I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7374 

To provide consequences to States that reduce their State minimum wage 

and to redirects Federal funding to those States to the neediest localities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2018 

Ms. JONES of Michigan (for herself and Mrs. LAWRENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide consequences to States that reduce their State 

minimum wage and to redirects Federal funding to those 

States to the neediest localities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Minimum Wage Fair5 ness Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7374 IH

1 (1) The Federal minimum wage peaked 50 

2 years ago in 1968 at $8.68 in 2016 dollars. Since 

3 that time, Americans have watched their wages re4 main stagnant despite massive increases in produc5 tivity, which has fueled an economically unfair and 

6 unjust trend for the Nation. The growing income in7 equality has been a destabilizing force on the com8 munities of the Nation, the economy, and the Na9 tion’s very democracy. 

10 (2) The Federal minimum wage does not only 

11 affect the young and inexperienced worker. More 

12 than half of all minimum wage workers are over the 

13 age of 24. 

14 (3) Nearly 60 percent of States have raised 

15 their minimum wage above the Federal minimum 

16 wage, and in nearly 25 percent of States the wage 

17 is adjusted yearly for inflation. 

18 (4) Opponents of minimum wage increases rou19 tinely use dire predictions about job losses and the 

20 failure of businesses in locations that raise the min21 imum wage. These predictions have proven almost 

22 entirely untrue. Locations that raise the minimum 

23 wage largely reap the benefits of a stronger tax base 

24 and increased consumer demand. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7374 IH

1 (5) Those opposed to minimum wage increases 

2 frequently use more than misleading campaigns, and 

3 in some cases have interfered with democracy to en4 sure that the will of citizens is frustrated. 

5 (6) Americans deserve a raise and the voters 

6 and constituents who support minimum wage in7 creases should not be frustrated by anti-democratic 

8 special interests who have captured the legislative, 

9 executive, and regulatory apparatus of States and lo10 calities. 

11 SEC. 3. SAFEGUARDS FOR WORKERS IN STATES THAT RE12 DUCE THE MINIMUM WAGE. 

13 (a) REVIEW OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS.—The Sec14 retary of Labor shall, within 30 days of the each fiscal 

15 year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, 

16 identify any State that has, within the previous fiscal year 

17 that began after the date of enactment of this Act, reduced 

18 its State minimum wage, or which has reduced a minimum 

19 wage increase that would otherwise go into effect. 

20 (b) COMMUNICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE REDUC21 TION.—The Secretary of Labor shall inform all other Fed22 eral agencies responsible for allocating Federal funds to 

23 a State for its direct use or for the State to distribute 

24 within its boundaries, of any State that has reduced its 

25 State minimum wage. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 7374 IH

1 (c) REVIEW OF INDIRECT COSTS.—Any head of an 

2 agency notified that a State has reduced its State min3 imum wage shall review all funds under programs admin4 istered by the head of such agency that would otherwise 

5 be allocated to a State under Federal law. Such agency 

6 head shall then review any funds allocated to that State 

7 specifically designated as for use for the State’s adminis8 trative costs of any such program. Where such administra9 tive costs are not specifically designated, the agency head 

10 shall— 

11 (1) determine the amount of such Federal 

12 funds used by the State to administer any such pro13 gram; and 

14 (2) presume in the absence of a contrary show15 ing, that a similar amount or percentage will be allo16 cated by the State in the next fiscal year. 

17 (d) REDUCTION IN INDIRECT COSTS.—Upon deter18 mining the percentage of Federal funding under a given 

19 program provided to a State that is used for administra20 tive costs, the head of each agency shall restrict the use 

21 of funds by the State for administrative costs, overhead, 

22 and salaries for the following year. Such a restriction shall 

23 reduce the amount the State may spend on administrative 

24 costs by a percentage equivalent to the State’s reduction 

25 in its State minimum wage. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 7374 IH

1 (e) EXCEPTIONS.—Where the head of an agency has 

2 determined that a reduction in program funding for ad3 ministrative costs to a State shall constitute a threat to 

4 the public health, safety, and welfare of the people of the 

5 State, then the head of such agency may withhold from 

6 the State for administrative costs a lesser amount than 

7 that equivalent to the percentage of the State’s minimum 

8 wage reduction. 

9 (f) REDIRECTION OF FUNDS.—Where possible, the 

10 head of each such agency shall direct any funds withheld 

11 from a State under this Act to a municipality located in 

12 that State where the municipality is an eligible recipient 

13 of the funding program in question, and where the munici14 pality would be otherwise eligible to use such funds for 

15 administrative costs. Where no such municipality is eligi16 ble to directly receive such funds, such funds shall be 

17 available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop18 ment for use only for grants under title I of the Housing 

19 and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

20 5301 et seq.) for metropolitan cities and urban counties 

21 in such State that were eligible to receive grants under 

22 such title in the most recent fiscal year for which such 

23 grants were made. The amount of the funds allocated pur24 suant to this subsection for each such metropolitan city 

25 or urban county in the State shall bear the same ratio 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 7374 IH

1 to the total amount of funds for the State allocated under 

2 this subsection as the amount of funds awarded to such 

3 city or county under section 106 of such Act for such most 

4 recent fiscal year bears to the total amount of funds 

5 awarded to all metropolitan cities and urban counties in 

6 such State under such section 106 for such most recent 

7 fiscal year. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS