Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the concern, support, and prayers that have been offered. Obviously, we are all praying for the people of south Louisiana as Tropical Storm Barry approaches. In the next 24 hours, we expect landfall. We are surely expecting heavy rain.
I know, as I have talked to local officials, from the Governor to the mayor of New Orleans and other elected officials on the ground, they are prepared. They have asked for different things, including the Governor had asked for an emergency declaration.
I spoke to President Trump yesterday, and he did, in fact, issue that emergency declaration. So, all of the Federal agencies, from FEMA to the Corps of Engineers, to other Federal agencies, are working well with State and local officials to make sure they have the tools they need.
Our first priority, of course, is the safety of the people of south Louisiana. As they protect their homes and protect their property, we just encourage them to listen to their local officials, and, if evacuation orders are issued, we ask those folks to heed those warnings because it is a serious storm. And it is a storm that we are preparing for, but, as they say, you prepare for the worst but hope for the best, and we are doing all of that.
I appreciate the gentleman's concerns.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we look at the calendar next week and, specifically, the bill dealing with the minimum wage, I would ask the gentleman if he has looked at some of the studies that have been done, as well as some of the other actions.
If you look at the city of Baltimore, they had proposed and actually passed a $15 minimum wage, and the Democratic mayor of Baltimore vetoed that, specifically citing the job losses that would come with that kind of change.
The CBO report that just came out a few days ago, as the majority leader knows, cited that you could have up to 3.7 million jobs lost in America if that bill were to pass.
Mr. Speaker, we have a growing economy, a robust, growing economy. We are the envy of the world right now with our economy. People at every income level are receiving the benefits of that in terms of higher wages and more jobs--in fact, more job openings today than there are Americans looking for work.
This is the kind of opportunity we want for all people. In fact, as we are seeing, people at even the lower income, entry-level job levels are the ones benefiting the most from the tax cuts and the growing economy we have as a result of it.
So why, I would ask, would we want to reverse course and pass legislation that not only studies estimate would devastate low-income people--literally, the entire State of Oklahoma, 3.7 million people, eviscerated job losses. That many job losses would come from this bill passing.
You don't need to just look at estimates. You can actually look at what happened in the city of Seattle.
Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the city of Seattle instituted a similar $15 minimum wage. So now, we have a few years of actual data to look at what happened in a city like Seattle.
Mr. Speaker, the University of Washington did a detailed study of that minimum wage increase. What they found were similarly devastating numbers for low-income workers, the same people who would be hurt by the bill that the majority is going to be bringing up next week.
In fact, what the University of Washington study found was that you had roughly 3 million work hours lost, 5,000 jobs lost. They, in fact, found that the cost to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a margin of 3-to-1, devastating low-income workers the most.
If you look at not what might happen if we do this at the Federal level--where the estimates are we would lose 3.7 million jobs in America, mostly hurting lower income, entry-level jobs, those jobs where we want people to be able to get started to become part of the middle class, to become part of the American Dream, and taking that away from them--go look at what they did in Seattle when they actually did this, not when they talked about it, but when they did it, 3 years of data. The study showed it was devastating to low-income people.
I would hope that the gentleman has looked at some of this, the concerns that we have expressed along the way, and the recent CBO score that has underlined how bad and devastating this would be to low-income workers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out it is not we who are paying those wages. It is small businesses, small and medium-sized businesses that are paying those wages to workers.
What we have seen from the current economy, from cutting taxes, not from the government coming in and saying we are going to have some $15 minimum wage that has been proven in other places to eviscerate jobs, to kill jobs and hurt lower-income people, with our current economy, because of cutting taxes, lower income people are benefiting the most. They are seeing wages go up. They are actually seeing wages go up, and the data shows that.
That is why you are seeing such strong economic numbers right now, because the tax cuts are benefiting people at every income level, especially at the lower income levels.
When you talk about the jobs that would be lost, if we split it in the middle, if we go with the median of the study, that is 1.3 million jobs lost. Don't take my number. Don't take your number. Take the median number in the study, 1.3 million jobs. That is the entire State of Maine losing their jobs.
What we have also seen is that small businesses, as minimum wages go to a higher level, look at automating jobs, which means those jobs go away.
It is the low-income workers, the first job for many people, their first entry into opportunity where they can then become a homeowner, then become part of the American Dream, those are hit the hardest. In fact, the study shows that this bill would reduce family income by $9 billion.
I know we can look at it from different sides, but, again, if you just took the median, split the difference between your numbers and mine, you end up with 1.3 million jobs lost and devastation for a lot of people at the lower incomes.
