Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize First United Methodist Church, which is celebrating its 200th year of ministry in Mount Clemens, Michigan.

In 1821, the church opened its doors to the community, then known as ``Mount Clemens Methodist Episcopal Church.'' Throughout its two hundred years, the church has built its reputation as a beloved community institution in Mount Clemens. Today, First United Methodist describes itself as ``a welcoming, accepting, caring, and diverse Christian community.'' The church celebrates this milestone year under the remarkable leadership of Reverend Dan Hart, Senior Pastor, and Reverend Alicea Williams, Deacon. Reverend Hart and Reverend Williams excel not only in leading engaging worship services, but also in building community programs, directing church outreach and caring for their beautiful congregation.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in offering congratulations to the entire First United Methodist Church community as they celebrate two hundred years of ministry and service in Mount Clemens.

Madam Speaker, this October, I am proud to celebrate Filipino American History Month, which acknowledges the vast contributions of Filipino Americans to our communities in Michigan and across the country. I am thrilled to join the residents of Macomb and Oakland Counties in highlighting the vibrancy of this community and celebrate Filipino Americans.

For generations, Filipino Americans in Michigan have influenced the culture and history of our state--engaging deeply in public institutions, our local economies and statewide cultural events. I am grateful for their emphasis on service and selfless commitment to their neighbors. Further, Filipino Americans have gifted Southeast Michigan with a rich culture and history that enhances the fabrics of our communities. I also recognize the vital contributions of the Filipino Americans in building spaces free of discrimination, prejudice and ignorance.

Additionally, I am honored to present the United States Pinoys 4 Good Governance (USP4GG) Michigan with special recognition for their efforts throughout the state. USP4GG has been instrumental in promoting Filipino culture and tradition in Michigan, helping all of us develop a better understanding of their history.

Madam Speaker, I urge Michiganders to follow the many ways USP4GG and our other Filipino neighbors are helping us celebrate the Filipino American History Month this year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and avid supporter of my district's vibrant Ukrainian-American community, with whom I join in proudly celebrating the 30th anniversary of Ukraine's independence.

Always, but on this day especially, it is vitally important that the United States maintains its robust support for Ukraine's security, territorial integrity, and democratic future. I will continue to advocate for this support in Congress as I did earlier this year when I partnered with the bipartisan chairs of the Ukraine Caucus to urge appropriators to allocate robust funding for Ukraine as they crafted our annual spending bill. This necessary funding will help support Ukraine's democratic progress, counter Russian aggression, fight corruption and more. I will continue to work closely with my Ukrainian- American neighbors in Michigan's Ninth District to tackle these issues and others impacting Ukraine as both a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as their representative in Washington.

It is truly an honor to celebrate this milestone in Ukraine's history with my Ukrainian-

American constituents. I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Ukrainian-Americans in Michigan's Ninth District and throughout the United States, as well as our friends in Ukraine, a joyous Independence Day.

Madam Speaker, throughout my adult life, wherever I went in Michigan, from Copper Harbor to Monroe, I would run into people who would say. `I don't always agree with Senator Levin, but I support him anyway because he is so genuine. he tells it straight and he follows through.'

Carl Levin personified integrity and the notion of putting the public good above self-interest. As he walked about the Capitol in a rumpled suit, almost always with a plain white shirt and pedestrian tie, carrying bulging files with the occasional paper flying away, Carl was the very picture of sober purpose and rectitude. In truth, he wasn't unfun. In fact, he often pierced tense situations with self-deprecating humor, and he privately shared incisive observations about others with staff and colleagues.

But Carl was all about the work, and the great honor the people of Michigan had bestowed upon him with their votes and their trust. He did not seek to divine their views to be popular, but rather to study the issues and advance the people's interest to the best of his ability. Uncle Carl met with more presidents, kings, queens and other important people than all but a few of us ever will. But he treated them all the same as he did a Detroit autoworker or a beet farmer in Michigan's Thumb--with a full measure of dignity but no airs, ever ready to puncture self-importance, posturing, mendacity and avarice.

