    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           H.R. 4869, RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 4869

           TO PROVIDE FOR RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS

                                   __________

                                  MAY 12, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-108

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
      63-145 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
        Columbia                         AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    JUDY CHU, California

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 12, 2010.....................................     1
    Text of H.R. 4869................................................     3
    Statement of:
        Clarke, Hon. Yvette, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York..........................................    16
        Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Tennessee.........................................    17
        Peck, Robert A., Public Building Service, U.S. General
          Services Administration; Kathryn H. Anthony, professor,
          School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-
          Champaign; and Sharon Pratt, former Mayor, Washington, DC..    28
            Anthony, Kathryn H.......................................    37
            Peck, Robert A...........................................    28
            Pratt, Sharon............................................    43
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Anthony, Kathryn H., professor, School of Architecture,
          University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, prepared
          statement of...............................................    39
        Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Tennessee, prepared statement of..................    20
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, prepared statement of...............    13
        Peck, Robert A., Public Building Service, U.S. General
          Services Administration, prepared statement of.............    31
        Pratt, Sharon, former Mayor, Washington, DC, prepared
          statement of...............................................    44
        Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York, prepared statement of...................     7

           H.R. 4869, RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010

                              House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Towns, Maloney, Cummings, Watson,
    Kaptur, Norton, Cuellar, Speier, and Issa.
        Staff present: Adam Hodge, deputy press secretary; Carla
    Hultberg, chief clerk; Marc Johnson and Ophelia Rivas,
    assistant clerks; Mike McCarthy, deputy staff director; Jenny
    Rosenberg, director of communications; Joanne Royce, senior
    investigative counsel; Gerri Willis, special assistant; Alex
    Wolf, professional staff member; Lawrence Brady, minority staff
    director; John Cuaderes, minority deputy staff director; Rob
    Borden, minority general counsel; Frederick Hill, minority
    director of communications; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk
    and Member liaison; Kurt Bardella, minority press secretary;
    Stephanie Genco, minority press secretary and communication
    liaison; Seamus Kraft, minority deputy press secretary; and
    Mark Marin, minority professional staff member.
        Chairman Towns. The committee will come to order. Good
    morning and thank you all for being here.
        Today's hearing will address the issue of equal access to
    restroom facilities. This is not a minor issue. I am certain
    that every woman in this room has frequently experienced the
    inconvenience as well as the discomfort caused by an
    insufficient number of women's restroom facilities. Women are
    often forced to wait in long lines to use public restrooms or
    walk further to find a restroom, while men rarely have the same
    problem.
        The lack of restroom facilities for women has a number of
    causes. Many public buildings, including universities,
    airports, theaters, offices, and factories were built decades
    ago before women entered the work force in large numbers.
    Moreover, these buildings were designed and built at a time
    when contractors, architects, engineers, builders, and
    government procurement officials were overwhelmingly male and
    rarely considered the needs of women.
        To be honest about it, while women have made a lot of
    progress, those professions are still dominated by men, and old
    habits die hard. Public restroom facilities for women have
    still not caught up to those for men.
        Throughout history, public restrooms have been the site of
    institutional discrimination by race, physical ability, and
    gender. With laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the
    Americans with Disabilities Act, we have made great strides in
    dealing with ace and disability discrimination. However, we
    have not done as well with gender discrimination. Today, women
    still lack equal access to restrooms in many places of
    employment, education, and recreation.
        The fact that many Federal buildings do not provide as many
    restroom facilities for women as they do for men is simply
    unfair. It is time for that to change.
        Within the last couple of decades, public appreciation of
    gender parity issues has gradually resulted in improvements in
    restroom gender parity. As of 2006, at least 21 States had
    adopted statutes addressing restroom gender parity. That is
    good, but we need to take the next step. That is why I
    introduced H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Act, with my
    colleague, Congressman Issa, from the great State of
    California.
        [The text of H.R. 4869 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. The bill requires that all new Federal
    buildings, as well as major renovations of existing Federal
    buildings, have at least an equal number of restroom facilities
    for men and women. The passage of this bill would be a
    milestone on the path toward true gender parity.
        I am proud to say that I introduced the bill with the
    support of the ranking member, Mr. Issa, who was an original
    cosponsor, and several other members of this committee. H.R.
    4869 will ensure that, from now on, Federal buildings will be
    constructed with equal access to restroom facilities regardless
    of gender.
        This hearing is the next step toward enacting this
    important legislation. I look forward to hearing the testimony
    of today's witnesses.
        I will now yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the
    gentleman from California, Congressman Darrell Issa, for his
    opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much
    for your leadership on this important issue.
        As people seldom realize in Congress, in order to move a
    piece of legislation, we hold hearings. In order to understand
    the final and best form of that legislation, we hold hearings.
    I think this is no exception. Your leadership by drafting a
    piece of legislation that attempts to create equal access is
    not only laudable but it is essential. As we view the
    legislation and with your leadership I hope that we can gain
    the most important part of the intent of this legislation, that
    is, that we get a one-to-one ratio in access.
        In preparation for this hearing, I have reviewed a number
    of documents and discovered, for example, the Department of
    Defense facilities, those that are coed, require not one to
    one, because there is only about 17 percent women today in the
    military versus 83 percent for men. So the ratio there would be
    different. But I believe your leadership is essential, because
    that ratio is changing. So to find equal access there will be a
    different and ever-changing requirement. There is no need to
    build equal amounts of men's and women's rooms in the Pentagon
    today, but that is changing. We need to plan. We need to ensure
    that the architects designing new facilities design them based
    on the assumption that someday there will be roughly the same
    amount of men and women, potentially, or even, in some cases,
    more women than men.
        Additionally, through your leadership on this issue, we
    have been reminded that the same number of facilities is not
    the same number of access. As Members of Congress were
    periodically invited to the Kennedy Center, Kennedy Center
    events typically tend to be equal men and equal women. Anyone
    who has ever been to a black tie event held at the Kennedy
    Center is well aware that there is a line at the men's room,
    but it pales in comparison to the one that wraps halfway around
    the building at the ladies' rooms. The Kennedy Center enjoys
    equal number of facilities for men and women. Equal in this
    case is not equal access.
        So I join with the chairman in his leadership in
    recognizing that, by the time this bill becomes law, it has to
    create a mandate for equal access, for flexibility in design,
    so that the buildings of tomorrow and retrofitted buildings of
    today recognize that a longer line for one and a shorter line
    for the other, no matter which way it works, is inappropriate
    in our design.
        Federal buildings should lead in that endeavor. The GSA and
    other organizations responsible need to begin upon this notice
    and hopefully begin in earnest, upon enactment, to realize that
    we want architectural plans to be a model for the rest of the
    world in providing one-to-one ratio of access based on not only
    what the ratios are today but planning for ratios that may
    change over time.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for your
    leadership. This is an area in which this committee is taking a
    leadership position that I believe no other committee has even
    begun to look at in our oversight over Federal facilities, and
    the Federal work force makes us ideally suited to shepherd this
    legislation. I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
        Chairman Towns. I thank the gentleman from California for
    his very kind statement.
        I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington,
    DC, Congresswoman Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing, but it
    really says something that we have to hold a hearing on what
    really should be an administrative matter.
        My friends on the other side of the aisle and us over here
    have a lot to disagree about, but I hope that gender parity
    when it comes to men and women who equally have to go to the
    bathroom is not one of them. The reason this has become an
    issue, of course, has been precisely been because some
    facilities were designed as if there were only men in the
    world, much less men who had to attend to their needs.
        My friend, the ranking member, who mentions that the line
    is longer for women, you will notice that we said it should
    equal or exceed. But the reason I could perhaps inform him in a
    way that he could not be expected to know in part is that women
    spend longer in there. They are not always just attending to
    their wants, sir. We go and we have to attend to our looks as
    well. So you will see some people standing in line that don't
    have to go to the bathroom at all when they want to see how
    they look. All we want to make sure is that those who do want
    to attend to their needs are able to do so equally with men who
    have the same needs, and the last time I heard men and women
    really do have the same needs in this one sphere.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much.
        I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
    Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I
    thank you all for holding this hearing. I think it is a very
    important hearing.
        We have seen the lines at sporting events, airports,
    museums. Women are usually standing in extraordinary lines
    waiting to use the restroom. It is a phenomenon that we have
    come to accept, that there will always be a wait for the
    women's facilities.
        This type of gender discrimination should not exist in a
    time when we have a female Secretary of State, female Speaker
    of the House, two female Associate Justices and one on the way.
    It escapes me as to why women were treated as second-class
    citizens.
        Restrooms are among the few remaining segregated spaces in
    the American landscape, and they remain among the more tangible
    relics of gender discrimination. It often goes unnoticed and is
    considered normal, natural, or acceptable. Buildings have not
    kept pace with the changing demographics of the past half
    century when more women than ever have entered the workplace
    than ever before.
        However, as Members of Congress, we need not look far to
    see this discrimination. Just across the street at the Capitol
    building was an example of restroom gender inequality.
    According to the Journal of Planning literature, female Members
    of the U.S. House of Representatives would have to walk down a
    long hallway, turn left, then turn right into a small,
    windowless bathroom with only three stalls. By contrast, men
    walked only a few feet away from the House floor. Since then,
    ladies' restrooms have been added to the first floor of the
    House and, most recently, in 2000, had three additional stalls
    added; and, according to Ms. Norton, that is definitely not
    enough.
        In the early 1990's, in the Senate, Nancy Kassenbaum and my
    colleague from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, were not allowed to
    use the Senators-only restroom, which was, in fact, a male-only
    restroom. They had to trek downstairs and stand in long lines
    with the tourists. Senate majority leader George Mitchell
    announced that he was having women's restrooms installed just
    outside the Senate chamber to accommodate the growing number of
    female Senators.
        And then, in the 110th Congress, Mr. Chairman, I joined you
    all in cosponsoring the Restroom Gender Parity Act for Federal
    Buildings; and I join you again and do so gladly.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I submit the rest of my statement
    for the record; and, with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. I would like to thank the gentleman from
    Maryland for his statement; and, of course, now we will turn to
    our first panel of witnesses: U.S. Representative Steve Cohen
    from the State of Tennessee, the 9th District; and U.S.
    Representative Yvette Clarke, the 11th District of New York.
        Now it is committee policy that all witnesses are sworn in,
    and so will you please stand and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Towns. You may be seated. Let the record reflect
    that both witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Let me begin by saying I ask the witnesses to summarize
    their testimony in 5 minutes.
        You know the rules about the lights. I don't have to
    explain that to you. You're very familiar with them. In fact,
    you turn them on and off. The yellow light means you have a
    minute left; and the red light means stop, of course. And then,
    of course, we will have time to ask questions.
        So why don't I start with you first, Representative Clarke;
    and then we'll go to Congressman Cohen. Congresswoman Yvette
    Clarke, Brooklyn, New York.

     STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Chairman Towns, Ranking
    Member Issa, for inviting me to speak before the committee this
    morning.
        I am here in support of H.R. 4969, the Restroom Gender
    Parity in Federal Buildings Act. This bill, which was
    introduced by Chairman Towns, with Ranking Member Issa,
    Representative Visclosky, and myself as original cosponsors,
    requires the Federal acquisition regulation be revised to
    require the number of toilets in women's restrooms equal or
    exceed the number of toilets and urinals in men's restrooms in
    all future Federal buildings or in major renovations of
    existing Federal buildings. Once passed, this legislation will
    align the Federal Government with the restroom gender parity
    laws that are already on the books of several States and
    municipalities, including Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania,
    California, and New York.
        As a former New York city councilwoman, I introduced the
    women's restroom equity bill, which created a two-to-one ratio
    of women's restrooms to men's restrooms. My bill became city
    law in 2005. Previously, New York City had required a one-to-
    one ratio for women's restrooms to men's restrooms.
        Restroom parity refers to equity of access to public
    restrooms by all users. Though the issue of inadequate
    accommodations may seem trivial to some, restroom gender parity
    is an issue that impacts a women's health as well as her
    quality of life. Research underscores the potential health
    implications for women waiting in long restroom lines. These
    include abdominal pain, increased risk of cystitis, urinary
    tract infections, bladder infections, all of which can cause
    renal damage if not adequately treated. Pregnant women and
    older women suffering from incontinence are particularly
    impacted due to their need to visit the facilities more
    frequently than others. To avoid using inadequate restroom
    facilities, we women oftentimes forgo eating or drinking and
    will often ``hold it'', which poses problems. Inadequate
    restrooms are more likely to affect women because they often
    have small children, may be breast feeding, have feminine
    hygiene needs, and usually have to wait in a long line.
        According to Sarah A. Moore's 2002 law review article,
    Facility Hostility? Sex Discrimination and Women's Restrooms in
    the Workplace, gender discrimination in restrooms can be found
    where restrooms are unequal between men and women, when they
    are inadequate for women's needs or are missing completely.
    Moore's article aptly pointed out that unequal women's
    restrooms may be found in many professional places of
    employment, including our Nation's Capitol. A Congresswoman in
    the U.S. Capitol must plan her trips to the restroom properly
    or she may miss a vote, and I can attest to that.
        Public restrooms have historically manifested many forms of
    discrimination. For example, restrooms used to be racially
    segregated and inaccessible to the disabled. Restrooms in
    airports where wealthier travelers go are much nicer than in
    bus stations. Gender discrimination is yet another form of
    restroom inequity.
        According to a recent GAO report, most Federal Government
    buildings were constructed, on average, over 46 years ago. At
    that time, women were not in the work force in the large
    numbers that they are today. More importantly, issues of gender
    equality were a nonissue when many of the Federal Government
    buildings were designed and built, primarily because women were
    not empowered to the extent that they are now.
        That was then. This is now. Now is the time to correct the
    oversights of yesterday by addressing the restroom gender
    parity issue. I ask that my colleagues on this committee join
    me on improving the health and lives of women by supporting the
    passage of H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Parity in Federal
    Buildings Act.
        Chairman Towns, you are to be commended for acknowledging
    this inequity that has existed in our civil society for far too
    long. Let me thank you for your courage of conviction in
    bringing this longstanding issue to light and moving closer to
    addressing this inequity for women and their families, and I
    yield back the remainder of my time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much. Let me thank you for
    your statement and also thank you for the work that you've done
    on this issue; and, of course, we look forward to continuing to
    work with you on it.
        I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Cohen.

      STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE COHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, and members of the
    committee, I thank you for allowing me to testify on this
    important legislation. It is also an honor to sit next to
    Congresswoman Clarke, who is a Member of the great class of
    2006 and has worked on this issue in New York, and to testify
    on the presence of the photograph of the great Chairman John
    Conyers. As author of the Tennessee Women's Restroom Equity
    Act, I am pleased to address this issue here in Congress; and I
    am pleased it is being addressed.
        The Council of State Governments has a model act passed in
    the 1990's on this issue, and so that is available. And the
    Council of State Governments saw this as an issue that all 50
    States should be made aware of at least 15 years ago.
        About half the States have passed some sort of restroom
    parity law by now as well as Mr. Powell, and the Federal
    Government needs to catch up, normally a world leader. But, in
    this case, Brandeis' opportunities for the States to be
    laboratories of democracy have also been laboratories for the
    Federal Government to learn, not just the other States.
        Mr. Chairman, a lot of times, people, when I dealt with
    this bill many years ago, called it ``potty parity.'' They made
    jokes. But the fact is it is not a joke. Not only is it not a
    joke to women, it is not a joke for men who go with women and
    have to wait while they are standing in line.
        But it is also politically very popular. It's the right
    thing to do, and it's catching up with the cultural lag in our
    society.
        We've seen long lines at women's restrooms when men have
    none, and that's gone on for years. It's just simply a fact
    that, on average, women take longer.
        Congresswoman Clarke mentioned some needs, feminine
    hygiene, that, to be honest, didn't hit my mind immediately,
    but that's certainly an issue, and baby's needs. There's more
    equality now with dealing with children, but the women have
    oftentimes been the primary caretaker and taken women in the
    restroom with them as well.
        There are many studies, including one at the University of
    Washington that's extensive, on the ratio that should be
    required and the need for this. And the fact is, thankfully,
    more women care about their appearance than men do, and so
    there is more time, and I'm thankful that occurs. There are
    also stalls. There's the removal of clothing. And when men
    remove their clothing, you've got to hang your coat up; and
    that takes more time, too.
        So there's many reasons for the extensive time, additional
    time, and the need for more equity and proper accommodations
    for women.
        I first recognized this need in Tennessee when I was at
    Starwood Amphitheater at a concert. The women's line just went
    on forever, and the men's line wasn't very long. In fact, there
    were women jumping in the men's line and joining in the men's
    restroom. A lot of beer was served at that concert. It wasn't
    fair; and I realized, you know, those women were in distress,
    as well as being a little inebriated. I noticed it; and, also,
    I had to wait for my friend in line and thought, well, you
    know, what am I going to do? I just hung out there near the
    restroom, not necessarily a place you want to hang during a
    concert.
        So it's an inconvenience to males as well as females, but,
    to us, it is secondary. It wasn't conscious discrimination,
    but, like so many other things like institutional racism,
    sometimes it is there without people knowing it. It just
    happened over the years and has been perpetuated, and this is
    somewhat institutional racial--gender discrimination.
        These facilities were generally designed by architects who
    were predominantly men. Engineers constructed them; and, again,
    they were mostly men. It didn't seem like an issue to them, and
    they didn't have any concerns. In the Federal buildings at that
    time most Federal employees were men, and there was
    discrimination as well. Today, we have reversed a lot of that
    history, but still we have restrooms being built without
    restroom equity being taken into consideration.
        It's not just by convenience. There are health
    consequences. Abdominal pain, cystitis, and urinary tract
    infections can occur. So we need access, and we need to step
    up.
        Chairman Towns, you are to be commended for doing this and
    Ranking Member Issa. Sometimes for men it's not quite as easy
    an issue. It wasn't as easy on women, also. I tried to get
    Speaker DeBerry to be my sponsor the first time, and she got
    such ridicule she dropped off. I got another woman to be the
    sponsor. She got ridicule. Finally, we got a sponsor. But it
    was difficult for women sometimes to take on the issue as well
    as men, but it is an issue that is important for both genders.
        As you consider this legislation, I would hope that some of
    the experience we had in Tennessee could be taken advantage of,
    that flexibility and discretion are needed. We had a two-to-one
    ratio, and that was I think the right ratio. But we found out
    that sports events in covered sports arenas--the Tennessee
    Titans, in originally Adelphia coliseum, now called LP Field,
    the upper deck had many, many more men who were getting
    inebriated and needed more men's restrooms.
        So we went back and changed the law and allowed the board
    to determine the proper ratio so it could take into
    consideration those places like, as Chairman Issa mentioned,
    the Department of Defense, where there might be more of a
    likelihood that you would have a need for more men's
    facilities. But at mens' football games on Sundays you need
    more men's restrooms in the upper deck at Adelphia. We found
    that out. This applies to Federal buildings, and I think it's
    so important that it be passed and passed in a proper fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, you have made great strides and we made great
    strides in this country in reducing gender discrimination. We
    did that better and we have done other laws such as this. But
    we need to work in this area, and I appreciate you and Ranking
    Member Issa for bringing forth the legislation, and I am proud
    to be a cosponsor and willing to help in any way you can it
    becomes law. It's needed in America in 2010 and it's been
    needed before.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Steve Cohen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. Thank you.
        Let me thank both of you for your statement; and let me
    begin by saying to you, Ms. Clarke, and to Representative
    Cohen, how and why did you get involved in this issue?
        Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, I got involved in this issue
    because I realized during the holidays what distress women
    really are under. It's not just the stress of having to prepare
    for the holidays and being out in the public. It is maneuvering
    with children. I looked at the way that commerce was being
    impacted. I saw women who had to wait in line for the restroom
    and then have to wait on line for a checkout counter; and I saw
    people just sort of throw their hands up and say, I'm not even
    going to deal with it today.
        I realized that there were adverse consequences, and I
    realized that over time we had actually been training young
    girls and women to hold it. It has just become a part of our
    conditioning and behavior that was totally unnecessary.
        So we looked at this in the city of New York in particular
    where we are always in very crowded situations and realized
    there was something we could do about it, that in the
    development of our building codes we could create the
    conditions under which we could create a restroom equity. So I
    moved forward with my colleagues in the city of New York, and
    we made it happen.
        So I believe it's possible that we can do this at the
    Federal level, and it will be a major leap forward so that
    young girls coming up today will not be conditioned in a way
    that I was to have to hold it every time we are in an
    environment where the line is so long and risk impairing our
    health.
        So thank you very much for asking that question, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I can probably just say, similar to what Representative
    Clarke said, I mentioned in my testimony we passed our
    Tennessee bill in 1994, so it was at the Starwood Amphitheater
    when I noticed this extraordinary line, unbecoming but
    necessary conduct of some women jumping into the men's line and
    going into the men's room. And I just thought there is
    something happening here, and it is not necessarily good. I
    think that's some song I'm paraphrasing. I saw it at all kind
    of facilities, and it was just indicative of a history of lack
    of attention by, apparently, male-oriented architects and
    engineers, not intentional but just a pattern and a history of
    not thinking about it.
        And then what I did, to be honest, I used women's lines--
    after I would be in line and I would be out and my date would
    still be in line or whatever, I'd use the women's line as a
    focus group; and I would ask them, what would you think about a
    law to do this? And, believe me, every one of them was real big
    in favor. And I told them write--I found out who their
    representatives were and who their senators were and told them
    to call them. We passed our bill.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much.
        You know, to be honest with you, my experience was that we
    were at a play; and, of course, I went to the men's room and
    came back. The second act was getting ready to start, and I was
    still looking for my wife, and she's nowhere to be found. So,
    finally, I'm getting really agitated at the fact the second act
    is going to start. When it gets dark in there, you can't find
    your seat.
        Finally, when she showed up, I said, ``where were you?''
    She said, ``I was in the line.'' You should have seen that
    line. She said it was all around the wall. I mean, people
    everywhere.
        And then, about 3 weeks later, I was in the airport in
    Florida, and I saw this long line. And then, of course, being
    from New York, I thought they were giving away something. I
    wanted to make certain that I got some of it whatever they were
    giving away. And then I looked and I realized there were only
    women in the line. And then I looked and they were going to the
    bathroom. And I said, gee, this is ridiculous. Something needs
    to be done. And that's what precipitated me to get involved.
        I talked to my ranking member, who I must admit also spoke
    to his wife about it as well. And, of course, he is now
    committed to being helpful. I want you to know I appreciate
    that. Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much.
        On this note, I yield now to the ranking member for any
    questions that he might have.
        Mr. Issa. I think after you talked to Gwen and I talked to
    Kathy there shouldn't be too many questions.
        With both of you having done different laws in different
    States, let me try to focus on the base legislation versus
    where we should go from here. Rep. Clark, Ms. Clarke, you did a
    mandate of two to one in New York.
        Ms. Clarke. That's correct.
        Mr. Issa. Was that based on a study?
        Ms. Clarke. That's correct. That's correct. Actually, there
    is a provision in the Federal Building Code that called for
    two-to-one ratio; and that's what we followed.
        Mr. Issa. OK. In checking on this, that Federal ratio,
    oddly enough, didn't count urinals. So the GSA setup is
    basically one to one if you count urinals, two to one if you
    don't count urinals. So it is a little ambiguous, and it's one
    of the things we hope to resolve.
        Mr. Cohen, your legislation had to be modified based on an
    observation that no fixed ratio necessarily solved the problem;
    is that correct?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Issa, that's accurate. Because we had the
    two-to-one ratio. And I think it was the University of
    Washington--there were like two universities that had scholars
