workers, and allows those with early onset Alzheimer's to benefit from the act. As the number of older Americans continues to increase, the Dignity in Aging Act is an opportunity for us to strengthen essential services that allow millions of Americans across the country to age independently and with dignity. I urge my colleagues to support the Dignity in Aging Act of 2019.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for holding this Special Order and recognizing the legacy of Congressman John Conyers. I want to join those who are honoring his legacy. He served in Congress longer than any other African American. He represented Michigan and the Nation for over 50 years. He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and he served as dean of the House. He was a giant in civil rights. He often bragged about being the only candidate for elective office ever endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Also, for many years Rosa Parks worked in his Detroit district office. As a legislator, he was a true champion of civil rights and leaves behind a legacy of fighting for transformative change that continues today. His five decades of service in Congress are marked by a core fundamental belief in equity and justice for all. For many years, I worked with Congressman Conyers on the Judiciary Committee, and most recently, we worked together to address segregation in our public schools. We also fought together for equity in education, as well as criminal justice reform, voting rights, and breaking down barriers to employment. I want to send my condolences to his family, his loved ones, the entire Detroit community, and all who are mourning the loss of a lifelong champion for a better America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the chorus of admirers of Elijah Cummings and to mourn the passing of our distinguished colleague. Congressman Cummings served with passion for the rule of law, and always governed in a respectful manner, even when dealing with some of the most critical and controversial issues facing Congress today. It is rightly noted that when Congressman Cummings spoke, he spoke with moral authority, frequently reminding us that ``we are better than that.'' He was an invaluable leader for civil rights, justice, and fundamental fairness. He believed in the promise of America and served as an example of it every single day. We are better off because of his leadership in Congress and the tremendous contributions he made over his life of service. Mr. Speaker, I send my deepest condolences to Dr. Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, his three children, and all of his loved ones. I hope they will find comfort in knowing that so many people across the country are mourning their loss with them.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cicilline, and Chairman Nadler for their leadership on this issue. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act. Companies are increasingly using forced arbitration clauses to shield themselves from accountability for many forms of wrongdoing, including civil rights violations, labor abuses, and unfair consumer practices. For example, 60 million workers are now subject to forced arbitration clauses that deny them their day in court. Forced arbitration is a rigged system. That is because the arbitrators are essentially hired by the companies and consumers never have a chance. Workers and consumers should not have to sign away their rights as a condition to their employment or as a condition of a contract, and they should not have to give up their day in court. Often, arbitration is a desirable alternative to litigation. Under the FAIR Act, arbitration would now be a voluntary option, not the only option. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) for their continued leadership of this bill, specifically, and with the HBCU Caucus, generally. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to preserve funding for historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions. These institutions play a critical role in expanding access to higher education for low-income students and students of color. Collectively, they educate more than one-quarter of all graduates, nearly 6 million students, including many in our Nation's underserved the communities. Typically, these under-resourced schools educate first-time college attendees, many of whom hail from impoverished communities. The funding that supports minority-serving institutions is the only program authorized in the Higher Education Act that expires if not reauthorized this year. Accordingly, if Congress fails to pass this bill by September 30, these historic institutions will suffer a $255 million shortfall, causing lost jobs, lost opportunities, and diminished financial support for students across the country. Members of this body often speak glowingly about the role of HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions. And today, we have an opportunity to back those words with action. The FUTURE Act, which is fully paid for, preserves vital investments in minority-serving institutions, as well as the students and communities they serve. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share some reflections on events commemorating the first arrival of enslaved Africans to English colonies, to North America, including a forum my colleague, Representative Donald McEachin, hosted in Richmond earlier this summer and the events that took place on Fort Monroe National Monument last month. It was my great honor, along with Representative Luria, to welcome Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass and fellow CBC member Lacy Clay to Hampton Roads for the solemn occasion marking the 400th anniversary of the first landing of enslaved Africans to English- speaking North America. The history of our Nation cannot be fully understood or appreciated without knowing and acknowledging the stories of those first what they said was ``20 and odd'' Africans and the millions who followed them. This was a goal that Senator Kaine and I had in mind when we drafted H.R. 1242, a bill to establish a Federal 400 Years of African-American History Commission. The goal of that commission was to explore ways to commemorate not just the events of 1619, but also to recognize all that has happened since. The city of Hampton and the Commonwealth of Virginia did a tremendous job in organizing events, including those last month, to commemorate and reflect on what happened in 1619; but it is incumbent that we, as a body, support the ongoing and necessary work of that commission beyond 2019, as we committed to do when we passed H.R. 1242. Senator Kaine and I are working with our colleagues in Congress to secure Federal funding to support the work of the commission, which is mandated under H.R. 1242 to plan programs to commemorate the history, recognize the resiliency of the African American community, acknowledge the impact that slavery and legalized racial discrimination has had on our country, and educate the public about those impacts and contributions to our community. The commission is also directed to provide technical assistance to State, local, and nonprofit groups working to further the commemorations as well as ongoing research on our complicated history. Madam Speaker, $1 million was included in the House version of the fiscal year 2020 Department of the Interior appropriations bill to support the commission's work, and that legislation passed the House earlier this year. I am committed to making sure that these funds are actualized. Thankfully, there is significant precedent for Federal support for commissions like this. Additionally, in recognizing the tremendous task before the commissioners and the funding challenges they faced, Senator Kaine and I are also actively exploring ways to extend the work of the commission for several years beyond its present July 2020 termination date. This part of our Nation's history is far too important to let this opportunity pass. Every American should be afforded the chance to understand and learn from it. As we gathered at the site of where slavery first arrived on our shores 400 years ago, we reflected on our complicated history; we celebrated the resiliency and many contributions of the descendants of those slaves; and we are committed to following the research and effectively addressing the issues that continue to plague our communities, including, a tax on our voting rights, police brutality, environmental injustice, and disparities in education, housing, wealth, and criminal justice. So, as we reflect on the events of 1619, let us all commit to constructively address those horrific years of slavery and legal racial discrimination and move forward with the strength, wisdom, and resolve of our ancestors. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for convening this Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter in support of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. Oxfam, July 16, 2019. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Ms. Eunice Ikene, Labor Policy Advisor at House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Dear Ms. Ikene and Members of Congress: On behalf of Oxfam America, I urge you to vote for the Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 582) and vote against any amendments that would weaken the bill. Oxfam America is an international development and relief agency committed to working for lasting solutions to poverty, hunger and social injustice in over 90 countries, including the United States. Oxfam has carried out development and humanitarian programs across the globe. Within the United States, we have focused our efforts to elevating the rights and life opportunities for historically disadvantaged workers in low-wage sectors. With a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a full-time worker may only make $15,080 a year, a salary that is almost $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The Raise the Wage Act of 2019 would benefit over a quarter of the workforce: nearly 40 million workers and their families. The act would raise the federal minimum wage to $8.55 this year and increase it over the next five years until it reaches $15 in 2024, then adjust it each year to keep pace with the typical worker's wages. Here are six reasons why raising the wage makes sense. 1. It is long overdue. In the decade since it was last raised, the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation, failed to keep up with average wages, and--most dramatically--failed to keep up with incomes of the top 1 percent and CEOs, contributing to America's growing inequality. Low-wage workers are not benefiting from economic growth and productivity. If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity increases, it would be around $20. Just 30 years ago, the average pay gap between CEOs and workers was 59 to 1; last year, it soared to 361 to 1. The average CEO makes $13,940,000, while a minimum wage worker makes $15,080: a gap of 924 to 1. 2. It would address longstanding racial and gender inequities. Historically marginalized people do more than their fair share of low-wage work, and would stand to benefit disproportionately from the bump. While 27 percent of the total workforce would benefit from the raise: 39 percent of Black and Latina women would benefit (vs. 18 percent of white men), 38 percent of African American workers would benefit, 33 percent of Latino workers would benefit, 32 percent of women workers would benefit (vs 22 percent of men). 3. It would reduce poverty. The bump from $290 a week to $600 a week would lift millions of family out of poverty. Two-thirds of all working people in poverty (67.3 percent) would see a raise in wages. 