Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the ranking member that CBO estimates that the 30-year cost of this bill is about $55 billion of money that will not be paid back, or we can pay up to $400 billion over 30 years. We have a choice. I would pick the $55 billion. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much time is still available on each side.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following five letters in support: AARP, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Service Employees International Union, and the United Steelworkers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the multiemployer crisis, the most expensive and harmful thing the Congress can do is nothing. Over the course of 4 years and multiple hearings, including five hearings of a joint select committee, we have repeatedly heard the need to address this issue. We have also heard about process. Let me tell you about the process. We had 1 year of a select committee--no plan from the Republicans. This bill was introduced in January--no plan. We had a hearing in March--no plan. We had a markup in June--no plan or amendment until shortly before the markup occurred. Then, instead of seriously considering those amendments, they required us to read the whole bill. Mr. Speaker, we have a choice to make. Members of Congress can continue to wring our hands and listen to complaints while the catastrophe continues to unfold and unnecessarily adds hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to the Federal budget, or we can act on this bipartisan solution. The only bipartisan solution pending in Congress today is the Butch Lewis Act. This bill addresses the immediate crisis, protects hard- earned pensions, protects many businesses from bankruptcy, avoids misery, and saves the taxpayers money. In fact, according to the CBO, this bill, over 30 years, will cost less than $60 billion. Doing nothing over 30 years will cost $300 billion to over $400 billion. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the solution. I urge my colleagues to do the same to ensure that all workers can retire with stability and dignity. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The intent of this bill is to keep loan interest rates as low as possible for two reasons, to get financially distressed plans back on their feet and to maximize the chance of full repayment of the loan. CBO estimates that, under the provisions of the bill, the cost of the loans, after some defaults, will cost less than $60 billion over 30 years, much less than the hundreds of billions of dollars if we do nothing. This bill specifies an interest rate to be around the 30-year U.S. Treasury securities rate with a 20 basis-point increase to cover costs of administration. For those plans that elect to repay the loan principal on an accelerated schedule, there is an incentive of a 50 basis-point reduction in the interest rate. The bottom line here is that this is not a program from which the Federal Government intends to make a profit. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and many employer organizations have not endorsed the bill. However, they did send a letter last year that said: ``The financial and demographic circumstances of certain plans will not allow them to survive without responsible financial assistance. Consequently, we recommend long-term, low-interest loans that will protect taxpayers from financial liability.'' These business groups recognize that doing nothing is more expensive to taxpayers than the provisions of this bill and a low-interest loan. The amendment before us mandates the interest rate to be 5 percent for the first 5 years and 9 percent thereafter. This is not a low- interest loan in today's environment where a 30-year Treasury security rate is 2.6 percent. Raising the interest rates to the levels prescribed by my friend from Tennessee would entirely subvert the loan program. Nobody would apply, and those who did apply would have to represent an earnings rate that would not be realistic. This amendment would increase loan defaults, and its effect, whether intended or not, would doom the loan program before it starts. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we reject the amendment. Before I yield back, I want to say that the gentleman from Tennessee and I disagree on this amendment and the underlying bill, but I appreciate his leadership and expertise. We served on the Joint Select Committee last year, and we agree that something needs to be done because we have a crisis. So I look forward to working with him and his colleague from Tennessee, the Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Mr. Alexander, as this process moves forward. Now, I want to remind everybody, if we do nothing, over a million hardworking Americans will lose their pensions, businesses will go bankrupt, and the Federal Government will unnecessarily spend hundreds of billions of dollars. This amendment will not help. It will actually make matters worse, and, therefore, we should defeat the amendment and then pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters in support of H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act: International Brotherhood of Teamsters; National Urban League; Disability Coalition; Health Care Groups; Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs; First Focus Campaign for Children; Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Americans for Democratic Action; and National Employment Lawyers Association. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, July 16, 2019. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: This week, the House of Representatives will take up H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act of 2019. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters urges you to vote for H.R. 582. Income inequality is on an alarming trajectory and continues to rise unabated. Neither record-breaking corporate profits nor increased productivity have reversed or slowed this trend. This is not the kind of economy we should be building. The Raise the Wage Act is essential to bringing some measure or fairness and justice to workers who toil at the lower-end of the wage scale. It is an important step we can take to address growing pay inequality. An increase in the federal minimum wage, which has not increased since 2009, is long overdue. H.R. 582 would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 per hour by 2024. It would increase the minimum wage to $8.55 this year, with increases over the subsequent six years. After 2024, the minimum wage would be indexed to median wage growth to ensure that its value does not erode. Finally, the bill would remedy an egregious situation that has gone on for far too long. The bill would phase out the subminimum wage for tipped workers, which has been frozen at a paltry $2.13 per hour for more than 20 years. And, it would end the subminimum wage for workers with disabilities employed in sheltered workshops and for workers under age 20. No one who works hard and plays by the rules should live in poverty. Much is said about valuing work, and about respecting work. If we truly value work, if we truly respect work, the House will pass H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act of 2019. Again, the Teamsters Union urges a yes vote on H.R. 582. Sincerely, James P. Hoffa, General President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 492, I call up the bill (H.R. 582) to provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the idea behind the Federal minimum wage is simple: Hardworking Americans should be paid at least enough to provide for themselves and their families. After more than a decade with no increase in the minimum wage, the longest stretch since the minimum wage was established in 1938, it is no longer serving that purpose. Today, the Federal minimum wage is a poverty wage in every region of our Nation. Our Nation's workers deserve better. The Raise the Wage Act, H.R. 582, gradually increases the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. After 2025, this legislation indexes future increases to the minimum wage to increases in the median wage so that the value does not erode over time. It gradually phases out the subminimum wages to ensure that tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities are paid at least the full Federal minimum wage. The benefits of this legislation are significant and widespread. Economic analysis estimates that the Raise the Wage Act would increase wages for up to 33 million workers and lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty. The Raise the Wage Act is not just good for workers. It is good for the economy. While the Republican tax bill gave the largest benefits to corporations and the wealthy, this bill puts money directly into the hands of workers, who will spend that money in their communities. Today is a historic day. For the first time in more than 12 years, the House is voting to restore the value of the Federal minimum wage and restore the value of work in America. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support the Raise the Wage Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that a vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 37 percent of workers in her district of North Carolina a raise of about $3,800 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against the bill is a vote to deny about 38 percent of the workers in his district in Pennsylvania an average wage of about $3,300 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 41 percent of the workers in his district in South Carolina a raise of about $3,800 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 41 percent of the workers in his district in Tennessee an average raise of about $3,700 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 32 percent of the workers in his district in Michigan an average raise of about $2,300 a year. And in the CBO report that he cited, three of the most recent studies cited in that report show an actual increase in jobs, not a decrease. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, a gentlewoman who can talk specifically about Seattle.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has suggested, his vote against the bill is a vote to deny about 43 percent of the workers in his district in Pennsylvania an average raise of $3,900 a year, while the tax bill that he supported, 80 percent of the benefits of that bill went to the top 1 percent and corporations. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny 41 percent of the workers in his district in Georgia an average raise of about $3,800 a year, and I don't think they are laughing about that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 37 percent of the workers in his district in Alabama an average wage of about $3,700 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.