    that had done a lot of research, and I believe that was one of
    them.
        We took the two to one, and it worked in most facilities
    but didn't work at the Titan Stadium. I went up to the Titan
    Stadium, and I climbed up there and looked. I saw they didn't
    have enough facilities, and there was just a need to change it.
    So we did change it.
        We gave some discretion to the State Building Association.
    But I would suggest that if you give discretion that you
    require that they give a reason--maybe set a standard and then
    require them to give a reason why they deviated from that
    standard and give some rational basis to require them to do
    some type of study and explain their decision.
        Mr. Issa. Well, H.R. 4869 currently is a one-to-one ratio
    and requires GSA--which, of course, doesn't control DOD which
    is a separate challenge for us--to have these various reasons.
    Current law on purchase--current law when GSA builds or
    purchases a building is a one-to-one ratio. Current practice in
    September 2000 when GSA leases is that they do an assessment
    based on the anticipated ratio of men to women in the building.
    Now I would assume that for both of you that flexibility of
    analyzing the current ratio and adjusting it if the ratio
    changes periodically would be a good part of the base bill. An
    all-men's prison, don't put in equal amounts of men's and
    women's rooms, I assume would be good judgment.
        Ms. Clarke. I would agree. We just want to keep into
    account visitors, which tend to be women and their children
    that may accompany them, because women oftentimes take their
    children, as well as correction officers where the ranks of
    corrections are becoming more and more women involved as well.
    So those would be some of the considerations.
        Mr. Issa. I think you're hitting the nail right on the
    head. You have those kind of ratios to consider.
        Let me ask sort of an additional question. Our current
    legislation doesn't call for a new study based on certain
    criteria. Would such criteria--and I would like your input
    after the hearing, too--as to anticipated age of the people who
    are going to be in a building--you mention that. Obviously, the
    gender ratio, the attire--I think Ms. Norton sort of made it
    pretty clear at the Kennedy Center women may be needing to do
    more that would cause them to be even longer. Well, at a
    baseball game, we're all in shorts; and just going in and out
    it may be much quicker. Those and other items.
        Do you believe that we should include in our legislation
    sort of the analysis so that we get it right the first time and
    what the legislation doesn't currently envision is a
    flexibility of design for future ratio changes? Are all those
    elements that, based on your two experiences in legislation, we
    should include in others?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Issa, I agree that you need to include those
    things. But there's no question, no matter where you go, there
    are two types of business. And when you go in and you're a man,
    you don't have to take off any clothing. It can be done, and
    you're in and you're out. You don't do lipstick and you don't
    do anything and you're out.
        Mr. Issa. You're not a Californian, but OK. In Tennessee,
    you don't.
        Mr. Cohen. Women have always got to remove clothing; and no
    matter where it is, whether it is coats or whatever, it's going
    to take more time. And so I won't give--in almost any business,
    any museum, or government building, there needs to be a two-to-
    one ratio.
        Mr. Issa. This is what I'm getting to, is our current base
    legislation was dropped as a one to one to correct, if you
    will, the past tendency to have less than one to one, even
    though the current GSA guidelines were one to one. And what I'm
    hearing today--and the chairman's leadership on this,
    obviously, is crucial--is that we need to, one, find out if two
    to one is the right ratio, find out when it is the right ratio,
    make sure our legislation adjusts for total occupancy,
    including visitors; and then we have to have sufficient
    flexibility for the fact that we don't want to build twice as
    many women's rooms in a building that currently has nobody, but
    we need to be able to adjust as that changes in Federal
    buildings that last at least an average of 46 years. Is that
    pretty much what you're coming to us with?
        The chairman's being indulgent with the time, but, very
    quickly, can you tell me, if we're looking at a 100-year
    building and we're in a 1962 building, is that what we need to
    make sure we get right here so that we not be arbitrary but
    also so that we get it right for equal access?
        Ms. Clarke. I would say those are some of the
    considerations.
        The one thing that you probably--we probably all cannot
    anticipate is the length of stay for individuals within the
    restroom facility. Everyone is trying to rush out, yes. As we
    stated, women have extraordinary circumstances that oftentimes
    men don't have. We are always carrying handbags with us. There
    are always extra things that just aren't part of the male
    exercise each and every day. Women, on the other hand, have
    those significant challenges. And then you're talking about
    women of varying ages. So all of those factors would have to be
    taken into consideration in an environment where we know that
    there are going to be a lot of people traveling through.
        A place like this, for instance, is a place where we know
    that there are going to be visitors in addition to those who
    work here, that are going to call for that type of ratio to be
    closely examined; and I think that you have come up with a
    number of the significant variables.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. I think the gentleman is raising some very
    interesting questions. Because when you look at the overall
    picture, one thing we might be able to do to help out a little
    bit is to put changing boards into the men's bathroom so that
    the men will be able to do some changing of the babies as well
    because they are not in our bathrooms. So I think that might be
    one thing to sort of help eliminate----
        Mr. Issa. We're both in the grandparent age. We're getting
    away with a lot by saying the next generation should have these
    changing rooms.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much.
        I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
        First of all, I want to thank you all for your testimony.
    It has been extremely helpful. This legislation--similar
    legislation didn't get very far the last time. I think we need
    to approach this, as our chairman has, with the urgency of now
    so that we can make it happen; and we will certainly work with
    you all to try to make that happen. That's why I'm so glad, Mr.
    Chairman, that you held this hearing today. So now we have to
    move it along and get this through the House and get our Senate
    colleagues to act with some type of urgency.
        Because, as you have laid it out, it is an urgent
    situation. And we can mess around and mess around and we will
    be making these same discussions, having these same discussions
    10 years from now and so many women would have been deprived
    for so long.
        So, with that, I just want to just thank you; and, with
    that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Towns. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
        I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, DC.
        Ms. Norton. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. I now yield to the gentlewoman from
    California, Ms. Watson.
        Ms. Watson. I am going to share with you my opening
    statement because I don't have a question, and I want to
    indicate how our Nation's Capitol is really slow in responding
    to this.
        Restroom parity was brought to the national stage in 1974
    when my good friend California Secretary of State March Fong Eu
    smashed a toilet bowl on the steps of our State Capitol to
    protest pay toilets in the State. I was in the California State
    Senate when we passed the first restroom parity bill, the
    California Restroom Equality Act introduced by then Senator Art
    Torres in 1987. His wife had taken several children to the
    Colosseum in Los Angeles; and, you know, at half-time they ran
    out. The kids had been waiting all through the game, and they
    ran out to go to the restroom, and the line was like around the
    stadium. So she took them to the men's restroom. Yes, they were
    in and out. So she took her children that she had with her to
    the men's restroom and then took this legislation to her
    husband and you know it got passed.
        California understood then that many public buildings had
    insufficient facilities for women because of outdated notions
    of the prevalence of women in the workplace. Since then, many
    States and municipalities have adopted a similar statute, but
    today's bill would be the first Federal legislation to address
    restroom parity. Now we're 3,000 miles on the other side of the
    country, and we're just now getting our State Capitol to
    realize this is a human basic need and we need to correct it.
        So throughout our history public restrooms have been the
    site of discrimination based on race, gender, and physical
    ability. In the old South, people had to--if you looked like
    me, you had to go to the back room, which was usually really a
    place that was filthy most of the time, uncared for, unkempt,
    and you were dressed in your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes, and
    you had to go to the colored restroom. So the Civil Rights Act
    in 1964 eliminated this form of discrimination based on race.
    Just as in 1990 the Americans with Disabilities Act required
    reasonable access for disabled people to such facilities.
        So with today's legislation we have the opportunity to
    finally address gender discrimination in Federal facilities by
    requiring that one-to-one ratio for any Federal building
    constructed for public use and by mandating that preference be
    given to buildings that meet that ratio when leasing new
    Federal buildings.
        So I just want to thank our author and coauthor and for
    bringing this late--not you, but this country has been late.
    You see, we're always on the cutting edge in California. So
    thank you for catching up with us. Good luck. We should pass it
    out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
    California for her comments. And of course we have tried hard
    to catch up. No doubt about it.
        I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman
    Cuellar. Any questions you might have. No questions.
        No other questions from the committee?
        Well, let me thank both of you for your testimony. I look
    forward to working with you in terms of making this a reality.
    I think the time has come. You made the case. And, of course,
    we need to do something about it. I want to congratulate you on
    what you've done in New York. I want to congratulate you on
    what you've done in Tennessee. So we look forward, as
    Congresswoman Watson says, to catching up; and that's what we
    hope to be able to do. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. We ask our second panel to come forward:
    Commissioner Robert Peck, Commissioner of Public Building
    Services for the General Services Administration; Dr. Kathryn
    Anthony, professor of architecture at the University of
    Illinois; and Sharon Pratt Dixon, former Mayor of Washington,
    DC.
        Before you sit down, it is a longstanding policy that we
    swear all of our witnesses in. If you would be kind enough to
    raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Towns. Let the record reflect that they answered
    in the affirmative. You may be seated.
        Let me begin by asking all witnesses to summarize their
    testimony in 5 minutes. Of course, the yellow light means you
    have a minute left; and the red light all over America means
    stop. And then, of course, we will have time to ask questions,
    of course, which is very important.
        So why don't I begin with you, Commissioner Peck. Please
    present your testimony.

