[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1439-H1440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA WORK IS A PENALTY RATHER THAN A PRIZE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the Contract With America proposes to put 
1.5 million welfare recipients to work by the year 2001.
  On its face, that proposal is appealing. Many of us support welfare 
reform.
  The current system does not encourage self-sufficiency and does not 
always work well.
  [[Page H1440]] Reform, however, does not mean change for the sake of 
change. Reform means change for the sake of improvement.
  Improvement in our welfare system is best accomplished by rewarding 
work--by making work a prize rather than a penalty.
  Work is a prize when a full-time worker can earn enough to pay for 
life's necessities. Work is a penalty when a person cannot earn enough 
to pay for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medical care, and 
other basic needs.
  That is why any discussion of welfare reform must also include a 
discussion of minimum wage reform.
  Under the Contract With America, work would be a penalty rather than 
a prize.
  The work slots proposed to be created by the Personal Responsibility 
Act would pay $2.42 an hour for a mother in a family of three.
  That hourly wage is almost $2.00 below the current minimum wage of 
$4.25. In Mississippi, pay under the Contract With America would equal 
just seventy-nine cents per hour.
  That is a penalty. That is not a prize.
  It is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of those who 
will be forced to work at below minimum wage earnings are women.
  It is also noteworthy that 6 out of 10 of all minimum wage workers 
are women.
  And, contrary to a popular misconception, most minimum wage earners 
are adults, not young people.
  In addition, many of the minimum wage workers are from rural 
communities. In fact, it is twice as likely that a minimum wage worker 
will be from a rural community than from an urban community.
  Most disturbingly, far too many minimum wage workers have families, 
spouses, and children who depend on them.
  That is disturbing, Mr. Speaker, because a full-time worker, heading 
a family of three--the typical size of an American family today--and 
earning a minimum wage, would fall below the poverty line by close to 
$2,500 dollars.
  In this country, a person can work, every day, full-time, and still 
be below the poverty level. Work, in that situation, is a penalty.
  A review of the history of the minimum wage is revealing. First 
implemented in 1938, with passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 
minimum wage covers 90 percent of all workers.
  Between 1950 and 1981, the minimum wage was raised 12 times. During 
the 1980's, however, while prices were rising by almost 50 percent, 
Congress did not raise the minimum wage.
  I spoke yesterday, Mr. Speaker, of the impact of a frozen minimum 
wage during the decade of the 1980's when income dropped and costs 
escalated.
  While the minimum wage stood at $3.34 an hour, the average cost of a 
domestic automobile increased from less than $9,000 to more than 
$16,000.
  The average cost of local transit went from thirty cents to seventy 
cents.
  While the poor got poorer and the minimum wage stood stagnant, the 
average per capita cost of health care more than doubled, from $1,064 
per person annually to $2,601.
  From 1980 to 1990, the average cost of a half gallon of milk went 
from ninety-six cents to a dollar and thirty-nine cents.
  The average retail cost of bread went from forty-six cents to seventy 
cents during this period.
  And, a dozen of eggs, which cost 85 cents in 1980, cost more than $1 
by 1990.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, while the bottom 20 percent of America lost 
income and got poorer, the minimum wage was frozen, and cost climbed.
  Low income workers are yet to recover from that period. They are 
still far behind the cost of living and further behind high income 
workers.
  Most importantly, raising wages does not mean losing jobs. Recent, 
comprehensive study dramatically demonstrates this conclusion.
  In my State of North Carolina, for example, a survey of employment 
practices after the 1991 minimum wage increase is instructive.
  That survey found that there was no significant drop in employment 
and no measurable increase in food prices.
  Indeed, the survey found, workers' wages actually increased by more 
than the required change. The State of Mississippi was also the subject 
of that study.
  When a person works, he or she feels good about themselves. The 
contribute to their communities, and they are in a position to help 
their families. Work gives a person an identity.
  Our policies, therefore, should encourage people to work. We 
discourage them from working when we force them to work at wages that 
leave them in poverty.
  When Congress has the opportunity to raise the minimum wage, let's 
make rewarding work and wage reform an essential part of welfare 
reform.
  Let's encourage people to work. And, let us insure that they can work 
at a livable wage.
  Mr. Speaker, we support a minimum wage that affords every American a 
livable wage.


                          ____________________