He was so well-prepared for every meeting, hearing, and conference that he challenged conventional boundaries between Senator and staff. He was one of the most challenging Senators to work for and one of the most rewarding. Challenging, because you had better know your business in detail, since he surely did. Rewarding, because he had authentic relationships with staff, treated them with deep respect, and was loyal to them.

Uncle Carl was above all a family man. No matter the pressing business he faced as a Senator, he always centered Aunt Barbara, my cousins Kate, Laura and Erica and their families, devoted time to them and so obviously cherished them. And the way he loved and treated his family radiated out and served as a model for how he treated colleagues, staff, constituents, soldiers and the world.

From my earliest memory to this moment, perhaps above all, he has defined with my dad how close two brothers, two siblings, two people can be. In the end, these two Jewish boys from Detroit, these grandsons of immigrants each served 36 years in Congress, 32 of them together, becoming by far the longest co-serving siblings in the 232-year history of this place. As heartbroken as we are in this moment, I feel so grateful to have experienced this love and legacy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Eastpointe Fire and Rescue Department, which is celebrating its 100th year of service to the community of Eastpointe.

This Fire Department started from humble beginnings in 1921, when Eastpointe was known as the Village of Halfway. Local firemen used hand-pulled hose carts, a model T truck and pure grit to protect their small community. Over the decades, the Fire Department adapted to meet the needs of the city's growing population.

Firefighters banded together in 1946 to raise funds for the city's first ambulance, and in 1956, the city built the fire station, which continues to serve citizens of Eastpointe today. In recent decades the Fire and Rescue Department has made huge advances in prehospital care. Today, Eastpointe Fire and Rescue operates two advanced life support fire engines that bring state-of-the-art emergency medical services straight to the scene.

But one cannot recognize the Eastpointe Fire and Rescue Department without acknowledging the brave individuals who work every day to keep residents safe. Twenty-some paramedics and fire staff stand at the ready to serve the community of Eastpointe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am exceptionally proud to have the honor of recognizing them today and to mark this important centennial for the city of Eastpointe. Congratulations on one hundred years of service.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Slotkin for yielding and for organizing this Special Order in honor of our dear friend, Paul Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, I represent parts of Macomb and Oakland counties. And during my first term in Congress, Paul and I shared representation of Macomb. Paul represented the northern part; I represent the southern part. And while there were plenty of policies we disagreed on, there were a lot of things we connected on, too.

We wanted to bring better water infrastructure to Macomb. And, Paul, I am still working on it, and we are going to get there.

We talked about our shared history in the workforce world. Paul was a real leader in workforce policy through his company, and I used to run the State workforce system in Michigan. And he was a real leader and a thought leader in that area. And, Paul, I am trying to carry that on as best I can, too, as we look towards WIOA reauthorization.

And when we did spar over policy positions, it wasn't mean-spirited. In fact, it was really close to my ideal of what it means to serve in this body. It was real, honest debate, the kind I was happy to have and honored to have.

Paul and I now share one more connection, and it is one we didn't share. As a two-time cancer survivor, I know what it is like to get that diagnosis, and I know the stress and the pain that Paul and his family are facing. It is something I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I am devastated that they have to go through it.

I want Paul to know that Mary and I are thinking about you and praying for you as your treatment begins, and that I am here to lend an ear or even talk through this experience, the same way that you did for me when I was just coming to Congress. You were one of the most generous colleagues I knew.

Mr. Speaker, I was lucky to have a neighbor like Paul Mitchell, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate your remission, Paul, and joust happily once again over the issues of the day.

God bless you.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark 3 weeks since my constituent, Danny Fenster--pictured here--was captured and imprisoned by the Burmese military simply for doing his job as a journalist, 22 days spent on the phone and with my arms wrapped around his traumatized but determined family, upwards of 500 hours reading our community's outpouring of comments about Danny's dignity and his career of standing up for people around the world.

I have called on ambassadors all throughout the region. I have called on our own State Department to ask why, what is the justification for our Embassy not having access to our citizen? And they have no reason.