      STATEMENTS OF ROBERT A. PECK, PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE, U.S.
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; KATHRYN H. ANTHONY, PROFESSOR,
       SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-
       CHAMPAIGN; AND SHARON PRATT, FORMER MAYOR, WASHINGTON, DC

                      STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK

        Mr. Peck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note the presence
    previously of Ranking Member Issa and other members of the
    committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today
    to discuss H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Parity in Federal
    Buildings Act. Our administrator, Martha Johnson, is interested
    in this, too.
        GSA supports restroom gender parity. We strive to provide
    welcoming, easily accessible, and comfortable facilities and
    equally accessible restrooms for our Federal work force and
    visitors. GSA's current standards achieve parity in most
    instances in buildings that we are now building and renovating,
    and they exceed private building code standards. In the few
    instances in which our current standards do not meet parity,
    GSA is revising our standards to ensure that the goal is
    achieved.
        We own more than 1,500 Federal buildings on behalf of the
    American people, and we provide space to more than 1 million
    Federal employees. As you are aware in this committee, I
    believe, GSA has an aging portfolio of buildings. The average
    age of a GSA government building is 46 years.
        We have over 500 buildings that were built before 1950,
    during a time in which there were fewer women in the work force
    or at least the perception that there were fewer women in the
    work force. As a result, most of our older buildings do not
    meet parity in restrooms, but as we modernize and as we
    construct new buildings we improve our facilities to meet the
    goal of parity.
        We publish a facility standards document that establishes
    design standards and criteria for new construction and major
    alterations in GSA buildings, largely derived from industry
    standards, including the International Code Council standards.
    Our standards exceed industry building codes and generally meet
    restroom parity. In other words, we provide more restrooms for
    both men and women than the private codes generally require.
        Since the early 1980's, our standards have prescribed the
    number of toilets required in men's and women's restrooms. In
    most instances, the number of toilets in women's restrooms
    equals the combined number of toilets and urinals in men's
    restrooms. In assembly areas such as training and conference
    facilities in our buildings, we require more toilets in women's
    restrooms than in men's restrooms and, in fact, the ratio of
    three to two.
        There are, however, in our current standards three tiers
    out of eight--and the tiers are tiers in which we consider the
    number of people per restroom--three tiers out of eight in
    which our facility standards, although, again, higher than the
    building code requires, where we do not meet restroom parity.
    We are revising our standards to insure gender parity in all
    circumstances. We are issuing a new facilities standards
    document, and it will require parity across all of the tiers.
    And I would note that three of the eight tiers we are off by
    one, that there are three occasions on larger numbers of people
    per floor in which our current standards would allow more men's
    facilities then women's.
        I should also note we recently surveyed our buildings, and
    it appears that in almost all of the new courthouses and other
    buildings we have been building over the last 15 years we've
    met the parity standards. As we continue to modernize older
    buildings in our inventory, we meet these parity requirements.
        In addition to federally owned buildings--and your
    legislation contemplates this--we also lease a lot of
    facilities for the Federal Government. The GSA standard leasing
    solicitation for offers, an FSO, requires lessors to provide
    toilet fixtures, and it currently says based on the ratio of
    men and women who will occupy the leased space. I think that's
    a standard that is hard to contemplate, hard to predict, and
    we're going to change our standard to require that restroom
    parity be available in every leased facility where we can find
    it.
        I just have to note that there are occasions in which we
    lease facilities in rural or very small areas, small towns, in
    which we don't have a lot of competition; and it may not be
    possible to find a leased facility that has parity. But those
    will be waiver instances; and, otherwise, we're going to
    require it.
        As I mentioned, we support improving the quality and
    equality in restrooms wherever possible. We are going to
    address this issue as we undertake future construction,
    modernization, and leasing actions. We fully support the
    intention of this bill; and, as I say, we are moving today to
    make sure that in those few instances where we don't currently
    meet the standard that we will.
        I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today; and,
    of course, I'm happy to answer any questions.
        One other note is I would like--we will submit our current
    facility standards for your record that you can see them.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peck follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much, Commissioner Peck.
        Now I would like to call on Dr. Kathryn Anthony, the
    professor of architecture at the University of Illinois.

                    STATEMENT OF KATHRYN H. ANTHONY

        Ms. Anthony. Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, members
    of the committee, thank you so much for the invitation to
    appear before you today. It's an honor and one of the
    highlights of my professional career.
        I'm the only female full professor in the school of
    architecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
    where I've taught for 26 years. I have published widely on
    gender issues and design. I applaud the committee for
    addressing an issue near and dear to my heart and near and dear
    to the hearts and bladders of women and children all across the
    United States, one that is long overdue.
        Ever since California led the way by passing the Nation's
    first potty parity legislation, many States and municipalities
    across the country have passed similar laws and ordinances to
    provide equal speed of access for women and men to public
    restrooms. Yet today marks a milestone. It's the first time
    that this issue is addressed at the Federal level.
    Congratulations.
        I stand here today on behalf of your mothers, grandmothers,
    daughters, granddaughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, and
    countless female friends. No matter what our race, color,
    creed, age, size, shape, or political party, Democrat,
    Republican, independent, or green, we all share one frustrating
    experience. All too often, we watch our male counterparts zip
    out in and out of the restroom in a flash, while at the ladies
    room we are stuck waiting in long lines, and the men in our
    life have been stuck waiting for us. Why?
        Much of our built environment, including that owned by the
    Federal Government, was constructed in a different era, one
    where women were not as prevalent in the public realm and in
    the work force as we are today. Until recently, most
    architects, contractors, engineers, building code officials,
    and clients were not concerned about this issue. They rarely
    contacted women about their restroom needs. Women were rarely
    employed in these male-dominated professions, nor were they in
    a position to effect change, but, finally, now we are.
        Why is this important? The average person uses a toilet
    about six to eight times a day, as many as 2,920 times per
    year. By age 80, we will have taken 200,000 trips to the toilet
    and spent 2 years of our life in restrooms. No matter what our
    stature in life, whether we are the President of the United
    States, the First Lady, or the homeless person on the street,
    we are all use them.
        We may laugh, and we may joke, but for millions of people
    around the world, boys and girls, men and women of all ages,
    especially pregnant and menstruating women, using the restroom
    is no laughing matter. Emergencies happen, accidents happen,
    urinary tract infections happen, delaying voiding can result in
    serious medical conditions. Unsanitary, unsafe restrooms in our
    Nation's schools force thousands of children's to wait to use
    their bathroom at home; and holding it in can take its toll.
        Forcing half the population to wait in line for restrooms
    is a subtle yet powerful form of gender discrimination. Public
    restrooms are just one of many instances where women and girls
    are disadvantaged by design, a topic I'm writing about in my
    new book. Even in the U.S. Capitol, until recently,
    Congresswomen and women Senators were forced to use restrooms
    far away from the House and Senate floors, causing some to miss
    important votes.
        Public restrooms are a fundamental part of our Nation's
    infrastructure, just as important as our roads and bridges.
    Taking care of our bodies is just as important as taking care
    of our cars. Public restrooms are a health and safety issue. In
    this respect, we lag far beyond countries like Japan where
    clean, safe, available restroom are integral parts of urban
    landscape.
        If it were up to me, contracting cutting-edge, well-
    designed, safe 21st century public restrooms should be part of
    another national stimulus package. They make downtowns more
    user friendly, they encourage walking and help combat obesity.
    It would be money well spent.
        In an ideal world, I would call for even greater numbers of
    women's to men's fixtures, as is already the case in many
    States and municipalities with ratios of two to one, three to
    one or even four to one. Such ratios are most needed when large
    groups of people amass all at once, such as when a court
    session adjourns or when a group of schoolchildren visit.
        In an ideal world, I would call for a mandatory retrofit to
    all existing buildings, not just renovation and new
    construction. Just as millions of persons with disabilities
    benefit every day from the Americans with Disabilities Act
    [ADA], millions of women and children would benefit every day
    from even greater potty parity laws. But, as a realist, I
    believe that this act paves the way for future changes that
    could have just as sweeping an impact as the ADA.
        It's now time for the Federal Government to act. Today's
    proposed legislation is a small but significant step in the
    right direction, an achievement worth celebrating, one that you
    can all be proud of. It will have a positive impact on women
    and children across the USA and on the men who wait for them.
    That's one small step for Congress, one giant leap for
    humankind. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Anthony follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much, Dr. Anthony, for that
    very powerful statement.
        Now we will have Sharon Pratt, the former Mayor of
    Washington, DC, and the only woman ever to be Mayor of
    Washington, DC. Ms. Pratt.