The Seattle study shows not theory but what really did happen in a city like Seattle where they did this. By a 3-to-1 margin, low-income people were hit the hardest and hit very hard in a negative way.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the 27 million, let's keep in mind that, as you look at what they studied on the impacts, it is the lower income workers, as the wages might even go up.
And, by the way, wages are already going up today. Without this bill, wages, real wages, are going up and especially benefiting the lower income, the entry-level jobs.
What President Trump wanted to do to rebuild our middle class that was evaporating--it, literally, was going away. We were losing our middle class to foreign countries because we were not competitive as a nation. And now we are competitive--not only competitive, but the envy of the world, the economic leader of the world.
Again, why would we want to bring a bill that would devastate?
And so those 27 million people, if you look again at the Seattle study, what they showed was that the cost to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of 3 to 1.
So even for those people who were getting a higher wage because other costs went up and their hours went down, the amount of time they were able to work was reduced, it actually had a devastating impact to those low-income workers.
So on one hand it might sound really good: Hey, you are going to get a higher wage; but, Oh, by the way, we are not going to be able to give you as many hours to work. And you saw that over and over again in the study, it showed millions of hours lost.
So somebody that is working two jobs, struggling to get by because they want to become part of the middle class, today they are actually seeing a wage increase if that was evaporated because of this.
Even for the people who would see a higher wage, the costs to them would be more devastating by a 3-to-1 margin if you go by what actually did happen in Seattle when they did it.
So that is why I just say that study would be important to look at, because it doesn't show just in theory, which the CBO has a lot of good underlying data to back up with, but then Seattle is where it really did happen and it was devastating to lower income workers.
If the gentleman had anything else on this, I would yield back. I did want to bring up another issue, though, but I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, maybe next week as this debate continues, we will see if I can be more persuasive with my friend, but likely not, but at least we ought to have that debate and at least get these sides out and aired.
Now, I do want to talk about something where I do think we have agreement but maybe a lack of understanding of a timeline, and that is the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. And we have had many meetings. I know we were in a meeting together with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. We know our friends in Mexico want this. Our friends in Canada really want this. We want this, too.
With only 8 legislative days left before the August recess, could the gentleman give an indication if there is the ability to include USMCA on the calendar in these next 2 weeks that we have available?
And I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman, and I share the same sentiment that Ambassador Lighthizer has done a great job of working with Members on both sides to address questions, concerns, find ways to make sure that those concerns are addressed, whether they are already inside the agreement or if there are other things that can be done to double underscore and highlight those concerns.
But, in the meantime, hopefully, we can move beyond trying to get to yes and actually have a bill where we can whip that and get to yes. I know we have a whip team that I have put together on our side that is ready to go and, hopefully, your side will be able to get there.
It would be ideal if we can do that before we recess. Clearly, that is not the only way to get this done, but we do have to respect, as well, that the other countries, our friends, Mexico and Canada, have an interest in this, as well.
Canada has elections coming up. We don't want to have this jeopardized and become something that gets pushed behind their national elections. Ideally, we can get it done well in advance of their elections and respect the fact that they would like this done, as well, and the good will that is being created between our three countries.
So I am hopeful that we can get through these final issues, get a bill that we can bring to the floor, work together to pass, and then see the benefits in our economy, see an improved NAFTA, a bill that is better for American workers and opening up more access to markets in Canada and Mexico that right now are closed.
So I thank the gentleman for the encouragement, and I remain hopeful, as well, and would continue to encourage that we get this done as quickly as possible.
Finally, on the NDAA bill that we just finished, we had, of course, disagreement on a number of fronts in terms of the priorities of our military, but I would want to bring up one point, and that was the piece of legislation, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act by our colleague, Joe Wilson.
When you all took the majority, you created a new mechanism for Members to bring bills to the floor called the Consensus Calendar. This was the first bill that actually met that criteria, in fact, far exceeded the 290 signatures--he had 365 cosponsors, incredibly bipartisan--to address a real serious problem for spouses of men and women in uniform who died fighting for our country, to make sure that an inequity is corrected that we both agree needs to be fixed.
Here is a bill that can quickly get to the President's desk, and maybe it gets included in other pieces of legislation that might come months away, but here is a bill where a Member worked in good faith, under the rules that were created, and it was unfortunate that the rule to bring the NDAA bill to the floor turned off the Consenus Calendar specifically for that bill, that one bill which happened to be the first bill that met that requirement.