It is a violation of international law, and it is a violation of human rights.

The U.S. Embassy needs access to Danny while we keep fighting for his immediate and unconditional release and to protect the freedom of the press.

I will not stop fighting and our community will not stop fighting until we bring Danny home.

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here with Representative Bowman, with our colleague Jan Schakowsky, with Mr. Kahele, with all of our brothers and sisters in Congress to say that we can and we must, and we will do so much better right now for our working parents, our workers, our kids.

As we recover from the pandemic and Build Back Better, we can't forget about the people who make up what we call the care economy-- nursing home workers, home caregivers, childcare providers, and others who work every day to better the lives of other people.

Why is care work so important? The care economy has been central to my own life. I started my career helping nursing home workers organize with SEIU, but I think most parents can tell you about the importance of childcare in their own words.

Personally, I think back to the birth of my first son, Koby, and how so much of those early years were spent juggling schedules with my wife to raise our son. I would stay home with the baby during the day so Mary could teach in public school, and then she would rush home and tap in while I took law school classes in the afternoon and evening. Ultimately, we had three kids under 5 in the house and later four kids altogether. It was joyful and exhilarating, but it was challenging and there was just no way we could have done it alone.

Providing quality childcare to every family in this country means providing every parent the opportunity to cherish raising their child or their children without fear of losing their income, of losing their job, of losing their career. Right now, in Michigan a year's worth of childcare for an infant costs well over $10,000 on average. Who can afford that?

A record number of women have dropped out of the workforce during the pandemic. From August to September of last year alone, in one month, 865,000 women left the workforce. They didn't become unemployed. They left the workforce because of their responsibility for caregiving. And job gains in the recovery so far are disproportionately going to men.

In this crisis, we have an opportunity to Build Back Better and right this historic inequity. President Biden's American Families Plan and its investment in childcare won't just save families money by fully or partially covering their childcare costs. It will also create good- paying jobs that will go predominantly to women and people of color.

The poverty rate for early educators in my State of Michigan is 18.9 percent, much higher, almost double compared to the 10.8 percent rate for Michigan workers overall. Nearly half of U.S. childcare workers receive public income support. These statistics are totally unacceptable.

We need to take better care of the people taking care of our children and our seniors, and we can start by raising their wages to $15 an hour by 2025 with no subminimum wages. That would lead to higher quality care and allow workers to provide for their own families.

Let's remember, high quality childcare and preschool don't just benefit working parents and the workers involved. They benefit our kids most of all. The data on the return on investment of investing in early education in childcare is overwhelming in terms of these kids' whole lives, their academic accomplishment, their earnings later in life.

There is so much at stake. We can't afford to let childcare become a bargaining chip in the next round of negotiations. Strengthening families, creating jobs, and giving kids the support they need to thrive should be the centerpiece of our work, not an afterthought. I am thrilled that the President's plan recognizes that.

Our work in this space won't end once we get the American Families Plan signed into law. I believe we need to create a system of free universal childcare and that our caregivers deserve far better pay, benefits, training, and protection across the board. The American Families Plan is a great start and brings us closer to that goal. Let's get it done.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Bowman for his leadership in this.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Protecting the Right to Organize, or PRO, Act.

In 1987, I was arrested for standing on a public sidewalk.

My crime?

I was seeking to help hospital workers organize with SEIU. That was one of many experiences I had demonstrating how American elections for workers to form a union are more like political elections in a dictatorship than in a democracy.

The recent union election at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama shows just how stacked the deck is against workers. It shows the power wielded by companies large and small and the lengths they will go to keep owners and executives reaping the benefits of growing productivity, even at the expense of their workers' very dignity.

It shows the urgent need for change. The Senate must send the PRO Act to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh's independence, which is being celebrated on March 26, 2021.

On March 7, 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who is called ``Mujib'' and is also known as the ``Father of the Nation,'' delivered a speech calling for what was then known as East Pakistan to become an independent state. Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan on March 26, 1971, and since then, March 26th has been observed as a national holiday in Bangladesh. It is a day when people in Bangladesh as well as people around the world of Bangladeshi descent remember those who lost their lives in the brutal 1971 war for independence and celebrate Bangladesh's victory as a new independent nation.