                       STATEMENT OF SHARON PRATT

        Ms. Pratt. Hopefully, that will change.
        Good morning, everyone.
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the House Committee
    on Oversight and Government Reform, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 4869, the Restroom
    Gender Parity in Federal Buildings Act.
        I believe an overwhelming number of Americans, especially
    women and girls, support the principles and purpose of this
    legislation. However, some may be hesitant about coming forward
    to support this legislation because it's so easy to make light
    of this effort and to mock those advancing this cause. As such,
    I truly appreciate the leadership you have provided, Chairman
    Towns, Congressman Issa, Congresswoman Clarke, Congresswoman
    Visclosky have provided in this matter.
        I'm a native Washingtonian, as is my distinguished
    representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and except for 3 years
    in New York City I have lived here all my life. Not
    surprisingly, I have regularly patronized Federal buildings for
    meetings, major events, and recreation; and I can speak from
    personal observation and experience as a woman resident, as the
    former Mayor of this city, as the mother of two daughters, as a
    grandmother now of a granddaughter.
        With regards to the disparity in restrooms, you can
    characterize it as follows: It is glaring, it is inconvenient,
    it is enormously inefficient, and it is downright unfair.
    Indeed, given the logistics associated with the restroom
    ritual, true parity would probably require a two-to-one ratio
    of toilets for women to men. Nonetheless, I am pleased to
    support and endorse in my way legislation that at least ensures
    some level of parity in this matter.
        Our society has come a great distance in my lifetime. We
    certainly are a society today that now genuinely supports equal
    rights for women. However, it's a practical reality that a
    woman would be late for a meeting, miss much of a concert
    because there are built-in impediments to equally navigating
    the world at large. Stemming from an absence of parity in
    restrooms, women are still not equal.
        Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I heartily
    applaud you for your leadership on H.R. 4869.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pratt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Towns. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        Let me thank all three of you for your testimony. I think
    you've been very, very helpful; and let me just sort of ask a
    couple of questions.
        First, Dr. Anthony, how can we get people to take this more
    seriously?
        Ms. Anthony. Yeah, I think that is an excellent question.
    And so many people joke about this subject, but when it affects
    you personally, it is not funny. How we can get people to take
    it more seriously is, there are a lot of people out there with
    invisible issues that really desperately need bathrooms right
    away but we don't know who they are. They know who they are. We
    probably all know people who have these situations, but they
    may not all make them apparent to us.
        Combat war veterans, people who have been injured may have
    serious situations with bladder control. Older men with
    prostate problems, also an issue. Anybody who has experienced
    that, imagine what it would feel like if you needed to relieve
    yourself and you couldn't find an open stall right away. That
    is what it feels like for women on a regular basis and for
    children on a regular basis.
        There are a lot of people who have reasons why they would
    need to use a restroom right away--all sorts of colitis, other
    kinds of issues, people who have to change ostomy bags, a lot
    of people out there who really, really need better restrooms.
    So it is a health and safety and a medical issue.
        Chairman Towns. Ms. Pratt, let me ask you, being the former
    executive of a city that has a tremendous amount of Federal
    buildings, do you think that if we would improve this situation
    that it might even assist us economically?
        Ms. Pratt. Well, I would have to encourage--it would have
    to be a plus, in terms of encouraging use of Federal buildings.
    Because, to me, the overarching issue is just how illogical it
    is, how, you know, obviously inefficient and illogical it is.
    And you are discouraging at least a half, if not more, often,
    of the population from using your facilities. So I think it
    could only be a plus in terms of encouraging use of our Federal
    buildings.
        Chairman Towns. Let me ask you, Commissioner, you know, I
    know you have a lot of issues over at GSA; how important is
    this issue at GSA? Is it a priority?
        Mr. Peck. Well, let me answer two ways.
        It is clearly an issue that, over the years, has been
    enough of an issue that we have changed our standards and
    brought our standards up to one of parity. I do want to say, it
    is not an issue I had given a lot of thought to until you
    scheduled the hearing, and I think that is quite useful.
        In the kinds of buildings that we at GSA run--and I want to
    note, we are one of about 30 land-holding and building-owning
    agencies in the Federal Government--our buildings tend to be
    office buildings, courthouses, and laboratories where that kind
    of work of the government gets done. And for most of the square
    footage that we operate, people have the option of going to the
    bathroom at their will. So it is spread out during the day. And
    when we take surveys of tenant satisfaction in our building, we
    are not finding complaints about the availability of
    facilities, either for men or women.
        Having said that, and I noted in my testimony, we do have
    conference areas, assembly areas, we have offices that are run
    for Social Security, Internal Revenue, Citizenship and
    Immigration Services, in which the public does come into our
    facilities, and courthouses too obviously, and which it is
    important to us that people have a good experience when they
    come to the Federal building. And so, I think in those areas,
    in particular, where we already have a ratio required higher
    than 1:1, again, we believe we are on the right track, but,
    quite honestly, I would be interested in seeing more research
    on whether we are providing enough facilities.
        Chairman Towns. Let me just ask you this before my time
    runs out, Dr. Anthony. You know, this is among the last
    bastions, of course, of gender discrimination. And I can't
    figure out, why are we still fighting this battle?
        Ms. Anthony. Why are we still fighting this battle? I am
    glad you asked that question. I think it is a key question of
    the day. We are in the year 2010, and how come this issue
    hasn't already been addressed?
        Things move very slowly. I am always amazed how, in our
    world of technology--you know, we have had the Internet and
    iPods and iPhones, and so many things have come about in our
    lifetime so quickly, but when it comes to this issue of
    restrooms, particularly for gender parity and restrooms, we
    have been moving at a snail's pace--at a snail's pace.
        One of the reasons why is, I think women really need to
    have a voice on this issue, and we haven't had a voice on this
    issue until now. Look at who is here today and who is
    interested in this issue, and look at who is behind me. I think
    the fact that we are here is significant.
        I think one of the reasons why: Women who are pregnant, big
    issue for them, they are often very busy and don't have time to
    come and do what I am doing today, nor have they had the
    opportunity or the invitation to come.
        Our ADA was passed now about 20 years ago. That has been a
    long time. We had many issues that have come about throughout
    our course of history that have moved slowly, and others have
    moved more quickly. But this particular one, why now, and why
    is it one of the last bastions of gender discrimination? I
    think it has to do, in part, also, with the fact that toilets
    have been a taboo topic. We all use them, but they are a hidden
    part of our environment, a secret part of our environment that
    we don't talk about much. And we have to bring them out from
    under the rug.
        One of my colleagues, Jack Sim, has been involved in a
    World Toilet Organization. He founded an international
    organization, about 50 member countries, been trying to improve
    sanitation conditions all over world. I applaud him. He has
    been noted as one of the most effective social entrepreneurs in
    the world. We need to do the same here in the United States:
    Get this issue out from under the rug and get us talking about
    it and legislating about it.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much.
        I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
    Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Peck, if a woman feels that there are not enough, say,
    restrooms in her workplace for females, both in the Federal
    buildings and in the private sector, where would she voice that
    concern? And how would that be handled?
        Mr. Peck. Well, probably the same way that we get
    complaints if the heating or air conditioning aren't working or
    if the restroom facilities that we do have aren't working. And,
    of course, we run a lot of buildings; we sometimes get them.
        She would generally take it to her supervisor, or, in most
    buildings, we pretty prominently let employees know that there
    is a number they can call to have their agency's facilities
    manager get in touch with the GSA building manager in those
    buildings where GSA actually manages it. Some agencies manage
    their own buildings even though we may own them. We have it
    pretty clear for people to know where they can go for their
    complaint of that nature.
        Mr. Cummings. And do you have any idea what the history is
    with regard to those complaints and remedies? And I understand
    that sometimes it can be very difficult, but do you have any
    knowledge of--say, for example--I guess what I am concerned
    about--you know, we are in a hearing now, and I hope and I do
    believe the bill will pass, but, in the meantime, I am just
    trying to figure out, you know, exactly what is going on and
    how those issues have been addressed.
        And, I mean, is there any kind of protocol for that kind of
    thing, you know? I guess that is what I am trying--or is it
    just they have a complaint and then it is dropped into a black
    box that is never opened?
        Mr. Peck. No, you know, Congressman Cummings, in both the
    private sector and public sector, while the issue of gender
    parity in restrooms is not a big issue, the issue of
    availability of facilities in general and their cleanliness is
    a huge issue in building management. And I would say, right
    behind complaints about whether a person's work station feels
    too warm or too cold--probably that is the largest number of
    complaints you get in a building--complaints or concerns about
    the adequacy of facilities and their cleanliness is right
    behind it.
        So we do field those all the time. It is a serious issue.
    As I said, when we modernize buildings, you know, the one thing
    you know you are going to modernize in an old building are the
    restroom facilities.
        I also, as I noted, we survey all our tenants on a rolling
    basis every 3 years. And so, where we do get complaints about
    the restroom facilities, we are pretty quick to address them.
    We grade our building managers on how people feel about their
    building.
        So I have to tell you that the complaints we generally get
    are about whether the fixtures are working or the cleanliness
    in a facility, and I am not aware--and we did take a quick
