2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Considering Legislation Raising The Minimum Wage To $15 Per House In Seven Years. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for a motion to order the previous question on, according to Congressional Quarterly, "on the rule (H Res 414) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill (HR 3003) that would prohibit federal, state and local governments from restricting any federal, state, or local government entity or official from complying with immigration laws or from assisting federal law enforcement in its enforcement of such laws." According to the office of Nancy Pelosi, "the Democratic previous question would amend the rule to allow for consideration [sic] of H.R. 15, the Raise The Wage Act,, [sic] which would give workers the raise they deserve, and increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7 years." The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 235 to 190. [House Vote 331, 6/28/17; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/17; Democratic Leader, Accessed 3/27/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1343; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 240]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Increasing The Federal Minimum Wage To $10.10. In April 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "substitute amendment that would provide for $3.443 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. [...] It also would recommend raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour and assume repeal of the automatic spending cuts under the sequester." The vote was on the substitute amendment. The House rejected the substitute by a vote of 116 to 300. [House Vote 172, 4/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 96]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Raising The Federal Minimum Wage To $10.10 Within Two Years. In March 2013, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] incrementally increase[d] the federal minimum wage to $10.10 within two years of the bill's enactment." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill -- the proposed SKILLS Act, which would have reauthorized and overhauled 35 employment and job training programs into one funding stream for state and local use -- with instructions to report it back immediately with the prescribed amendment. In addition to raising the minimum wage, the amendment would have also clarified that nothing in the bill would repeal, deny or loosen employment protections, training opportunities or educational benefits for certain seniors, veterans, women or youth. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 233. [House Vote 74, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 803]
President Obama Called For The Minimum Wage To Be Increased To $9 An Hour In His 2013 State Of The Union Address. According to the Washington Post, "President Obama's call in his State of the Union address to bump the federal minimum wage up to $9 an hour has directed new attention to a politically divisive issue." [Washington Post, 2/13/13]
The AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, And Costco Supported Raising The Minimum Wage. According to the Washington Post, "Outside of Congress, organized labor groups support increasing the federal minimum wage. The AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union both applauded Obama for calling for a minimum wage increase. Some businesses, including the national retailer Costco, as the White House noted, have supported the idea." [Washington Post, 2/13/13]
The Economic Policy Institute Said Research Indicates That Raising The Minimum Wage Boosts Earnings Of The Lowest-Paid Workers And Does Not Cause Job Loss. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics' claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss." [Economic Policy Institute, 5/5/13]
The Economic Policy Institute Said Minimum Wage Increases Would Create Jobs And Increase Working Families' Spending. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power." [Economic Policy Institute, 5/5/13]
The Economic Policy Institute Said Increasing The Minimum Wage To $10.10 Would Result In A Net Increase In Economic Activity Of $32.6 Billion And Would Generate Approximately 140,000 New Jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Using standard fiscal multipliers to analyze the jobs impact of an increase in compensation of low-wage workers and decrease in corporate profits that result from a minimum-wage increase, we find that increasing the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 1, 2015, would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period and would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs." [Economic Policy Institute, 5/5/13]
Supporters Said The Amendment Would Give Tipped Workers A Raise For The First Time In 20 Years And Would Pump More Than $32 Billion Into The Economy. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "This amendment raises the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It indexes it to inflation, and gives tipped workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. For the first time in 20 years, they will get a shot at a raise and a decent wage for the work that they do in waiting on other people. [...] If we vote to raise the minimum wage, we pump more than $32 billion into the economy, money into working people's pockets, money into Main Street small businesses, money spent locally, money that generates demand, and demand that generates jobs." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
House Speaker John Boehner Opposed Raising The Minimum Wage, Arguing "When You Raise The Price Of Employment, You Get Less Of It." According to the Washington Post, "House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), [...] 'When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,' he said Wednesday. That neatly sums up the thrust of most of the declared opposition to raising the minimum wage from Republicans and business leaders --- namely, that it can hurt employers and job growth." [Washington Post, 2/13/13]
The Chamber Of Commerce Said "An Increase [In The Minimum Wage] Has To Be Shouldered By The Employer, Who May Have To Spread It Out Over Many Employees." According to the Washington Post, 'Any discussion about raising the minimum wage needs to recognize that small employers often have to operate under very slim profit margins,' said Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Randy Johnson. 'An increase has to be shouldered by the employer, who may have to spread it out over many employees. Too often that reality is left out of the discussion, as it was last night. We will look at the proposal, consult with our membership and react accordingly.'" [Washington Post, 2/13/13]
Senator Marco Rubio Said "I Don't Think A Minimum Wage Law Works." According to the Washington Post, "Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who gave the official GOP response to Obama's State of the Union, on Wednesday also rebutted Obama over the minimum wage. 'I don't think a minimum wage law works,' Rubio said." [Washington Post, 2/13/13]