The people of Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi diaspora, including Bangladeshi Americans in Michigan's 9th District, are observing the golden jubilee of the Independence Day and celebrating throughout the month of March. The 50th anniversary of Bangladesh's independence is deeply meaningful to those with connections to Bangladesh, there and abroad. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing those working to honor Bangladesh's history by holding special events around the world, and in congratulating the people of Bangladesh and all Bangladeshi Americans on this historic day.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for their support in bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Last month, the Burmese military, Tatmadaw, staged a coup and quashed Burma's fragile experiment with democracy.

Burma had struggled during that time to enfranchise its minority population, and to respect their human rights. The genocide of the Rohingya is perhaps the best known example, but it is far from the only one.

In fact, when Burma's November 8, 2020, elections resulted in the National League for Democracy winning an overwhelming victory and securing enough seats in Parliament to form the next government, it was notwithstanding the disenfranchisement of more than 1,500,000 voters, mostly from ethnic minority communities in Kachin, Karen, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, and Chin states.

The resolution before us today condemns the February 1st coup unequivocally and calls on the Tatmadaw to free all those they have detained arbitrarily and return members of the civilian government to power.

We are considering this resolution at a critical time. More than 2,100 people have been arrested, charged, or sentenced in relation to the coup. The military and police have been ordered to fire on protesters. More than 200 people have been killed in cold blood in these violent crackdowns.

On top of mobile data blackouts, there is now concern that the Tatmadaw could cut off WiFi as well, and even reports of fiber lines being cut, which would cut off access to the internet altogether.

Clearly, there is no time to waste. The junta's rule must end. But it will not be enough simply to return to the status quo ante. This resolution calls on President Biden and Secretary Blinken to encourage not just the return to power of the civilian government, but also, subsequently, constitutional reforms to address the undemocratic power reserved for the Tatmadaw in Parliament, and the disenfranchisement of Burma's ethnic minorities.

Democracy is something we must ever defend and nurture. That is why we who believe that all people are created equal and must be treated as such, whether here in America or anywhere else around the globe, must speak up, not only for full civilian control in Burma, but also for democracy, not for some, but for all.

And so this resolution makes clear that Congress stands with all of the people of Burma in their ambition for sustainable peace, a genuine democracy, and the realization of human rights for all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Chabot for authoring this resolution with me, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Bera, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member McCaul, and all of my colleagues who have cosponsored this important resolution, which I am proud to say, on a completely bipartisan basis, we passed through the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, later today we will debate the PRO Act, and we will pass the PRO Act to free up American workers to form unions and bargain collectively just because they darn well please without interference from their employer. And when we debate the PRO Act, Madam Speaker, we will get into all the details of the provisions of the PRO Act, which are really incredible, and I am very excited about that.

But right now, I want to talk about what a difference the PRO Act would make, why it would be a game changer for the working people of this country.

First of all, let's talk about productivity. American workers are incredibly productive. In the whole period during and after World War II when Americans were forming unions, thanks to the National Labor Relations Act, and up to a third of private-sector workers were in unions, wages and productivity rose in lockstep. You can't even separate them.

But then in the late seventies when we started deregulating airlines and deregulating trucking, and when Ronald Reagan became President and busted the air traffic controllers union, PATCO, and the union-busting business came up, and union membership started declining, productivity kept zooming up, but workers' compensation was totally flat. Since 1979, productivity has increased 70 percent, but compensation only 12 percent.

What about income inequality? We can go to the next one. For the last 100 years, income inequality has tracked union membership almost exactly. So if you take the share of income taken by the top 10 percent of the workforce, you can see that as union membership grew, income inequality fell.

Look at the difference the National Labor Relations Act itself made. In 1935, union membership shot up. The wages of the top 10 percent shot down as a share of everybody. We got more equal. We achieved the American Dream. And now with 1,000 cuts to union membership, when we are down to 6 percent of private-sector workers being in unions, there has been this incredible divergence, and the wealthy have taken all of the gains, and workers aren't in unions anymore.

