[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]