Amendment Opponents Said It "May Hurt Workers And Job Creators And Increase Unemployment." According to the Congressional Record, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) said, "The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation's job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote 'no' on the motion and 'yes' on the underlying bill." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Bar Paying Any Federal Worker Less Than $10.10 An Hour. In July 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] bar[red] the use of funds in the [underlying FY 2015 financial services and general government appropriations] bill to pay an individual at an Office of Personnel Management service scale rate of less than $10.10 per hour." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 193 to 230. [House Vote 417, 7/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1083; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5016]
Amendment Opponent: It "Doesn't Say Anything About Raising Your Salary Or Lowering Your Salary. It Just Says You Can't Be Paid" If Your Annual Rate Is One Of The Barred Pay Grades. According to the Congressional Record, House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) said, "I don't quite understand what the gentleman is trying to do. As I read the amendment, it basically says you just can't pay Federal employees. If I am a Federal employee and somebody says you can't pay me this wage, I guess I can either come to work and not get paid or I can just decide that you decided not to pay me so I don't think I will come to work anymore. I don't know how many people are affected by this, but I have got to believe a lot of people would look at this and say: Gee, the gentleman from Florida says we are just not going to pay you. I guess on behalf of the Federal employees, I have to oppose that, because I think all Federal employees ought to be paid. I don't think we should pass legislation saying they can't be paid. [...] I just want to read this again. It says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an annual rate of grade 1, step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. So if you are grade 1, step 6, it says you can't be paid at that rate. It doesn't say anything about raising your salary or lowering your salary. It just says you can't be paid." [Congressional Record, 7/16/14]
Amendment's Sponsor: It "Simply Would Not Allow The Government To Pay Anyone Less Than $10.10 An Hour" By Replacing Lower Pay Grade Rates With Existing Higher Ones. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), the amendment's sponsor, said, "My amendment simply would not allow the government to pay anyone less than $10.10 an hour--still a very modest amount. According to CBO, it doesn't cost the government a single dime extra. It is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees. Paying Federal workers $10.10 an hour is still not enough, but at least it is a start. [...] I appreciate the creativity of my colleague from Florida's argument, but no one is suggesting Federal employees have to work for free. All this amendment does is simply eliminate the poverty rates set forth in the General Schedule and replaces them with the existing higher rates. All we are saying here is that grade 1, steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are below poverty level; grade 2, steps 1 and 2 are below poverty level. I don't see how this amendment could possibly lead to the scenario that the gentleman from Florida, the chairman, is describing. It simply would mean that these workers would no longer be paid poverty wages. They would be paid under the existing GSA schedule a proper day's pay for a proper day's work. Therefore, and given the fact that the AFGE, which is responsible for representing these workers, supports this amendment and rejects the nightmare scenario described by the gentleman from Florida, I would hope to have the gentleman from Florida's consent and support for this amendment." [Congressional Record, 7/16/14]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against The American Rescue Plan Of 2021, Which Would Gradually Increase The Federal Minimum Wage To $15 Per Hour By 2025, Including For Tipped Workers, Teenage Workers And Workers With Disabilities. In February 2021, Schweikert voted against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "incrementally increase the federal minimum wage annually to reach $15 per hour in 2025, including for tipped workers, teens and workers with disabilities." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219-212, sent to the Senate and President, and the Senate version ultimately became law. [House Vote 49, 2/27/21; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Raising The Minimum Wage To $15 Per Hour By 2025. In July 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase the federal minimum wage to $8.40 per hour on the first day of the third month after enactment and would incrementally increase it annually to reach $15 per hour six years after the effective date [...] The bill would also increase the minimum wage for tipped employees, teens, and individuals with disabilities, with incremental increases over five years until each of these rates reaches $15 per hour, at which point the separate minimum wages would be repealed." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 231-199. [House Vote 496, 7/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 582]
The Minimum Wage Had Not Been Increased Since 2009, The Longest Gap Since It Was Established In 1938. According to the New York Times, "The bill would more than double the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour --- about $15,000 a year for someone working 40 hours a week, or about $10,000 less than the federal poverty level for a family of four. It has not been raised since 2009, the longest time the country has gone without a minimum-wage increase since it was established 1938." [New York Times, 7/18/19]
CBO: A $15 Minimum Wage Would Cause The Number Of Americans Living In Poverty To Decrease, Though It Could Cost Up To 1.3 Million Jobs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "A Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, released this month, said that more than doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour could cost 1.3 million jobs when fully implemented by 2025, though millions would see higher wages and the number of Americans living in poverty would decrease." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/19]
EPI; A $15 Minimum Wage Would Increase The Annual Wage Of An Average Affected Worker By $2,800. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "such an increase in the federal wage floor would lift wages for 33.5 million workers across the country by 2025---more than one-fifth of the wage-earning workforce. The increase would boost total annual wages for these low-wage workers by $92.5 billion, lifting annual earnings for the average affected year-round worker by $2,800." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/17/19]