And let's look at some specific stuff as we get the next slide up here. Let's start with benefits. Union members have more benefits and better benefits almost across the board. Here are just a couple of examples: 86 percent of union members have access to paid sick leave, as opposed to 72 percent of nonunion workers; and 94 percent of union members have access to healthcare benefits, compared to just two-thirds of nonunion workers.

And it is not on this slide, but more than half of union members have access to defined benefit pensions, real pensions, and only a small fraction of nonunion workers do.

Finally, let's look at wages in the next one. For all workers across the private sector, union members make about $1,150 a week more.

We are here debating, and finally we are passing, $1,400 for poor families one time. Union members earn $1,150 more every week through their own labor because they negotiated for it. That is $7,800 a year more.

And finally, if we look at the next slide--and Rick is doing an awesome job here; I appreciate you--it is especially important for women and workers of color. Look at this: This shows that across all categories of American workers, White, Black, and Latinx men and women workers make more. Women make $11,752 a year more if they are union members than if they are not. African-American workers make $10,088 a year more if they are union members. And Latinx workers make almost $14,000 a year more, $13,936.

Madam Speaker, any way you slice it, when we give workers the power to form unions at their workplace, they lift themselves up, they lift up their families, they lift up all the nonunion workers around them because the nonunion employers have to raise wages to keep up with the unionized workers, and they lift up our country.

Let's pass the PRO Act and rebuild the middle class of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for the bill from the AFL-CIO.

Legislative Alert

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to rebut many arguments, like the one we just heard. The requirement that the employer share lists of the employees during a union election is decades and decades old. It hasn't changed.

In any event, I am here to support the PRO Act with all of my heart. For decades, we have witnessed the loss of workers' rights, the decline of private-sector union membership, and the erosion of the American middle class. For 86 years, Congress has failed to pass any meaningful private-sector labor law reform to reverse these devastating trends.

The decline of union membership has resulted in an unequal economy where workers no longer receive a fair share of the profits they produce. But we can change that starting today.

The PRO Act protects workers' rights to unite and negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions. By passing the PRO Act, we empower workers to fight for the fruits of their labor and build an economy that works for all Americans.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the working people of this Nation and vote for the PRO Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, including my amendment to develop a system and procedures to conduct union elections electronically.

Last week, I was in Bessemer, Alabama, supporting workers fighting to form a union at an Amazon warehouse. Amazon, the company that got us all to stay home instead of going to a store in person, demanded an in- person election for 5,800 workers in the middle of a COVID hotspot, but the NLRB ordered a safer mail ballot election instead. Amazon circumvented that ruling and had a mailbox placed in the parking lot under a tent covered in antiunion propaganda, and urged employees to vote there.

This is why the PRO Act gives workers the right to choose the method of their own election, so they can vote away from such coercive environments.

Electronic union elections aren't new. The National Mediation Board has conducted secure electronic elections in the rail and airline industries for almost two decades without a single problem.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the PRO Act.

Madam Speaker, this amendment would strike the bill's provision that allows unions to collect a fair-share fee for services they are legally required to provide, and create, in its place, a national right-to-freeload scheme.

This is a blatant attempt to undermine unions by making it harder to collect reasonable fees for the services they are required by law to perform equally for union members and nonmembers alike.

Let us understand where so-called right-to-work laws come from. They have nothing to do with a right to a job. Their history is rooted in Jim Crow-era laws designed specifically to prevent White and Black workers from organizing together in the same union.

Last week, I was in Alabama, supporting an overwhelmingly Black group of workers in their effort to form a union. I saw how difficult this was in a so-called right-to-work State. These laws are vestiges of a racist past, and it is time we reject them.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman giving me some time.

Madam Speaker, this amendment seeks to hinder workers' First Amendment right to assemble peacefully to better their workplace situation.