    look. We don't seem to have a lot of complaints in our
    buildings, because they are mostly office space, of the
    adequacy of women's facilities.
        Mr. Cummings. Maybe one reason why you may not get as many
    complaints is because it has become accepted. You follow what I
    am saying?
        Mr. Peck. Sure.
        Mr. Cummings. And people get to a point of saying, well,
    why even bother? And you still seem like--you are not really
    hitting my--I know it is not your intention to avoid my
    question----
        Mr. Peck. No. Congressman, can I----
        Mr. Cummings [continuing]. So let me state it another way.
        If, when somebody comes with a--cleanliness, I understand
    that is probably pretty easy to resolve. But when it comes to
    women in a workplace and they see a situation where it is just
    ridiculous with regard to the parity and they feel that they
    are experiencing some of the things that we have heard
    witnesses talk about already, I mean, you know--and I am not
    talking about just a 3-year survey because, again, I am talking
    about the urgency of this moment.
        So what happens in the meantime? In other words, they have
    to wait, or do they have to wait for 10 years when you renovate
    the building, or 15 or 20? I mean, what--do you follow me?
        Mr. Peck. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cummings. So, in other words, if you really went in and
    you saw the need right now, how would that be resolved? I mean,
    would you say, OK, maybe we need to knock out that room down
    the hall there and create a bathroom? And is there any history
    of that? That is what I am trying to get to.
        Mr. Peck. In my experience--and I held this job in the
    Clinton administration for 5 years also--I have not been--I was
    not aware of any complaints in our buildings--I will go back to
    your question of whether we are getting the complaints in the
    first place--I am not aware of any complaints in our buildings
    that indicate that we have an inadequate number of women's
    facilities versus men's.
        And, again, I think one possible reason for that is that we
    are mostly an office environment. We don't get the surge that
    you get in a ball game in the seventh inning or at a concert
    during intermission. So people can, sort of, spread out their
    response to their need over the course of the day.
        Whether people have given up, whether women have just sort
    of said, ``I guess this is the way it is,'' I don't know. But I
    informally asked some of our senior managers last week at a
    meeting from around the country if they are aware of lines on
    the office floors or in our lobbies at restroom facilities, and
    these are people who are career employees, have been doing this
    in many cases for more than 20 years, and they are not aware.
        But, again, I think it is the nature of our facilities in
    GSA. We don't run very many museums, for example, which have a
    very different--a very different issue.
        Mr. Cummings. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much.
        I now yield to the ranking member, Congressman Issa of
    California.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And 5 minutes isn't enough, but it will do if you will all
    agree to answer our followup questions.
        Commissioner, your table is, in my estimation, a fairly
    generous table. If you have no surge and if you have nine
    employees and, as a result of nine employees, you have three
    facilities, toilets, for women and three facilities, one urinal
    and two toilets, for men, six toilets, nine people, that is
    pretty generous. Six toilets, 24 people is still probably
    sufficient. And then it continues that way with your
    guidelines.
        Is it possible that, effectively, what we are talking about
    is you have too many facilities for men and too many facilities
    for women but not so many ``too many'' for women but a great
    deal more for men?
        You know, looking at the Federal facility we are in--I have
    been here a long time, not as long as some people, but 10
    years. I have never seen a line for the men's or the women's
    room in Rayburn Office Building.
        Assuming this is built to that standard, and I suspect it
    is, are we really talking about a per-building adequacy that,
    in this case, does not envision the 7-Eleven on the freeway,
    which always has this huge line for the two facilities for 35
    pumps outside; the facility at the Kennedy Center, which
    clearly is a disaster with equal number of men and women in
    that surge that occurs at intermission and so on? Are we
    talking about a standard that is more than just changing your
    core standard for office buildings but really about some of
    these other facilities?
        And if you could briefly respond, more briefly than my
    question.
        Mr. Peck. OK. I do think our standards for an office, as I
    have said, appear to be generous. I will also say that I think
    some of these standards probably have arisen as custom over
    time, not as a result of research. I think there are a lot of
    other facilities that the public goes to--we run some, we run a
    retail facility in the Reagan Building, we run the National
    Building Museum--in which we know that we need a different
    scale of facilities, higher even than what you see here
    probably, and perhaps a different ratio of men's to women's.
    And I think that, whatever you do, you should take that into
    account, that there are different kinds of facilities with
    different needs.
        Mr. Issa. And I will tell you something from observation. I
    noticed the tremendous amount of restrooms that are in this new
    billion-dollar building we call the Capitol Visitor Center. And
    when I asked about it, they said, ``Well, it is based on the
    maximum occupancy.'' And, apparently, we never get to 10
    percent of the maximum occupancy. So that is an example where I
    guess they planned for an amount that has yet to occur.
        Mr. Peck. I would think that maximum occupancy in that
    space must be pretty high.
        Mr. Issa. Huge.
        Dr. Anthony, you probably--although it has been since 2007
    for your major publication, you have studied this as a question
    of, what is parity? Do you know of much followup since your
    2007 study?
        And I ask this specifically because it appears as though
    GSA would benefit if this committee required more statistical
    analysis and study based on not just office buildings but based
    on the range of Federal buildings.
        Ms. Anthony. Uh-huh, yeah. I am not aware of further
    studies on the subject, but I will say that building codes have
    been modified over the last few years. They are revised on a
    regular basis. I am sure my colleague knows well about that,
    could speak to that issue probably better than I could.
        But they have been changing to keep pace with this issue,
    and there have been modifications made to, for instance, major
    places of assembly over the last several years, to have more
    facilities for women than we have had in the past. So the
    building codes are the places to look. But, again, they are not
    necessarily state-of-the-art either. I think they are being
    adjusted on a regular basis.
        One of the things I will also say that we do need and we
    have seen some changes in more unisex facilities, more family
    restrooms. So where we talk about parity, there is also the
    issue of the opposite-gender parent or grandparent going with
    the opposite-gender child or grandchild. So that is a place
    where, again, the numbers of men's and women's restrooms is a
    separate issue, but that is related and very important. So we
    need more family restrooms, we need more unisex restrooms to
    help in situations like that.
        Mr. Issa. Well, and when Mr. Cummings talked--and he has
    left right now--but after I spoke the first time, I got the
    feeling that he thought I was trying to delay the legislation.
    And I am hopeful that you can answer a question, not because I
    want to delay legislation, but because I want to get it right.
        Do you believe that this committee should take apart the
    legislation relative to further study, not just to hearing, but
    further study, to get the numbers more broadly right in the
    sense of future flexibility, what the standards should be based
    on different types of facilities, such as a place that has
    surge versus one that doesn't, a place in which women are
    younger versus older, a place in which women are in evening
    gowns or slacks?
        Is that worth our getting it right, in order to create, if
    you will, a more as-needed design to ensure that in all cases
    at least there is a good-faith effort to provide equal access?
        Ms. Anthony. I think the building codes already do that.
    And I would suggest that, since this issue is on the table
    right now and it hasn't gotten this far ever before, I think
    you just keep going. I don't think you need further study on
    it. I don't think you need further research. I think the issue
    is clear from the testimony that we have all had that the
    problem has been around for generations and needs to be
    addressed now. And I think further study would just delay the
    issue and it might never get anywhere. So----
        Mr. Issa. OK. Then I just have one closing question. I
    brought it up earlier. Roughly 17 percent of the Pentagon are
    currently women; 83 percent are men. If this legislation were
    to come exactly at a time of retrofit, it would appear as
    though we would simply make sure that there were exactly the
    same number of women's rooms as men's rooms and same number of
    facilities at the Pentagon. Is that what you think should
    happen?
        Ms. Anthony. I would go ahead with what has been proposed,
    because, again, the work force is changing. And who would have
    known 46 years ago, or the average age when many of these
    buildings were built, what would be happening today? I think,
    similarly, we can say today, how would we be able to project
    what the change will be in the future?
        Mr. Issa. Following up one last time, if you are in a
    building that has two-thirds women and one-third men, under
    this legislation we are going to build exactly the same amount
    of facilities for women as men, even though there are more
    women than men. Is that OK with you, under this legislation?
    That is what is in the legislation if we don't do further study
    or amendments.
        Ms. Anthony. Well, I think you do need to look at the
    building codes of what is appropriate and what are the
    appropriate ratios in the particular type of building. So we
    are talking about many different types of places. So----
        Mr. Issa. Ma'am, this legislation is not the building code.
    This legislation trumps the building code. This an order with
    certain limited exemptions for GSA, which, by the way, doesn't
    control DOD, so it wouldn't have an exemption for DOD for this.
        And I ask that because I really want to get it right. And I
    just want you to understand that, if we move the current
    legislation the way it is or if we don't know how to modify it
    necessarily, that is what it would do. And I just want to make
    sure, because you have studied this more than anyone else here.
        Ms. Anthony. I think what is being proposed is very good,
    and I would support it as is.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Towns. Thank you very much. Let me thank the
    gentleman for his questions.
        I now yield to the Member of Congress who has more Federal
    buildings in her district than anybody else in the United
    States of America, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And whose
    subcommittee has primary jurisdiction over GSA, as well.
        Now, to followup on the question of the ranking member,
    statutory law at the moment says what, Mr. Peck?