2019: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Exempt Small Businesses With Less Than 10 Employees Or Under $1 Million In Profits From Raising The Minimum Wage To $15 Per Hour. In July 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "recommit the bill to the House Education and Labor Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with an amendment that would exempt from the bill's requirements businesses that employ fewer than 10 individuals or that have an annual gross volume of sales and business of less than $1 million." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 210-218. [House Vote 495, 7/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 582]
The Minimum Wage Had Not Been Increased Since 2009, The Longest Gap Since It Was Established In 1938. According to the New York Times, "The bill would more than double the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour --- about $15,000 a year for someone working 40 hours a week, or about $10,000 less than the federal poverty level for a family of four. It has not been raised since 2009, the longest time the country has gone without a minimum-wage increase since it was established 1938." [New York Times, 7/18/19]
Some Democrats Worried That The New Bill Would Disproportionately Burden States Or Regions Where The Cost Of Living Is Lower. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Democrats felt the bill's original five-year time span would be too quick for some states or regions where the cost of living is lower. In those areas, the spending power of a dollar goes further for consumers, but income is lower for regional businesses that would have to pay employees the higher wage." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/19]
Progressive Democrats Threatened To Vote Against The Bill If Moderates Voted For The Motion To Recommit. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the Democratic-led effort was almost derailed by divisions between progressives and moderates. Progressives on Wednesday had issued a last-minute warning to moderate colleagues not to help Republicans make last-minute changes to the bill through the procedural maneuver known as a motion to recommit. If moderate Democrats helped the GOP add what the progressives considered poison pill language to the measure, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were prepared to vote against it." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/19]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring Each Defense Department Contract To Set The Minimum Wage For Any Work Performed On The Contract At $10.10 An Hour In 2015. In May 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to the Congressional Record, would have barred the Defense Department from "enter[ing] into any contract with any entity if such contract would violate Executive Order No. 13658 (relating to payment of the minimum wage by contractors)." According to the Federal Register, that executive order required that "[e]xecutive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that new contracts, contract-like instruments, and solicitations (collectively referred to as 'contracts'), [...] include a clause, which the contractor and any subcontractors shall incorporate into lower-tier subcontracts, specifying, as a condition of payment, that the minimum wage to be paid to workers, including workers whose wages are calculated pursuant to special certificates issued under 29 U.S.C. 214(c), in the performance of the contract or any subcontract thereunder, shall be at least: (i) $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015" and then adjusted for inflation each year thereafter. In addition to the minimum wage requirements, the proposed amendment to the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization bill would have required the Defense Secretary to ensure women serving in the military are not discriminated against in combat or other military service; and forbidden the Defense Department from contracting with companies that either do not provide equal pay for equal work or have outsourced U.S. jobs to another country. It would also have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Defense Department's inspector general to investigate interest and fees charged on student loans made to members of the armed forces. It also would bar air carriers from charging fees for baggage checked by members of the armed forces who are deploying, returning, or traveling on official military orders." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill with instructions to report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 194 to 227. [House Vote 239, 5/22/14; Congressional Record, 5/22/14; Executive Order 13658, as published in the Federal Register, 2/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4435]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Raising The Minimum Wage To $8.20 An Hour Through December 11, 2014. In September 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment to legislation funding the government through December 11, 2014, that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added "the text of a measure (HR 1010) that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $8.20 an hour, $9.15 an hour after one year, and $10.10 an hour after two years." The amendment "would [also have] extend[ed] the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank for 5 years, [] include[d] the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex, [and] allow[ed] student loan debt to be refinanced at rates available to current borrowers." The proposed amendment stated that the minimum wage, equal pay and student loan provisions would be effective only through December 11, 2014. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 124]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The Democratic Substitute FY 2015 Budget Resolution Which Repealed The Sequester, Assumed An Increase Of The Minimum Wage To $10.10 And The Passage Of The Gang Of Eight. In April 2014, Schweikert voted against the Democratic FY 2015 substitute budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution would "provide for $3.078 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. The plan would call for repealing the sequester, including cuts to Medicare. It also would propose eliminating the non-defense discretionary sequester starting in 2016. The substitute would assume an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and enactment of the Senate-passed immigration overhaul. It would propose extending expired unemployment benefits for one year and extending the tax credits from the 2012 extension of Bush-era income and other tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2017. It would assume implementation of the 2010 health care overhaul and assume increases in physician fees for primary care services under Medicaid. It would accommodate deficit-neutral legislation to permanently address the Medicare physician reimbursement rate issue known as the 'doc fix.' The plan would propose expanding tax incentives aimed at encouraging low- and middle-income taxpayers to attend college and save for retirement. It would call on Congress to raise revenue by ending tax breaks for special interests and the very wealthy." The vote was on the substitute amendment to the FY 2015 Ryan budget. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 163 to 261. [House Vote 176, 4/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/14; Congressional Record, 4/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 616; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]