No worker wants to go on strike. No worker wants to forgo a paycheck so they can walk a picket line, often in the frigid cold of winter or in the burning sun in the summer. Workers strike because they are left with no other option.

The right to withhold labor is a core right, supposedly protected in our labor law, and the PRO Act would restore that fundamental right because, in practice, it has been gutted.

I actually agree with the gentleman that what we need is to restore the balance that the National Labor Relations Act sought to create when it was passed in 1935.

The things we are changing aren't the National Labor Relations Act that was passed. It is not that balance. It is the ways that employees' freedom to withhold their labor has been gutted in the interim by State and Federal courts and by this body.

We need to restore workers' freedom to withhold their labor in order to improve their situation. That is all this bill does. Let's get back to that balance.

Madam Speaker, this amendment is truly amazing to me as a longtime union organizer. It seeks to undermine the freedom of contract, the ability of employers and unions to agree on how to handle a situation freely together.

The shock of giving the employees' addresses and other contact information: That is required in every NLRB election, and it has been since the Excelsior Underwear case many decades ago.

The shock of letting the workers have access to hearing from the union on company time: The current law is that employers can force employees, on company time, to listen to antiunion propaganda the entire time. If you refuse to go, you could be fired. But if an organizer tries to step on the premises of the employer, they could be arrested.

I have been arrested for trying to talk to workers. It was on a public sidewalk, but the police said we were too close. Anyway, that was thrown out, as it should have been. We were exercising our First Amendment rights.

In any event, this amendment is truly astounding in a capitalist society. We need to let parties be free, and I urge rejection of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman so much for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, at base, what we are talking about here is whether workers in this country are free to come together and form a union. All of these amendments are designed to undermine that right.

Let's get back to the basic concept of a free market for workers, where they, prounion or antiunion, can decide amongst themselves whether they want to form a union or not, and not have the person in the world who has the most power over them, their boss, who decides their wages and their hours, to pressure them, to force them to listen to things, to subject them to propaganda.

The PRO Act simply creates freedom for workers to form unions, at long last, so that the workers who want to form a union can do so freely.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want to know that government officials don't have conflicts of interest swaying their decisions.

For example, did they fundraise from an industry that they will regulate? Might they take it easy on that industry as a result?

H.R. 1 requires high-level officials to disclose if they have solicited or made political contributions to PACs, political nonprofits, or industry trade associations. I thank Congressman Deutch for authoring this provision.

My amendment expands this piece to cover chiefs of mission to ensure that officials representing our country abroad, such as ambassadors, are free from conflicts of interest, too. We should feel confident that people entrusted to represent the United States are there not because of political donations, but because they are the best person for the job.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the en bloc, and H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Leger Fernandez.

Let me start by saying what an honor it is to serve with you, and I think this is our first action on the floor. I am really glad you are here, and I appreciate your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because too many workers across the country have not received a raise in far too long. They include the frontline and essential workers who have kept our economy going during the worst public health crisis in nearly a century. These workers deserve better pay. That is why we must raise the minimum wage, step- by-step to $15 an hour by 2025, and we have to start doing it right now.

The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for over a decade. This is the longest stretch of time that we have not raised the minimum wage since it was first introduced in 1938.

Mr. Speaker, $7.25 is far too low. That is not an adequate wage for anyone, regardless of age or occupation. It is a poverty wage which prevents workers from realizing the American Dream. By gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, 27 million low-wage workers will get a raise--27 million people. We will lift nearly a million people out of poverty, including a lot of kids. And we will put an extra $333 billion in the pockets of poor and working-class Americans and their families over the next decade.

This money will be a lifeline for the working men and women of this country. It will go towards food. It will go towards rent. It will go towards shoes, other basic necessities, and that will stimulate local economies from coast to coast.

Some detractors say this policy will hurt the economy, and that it is too much too fast. But that is just plain wrong. This proposal raises the minimum wage responsibly over a period of 5 years. Its effective date is 3 months after the bill's enactment, giving employers adequate time to adjust even before the initial increase.