I would just ask if the gentleman could maybe look again at bringing that bill to the floor as a standalone bill in respect of the hard bipartisan work that Congressman Wilson made to address a serious problem for spouses, widows of our men and women who die in uniform.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear about what happened.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee made this a political bill by putting poison pills in the bill that undermined our national security. That is not a partisan issue.
And so if you go back to the funding levels--I yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I will absolutely be happy to specify what those are, but first of all, let's talk about funding levels.
It is not just about funding levels. If you have a funding level and then you put policy underneath it that limits our men and women in uniform's ability to train safely and to do their job safely and effectively, that is a poison pill approach.
It is a partisan approach. It should have never happened.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 58 years where Republicans and Democrats have worked alike together to pass a National Defense Authorization Act, not making it political, specifically in committee.
There is no Member of our Congress who works better with people on both sides of the aisle to support our men and women in uniform than Mac Thornberry. Mr. Thornberry worked overtime to try to heal this divide, to make sure a bill could come out of committee that was bipartisan, reflecting those 58 years.
In fact, the Senate did this, and I think the gentleman from Maryland knows this well. The Senate did not make it political. The Senate passed a bill with an 86-8 vote, with all the leadership of the Republican side and Democratic side voting together.
That was the approach we wanted to take, Mr. Speaker. If there was a better way, we should have done it together.
But the majority side went against even what Senate Democrats did and chose an approach, for example, that undermined our nuclear missile defense and that went against the AUMF agreement that, if your bill were to become law, would have made it harder for us to counter terrorism activities in the Middle East.
Why would we want to do that in legislation and hamstring our men and women in uniform? In fact, the bill that the majority just passed would undermine the gains we have made in enabling our men and women in uniform to train more safely.
Before we came up with the 2-year budget agreement that we got together, Republicans and Democrats, when we were in the majority, we were seeing our men and women in uniform die in training missions more than they were dying in combat. It was by a 5-to-1 margin that men and women in uniform were dying in training missions, planes falling out of the sky because they didn't have enough spare parts.
We finally started to address that. This bill undermines that, making our men and women in uniform less safe. That is not the approach we should be taking. If the gentleman wants to call that bipartisan, then go look at the fact that no Republicans voted for that bill and eight Democrats voted against it. It was a partisan approach. It was a bill that undermines our national security.
The Senate didn't do that. The Senate came together the right kind of way. It is the way we should have done it here.
If the gentleman wants to talk about the pay raise, let's be very clear and upfront about it. If we didn't even have this bill, our men and women in uniform get that pay raise. It is current law. It is like they are putting a provision in their bill saying the Sun is going to come up tomorrow, and then if it does, they take credit for it.
The pay raise was already going to happen, so they put it in the bill and say they gave the pay raise. It was already there. We got it into law when we were in the majority working with the Democrats. We didn't just say it was our way or the highway.
The NDAA bill, every year we were in the majority, was a bill that was worked on with Republicans and Democrats, and they didn't send it out of committee until they had complete agreement. That was an area where we didn't have political differences.
We are going to have political differences on minimum wage and some of these other issues, but we shouldn't have our men and women in uniform become part of the political divide in Washington. The Senate didn't do it. Our Members didn't do it and tried to work together.
If the chairman wanted to go his own way, that is not the approach we should be taking. It is not the approach we have taken for 58 years. It is not the approach that Senate Democrats took when they worked with Republicans to come up with a bill that put our men and women in uniform as a priority.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader can look at the bill and talk about what is in it. I will tell the gentleman that is already current law anyway. I will also tell him what the Senate did to make sure that they didn't have those poison pill provisions.
They shouldn't have been in the bill. Ultimately, they are not going to be in anything that becomes law. The gentleman knows it, and I know it.
What happened today shouldn't have happened. Maybe it is a lesson that when we get beyond this and we see what the final product is going to be, it will be a bill where we come together.
Ultimately, we will come together to make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools that they need to train safely and defend our Nation safely, but the bill that came out of the House today did not achieve that. It fell very short of where this House should have been in representing our men and women in uniform.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we continue this debate as the bill moves through the process, and we look at where the Senate started with a very large 86-8 vote, Republicans and Democrats working together and coming together, we can agree on funding levels. But if the underlying policy undermines the actual money that is being spent, undermines the mission, the ability for our men and women to train safely and defend our country safely, then the funding levels are not being spent properly.
It is about not just the money but how the money is being spent, the policies behind it that allow our men and women to train safely, to defend our country safely. That is an issue. We will continue debating that.
I would predict, in the end, a final product that goes to the President's desk is going to look a lot more like the Senate bill than the bill that came out of the House and, hopefully, addresses all of those problems that were identified earlier. We will continue that debate as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source