4. It would fuel economic growth. The roughly $120 billion extra paid to workers would be pumped back into the economy for necessities such as rent, food, clothes. Economists have long recognized that boosting purchasing power by putting money in people's pockets for consumer spending has positive ripple effects on the entire economy. In one recent poll, 67 percent of small business owners support the minimum wage increase to $15 an hour. They say it would spark consumer demand, which would enable them to retain or hire new employees. And raising the wage doesn't seem to compel employers to cut jobs. As states and cities across the country have raised wages, research has found no statistically significant effect on employment. 5. It would save taxpayers money and reduce use of government programs. When employers don't pay people enough to survive, those workers are compelled to seek government assistance, meaning taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the corporations. In 2016, EPI found that, among recipients of public assistance, most work or have a family member who works; and they are concentrated at the bottom of the pay scale. Raising wages for low-wage workers would ``unambiguously reduce net spending on public assistance, particularly among workers likely to be affected by a federal minimum-wage increase.'' 6. It's what the vast majority of Americans want. Vast majorities (up to three quarters, including a majority across party lines) support raising the wage. Even in a poll sponsored by the National Restaurant Association (which has worked to block state minimum wage increases and preempt local sick day laws), 71 percent of Americans indicated support for raising the wage, ``even if it also increases the cost of food and service to customers.'' In fact, over half the states have raised their minimum wages to restore basic fairness to the workforce. conclusion Raising the minimum wage offers benefits to workers, children, taxpayers, and the economy as a whole. It increases buying power and reduces the daily struggle for people to pay their basic expenses. It enables people to save for and invest in their future. It contributes toward building a work force that is healthier, more stable, better educated, and more productive. Raising the minimum age will require members of Congress of both parties to be willing to overcome the divide: to be open to the debate, to consider the needs of hard-working constituents and taxpayers, to consider the wide range of benefits--and ultimately, to give a raise to the people who need it the most. We strongly urge every member of Congress to vote for the Raise the Wage Act and enact this important piece of legislation as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Minor Sinclair, Director, US Domestic Program, Oxfam America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 509, I call up the bill (H.R. 397) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create a Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund, to establish a Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Department of the Treasury to make loans to multiemployer defined benefit plans, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, over the last few decades, construction workers, truck drivers, industrial bakers, coal miners, and other hardworking Americans, some of whom are here today, did everything they could to prepare themselves and their families for a secure retirement. Year after year, these workers negotiated with their employers to defer wages in return for a promise of a pension that would allow them to retire with dignity. Now, through no fault of their own, the pensions they earned over their lifetimes and the retirement security they were promised are in jeopardy. Today, approximately 130 multiemployer pension plans, covering about 1 million participants, are in severe financial distress. Several plans are facing insolvency in the next few years, while many others are projected to fail over the next 20 years. Making matters worse, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures these pension plans, is projected to run out of money by 2025 as large plans face insolvency. If multiemployer pension plans go broke and the PBGC's multiemployer program collapses, there will be catastrophic consequences to retirees, workers, businesses, and taxpayers. The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly known as the Butch Lewis Act, is a bipartisan solution to avert this financial disaster, and it will actually end up saving taxpayers billions of dollars. According to one estimate, a multiemployer pension system collapse would cost the Federal Government at least $170 billion over 10 years, and possibly $400 billion over 30 years, due to lost tax revenue and increased reliance on social programs. According to the CBO, to solve the problem, this bill is estimated to cost not $400 billion over 30 years, but $55 billion, total, over those 30 years. This bill will solve the problem. And that is just the cost to the Federal budget, ignoring the pain and suffering of people losing their pensions and businesses going out of business. That is the choice we have today. We can support a bipartisan bill that saves retirees' hard-earned pensions, protect businesses from going bankrupt, and costs far less than doing nothing, or we can oppose it and end up costing the taxpayers far more in the long run. Madam Speaker, I anticipate that my Republican colleagues will talk about structural reforms that are needed to prevent multiemployer plans from facing bankruptcy in the future. I agree.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Madam Speaker, reforms are needed, and I am committed to working on a bipartisan basis to enact prospective reforms. But when the house is on fire, you don't debate on how the fire started or pontificate over how to prevent fires in the future; you put out the fire. So today we are putting out the fire and protecting retirement security for more than 1 million Americans across the country and saving the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.