Mr. Speaker, 20 States just raised their minimum wage, going into this year, 2021. And a total of 30 States--red and blue--now have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage. That includes my home State of Michigan, which raised its minimum wage in 2018 and currently has a minimum wage of $9.65. So the first increase under this bill won't even raise wages in Michigan. It is very gradual.

We have not seen the catastrophic predictions of job losses and higher prices on goods come to pass in States that have raised their minimum wage. Representative Leger Fernandez just talked about Santa Fe and her county and her State, but we have a lot of studies showing this to be true from coast to coast.

Indeed, workers have got more pay to buy groceries, to pay for prescription drugs, to shop on their local Main Streets. It is time to make this happen for families in every part of the country.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a commonsense policy that every Member should support. It is the right thing to do morally and practically for the economy, and I am glad that President Biden included it as part of his American Rescue Plan.

Now, let me talk about how the American people feel about this. If Congressional Republicans want to oppose this, they are really out of sync with many of their own voters.

According to a recent poll from Data for Progress, 66 percent of voters support increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. In addition, 57 percent of voters support using nonstandard Senate procedures, like the budget reconciliation, to pass this minimum wage increase.

Mr. Speaker, 20 States just raised their minimum wage, as I said, in the last year, but let's focus on Florida.

In November of 2020, Florida voted for Donald Trump--I am not positive of my data here. I think it was by 50.5 percent to 48 percent, I think President Trump won Florida. Well, guess what? A $15-an-hour minimum wage clocked Donald Trump. The same Republican voters and Democratic voters and Independent voters all across Florida who voted for Donald Trump by a slight margin, voted for a $15-an-hour State-wide minimum wage by 61 to 39 percent. It was overwhelming.

In the midst of a pandemic that has killed 500,000 Americans and an economic crisis that has the worst food lines in unemployment since the Great Depression, corporations have been raking in billions while workers are earning poverty wages and they are forced to live off food stamps. That is why so many Americans support this.

Now, what about the argument that $15 an hour is too high?

By 2025, $15 an hour will be the equivalent of $13.62 in 2020 dollars. So it won't even be as high as it appears now, but it will be the minimum amount that a single adult working full time will need to earn a living and to cover core basic living expenses.

Now, check this out: Even in the area with the lowest cost of living in these United States, Beckley, West Virginia, in 2025, a two-parent, two-child household, in which both parents earn $15 an hour and pay taxes, will be $360 short each month to cover basic living expenses. The lowest-cost place in the country, $15 an hour in 2025 won't fully cover basic living expenses.

Furthermore, if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, with the increased productivity we create by working, since 1968--so productivity gains from 1968 to today--if the minimum wage had increased at the same

rate, it would be over $20 an hour today. And we are proposing just $15 an hour.

So, Representative Leger Fernandez, I am so grateful for you bringing me into this conversation. I feel like this is a question of basic decency, of basic dignity, of the value of work in this country. Every person who gets up and goes to work should be able to provide for their family. And every person, just as you said, should have one job, and that should be enough. One job should be enough. And by the way, that includes everybody.

One of the great things about what we are doing is, we are getting rid of subminimum wages across the board. No subminimums for tip workers, who are overwhelmingly women and workers of color, no subminimum wages for workers with a disability.

We have an opportunity here to bring so many people out of poverty, to give a raise to 27 million people. It is time to do this. We have got to pass it. The Senate has got to pass it. We have a President named Joseph R. Biden, who is ready to sign it. Let's go.

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, the gentlewoman is so right that it is a floor. One of these arguments that we hear is, ``We don't want one-size-fits-all,'' right?

Well, first of all, as a labor lawyer, the minimum wage has been one national wage the whole time since 1938. It is simply a floor of decency.

And guess what? You already explained how in 2025, it is not very likely that the minimum wage in Santa Fe, New Mexico, will be $15 an hour. Because in Santa Fe and San Francisco and Los Angeles and New York and Denver--and whatever--places all around this country--the odds are overwhelming that they will have to raise their minimum wage beyond that.

It is a floor of decency. Let's go. Don't you think? Let's go.