        Mr. Peck. You know, we have not found a--we have not found
    a statutory provision----
        Ms. Norton. So there is no statute governing this matter.
        Mr. Peck. As near as we can tell. There are OSHA regs for
    private sector, and we have our own code.
        Ms. Norton. So, as I understand the bill before us, it
    says, ``equals or exceeds.'' This is obviously a bill aimed to
    make sure that women are not put in an unequal position.
        The ranking member is correct; you may have a building
    which has more men than women who are employed in the building.
    I am not sure what that tells us, necessarily, about the number
    of visitors to the building. It may or may not tell us
    something.
        But in light of the fact that the bill says ``equals or
    exceeds,'' do you believe that you would have sufficient
    discretion to deal with buildings which may, in fact, have
    different genders that come at different times?
        And remember who used to come here once and who comes here
    now. Remember that in the House of Representatives we have very
    few women now, and yet there is parity, as the ranking member
    said, here in the Rayburn and I think in most of the buildings.
        Would this law keep you from exercising the appropriate
    flexibility as it now stands, the language?
        Mr. Peck. As regards GSA, I don't believe so. I believe it
    could work. There is a provision in the legislation that says
    that the administrator of General Services can issue a
    statement if the parity is unachievable or not feasible, and I
    think we would want that kind of discretion.
        I would note, I mean, there are--and you have alluded to
    it. At one time, we would have built a land port of entry or
    border station with hardly any facilities for women, at least
    among the patrol force, because Customs didn't have more very
    many women agents. And now they do. And we don't want to factor
    into our planning the way the work force looks now because we
    think it will change and evolve, which makes it a little more
    complicated.
        But, in any event, I think that the legislation gives us
    some discretion that is important----
        Ms. Norton. I regret that we have to do a bill at all. This
    is the kind of matter that I think should be done
    administratively. We are forced to do a bill because of what
    the experience does show.
        Mr. Peck, as you know, I am also on the Homeland Security
    Committee, and I have a beef with the way in which we secure
    our buildings that is relevant, I think, to this hearing. I am
    going to give you an example of what I mean. We are talking
    about people visiting buildings, but you and I know of a
    building, a very new building, to which the public doesn't have
    access at all, whether they have to go to the lavatory or not.
    I refer to the brand-new Department of Transportation building
    along M Street.
        Bad enough that the security involves a Federal employee
    having to come down to get even a staff member from the House
    of Representatives for admission to that building. But what I
    think is far worse--and I pick M Street for a reason. M Street
    is just being built up. We have our Southeast Federal Center
    bill. We are so pleased with the progress you are making on
    that construction.
        But imagine a woman or parent who finds herself down there
    on M Street, and they say, ``Oh, there is a Federal building.
    At last, we have a place we can go to use the lavatory,
    Johnny.'' But she gets to the door of the Department of
    Transportation, and even though there is a magnometer there to
    protect the public and the building, she is not admitted to the
    building to use the restroom, to use the cafeteria paid for by
    public funds.
        How can you justify closing off lavatories to people
    outside of the building who have every reason to believe that a
    building paid for by taxpayers is one that should admit them,
    given the proper magnometers and security and perhaps even
    showing some identification?
        Mr. Peck. Ms. Norton, as you know from our previous
    conversations, I share your concern about the lack of
    consistency in building access into buildings in Washington,
    DC. I have been having conversations with the Federal
    Protective Service, which has a role in this; with the
    Interagency Committee on Security, which has some control over
    this; and with some of the agencies, including the Department
    of Transportation, that have these rules.
        I can only tell you that, so far, I have had only limited
    success in changing some of the standards. But I agree with you
    that, in many instances, our security standards do not and
    should not--our security concerns do not require that we keep
    people out of the public restrooms.
        If I can note, by the way, our rules in GSA do require
    that, where restroom facilities are accessible to the public,
    that they include baby-changing stations so that they could be
    available for people to use----
        Ms. Norton. Oh, it is lovely if you could just get into the
    building in the first place.
        Mr. Peck. Correct.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I think minimally, while we are concerned
    with visitors going in buildings, I think that there ought to
    be the presumption that a taxpayer has a right to come into a
    building to use the lavatory if she shows the right
    identification. That may be the only building available in some
    parts of downtown, for example, in many cities.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Towns. All right. Thank you very much for your
    questions.
        Also, let me yield now to the gentlewoman from California,
    who has challenged us to catch up with California. So we want
    to----
        Ms. Watson. There was a question just raised by my
    colleague about a facility that already has an excess of
    women's restrooms. The bill is prospective, and it directs you
    from here on, when you are leasing or renovating, to be sure
    and--and it focuses on women. So I don't think that is going to
    be a problem even if they have a majority of women in a
    facility, because it is prospective and you will adjust based
    on what the need is. So I don't think that is going to be a
    problem.
        I want to welcome all of you. And, particularly, Ms. Pratt,
    it is good to see you again, our FEMA leader of our Nation's
    capital.
        Ms. Pratt. Thank you.
        Ms. Watson. I want to tell you the reason why it is
    imperative that we have equal access to restrooms. I am going
    to refer back to the California Legislature and the Senate.
        When I was elected in 1978 to the California State Senate,
    I was only the second woman; the first one was elected in 137
    years. To be present in the Senate for a vote, you have to be
    on the red carpet. When the first woman in the Senate was
    elected--her name was Rose Ann Vuich--after 137 years, there
    was no restroom available on the red carpet. So if she were
    somewhere else using a restroom out in the public hall, she
    could not be counted for the vote. So when they found out she
    hit one, they had to take a reprographics room and change it
    into a restroom. It was small like a closet. And they never put
    ``women'' or ``ladies.'' They just put a rose up. It was ``the
    rose room.''
        Now, here I come a year and a half later, and my name is
    not Rose. When I needed to go to the restroom, I would have to
    go to her to get the key.
        Now, they were renovating the capitol. We had a major
    earthquake, and they had to renovate the Capitol. When they
    completely redid it, guess what? There was no women's restroom,
    Dr. Anthony, because there were only men who were architects.
    And when we said, you know, ``You don't have a women's restroom
    on the red carpet,'' they said, ``Oh, we didn't think of it.''
        So thank God we have you there. You know, I always thought
    that women should design kitchens and restrooms. And you can
    think about that.
        So we brought it to their attention. They took a supply
    room, and they changed it into a women's restroom. And we said,
    you know, ``We need a place to shower.'' You know, we needed to
    have equality with what the men had. And we had take them step
    by step all along the way. Because if you have to excuse
    yourself and a vote came up, you could not vote unless you were
    on the red carpet. So it was a matter of legally participating
    in our elected responsibilities. And so there is a
    justification, and in Federal buildings, absolutely.
        So we need to modernize our thinking. There should not be a
    question. We don't need another study. Studies just delay a
    particular decision. We need to get about passing this bill.
    And I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we don't need any
    more testimony, any more questions. Let's process this bill.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairman Towns. Let me thank the gentlewoman from
    California for her statement, of course. And we look forward to
    working with you to make this a reality.
        And, of course, let me say to you, Commissioner Peck, you
    know, we will continue to talk with you as we move forward. But
    the point is that we really want to move this legislation
    forward. And, of course, you know, there is a thing called
    ``amendments.'' If we think that, you know, it will strengthen
    it, but not to weaken it, you know, we want to do that. And, as
    I indicated, I think there are some things that we might need
    to do as we move along. But we will have dialog.
        But we really, really want to get this done. And I also
    want to thank the ranking member for his work on it, as well.
    And, this time around, we hope to be able to move it all the
    way and it will become law.
        I want to thank you, Dr. Anthony, for all of your work. I
    want you to know we have followed it, and you have really,
    really, really spent time and you, sort of, kept this in the
    forefront. And I want you to know that we appreciate, you know,
    your work.
        And, of course, Ms. Pratt, for your work. And as the only
    female ever to be mayor of Washington, DC, we thought it was
    important to have you as a witness, because you have seen it,
    you know, from that point as a leader in this city and, of
    course, with all these Federal buildings, you know, in terms of
    the situation.
        And I think that all of you have had experiences that you
    probably don't want to share, I am sure. You know, I was
    talking to one of our colleagues, and she indicated to me,
    says, ``Yeah, do it, move it forward,'' she said, ``because I
    went into the men's room,'' she said, ``because, shoot, I
    couldn't wait.'' So I am sure there are a lot of stories like
    that where, you know, women have gone into the men's room.
    Because I know I was at a football game and some lady ran into
    the men's room. So, I mean, I can imagine there are others that
    have done that.
        And I think that the time has come that we really need to
    move this legislation forward. And, of course, again, thank you
    for your testimony. And I look forward to further input, you
    know, from you as we move forward.
        And I agree with my colleague. We don't need a whole lot of
    studies. I think this thing has been studied. And I think that
    the fact that there is a change in the work force, we need to
    recognize it. Not only is there a change in the work force,
    there are just more women in the country than men. There are
    more female babies born than male babies. Women live longer
    than men. And all of these things are factors that we need to
    just, sort of, take into consideration and move forward with
    this legislation.
        I want to thank you again for your testimony.
        And this committee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]