[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 PAY INEQUITY BASED ON GENDER MUST END

                                 ______


                        HON. MICHAEL A. ANDREWS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 26, 1994

  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when President John F. Kennedy 
signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, working women were earning only 60 
percent of what men earned. Now, 30 years and more than twice the 
number of women in the workforce later, that average has grown by a 
measly 15 percent. At this rate, women won't reach pay parity until the 
year 2044.
  That certainly wasn't what President Kennedy had in mind when he 
described the Equal Pay Act as ``adding to our laws a structure basic 
to democracy * * * and to the protection in the workplace for women.'' 
Yet this unconscionable practice of paying female employees less than 
male employees for the same job goes on.
  In truth, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for this pay 
disparity. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences found 
that between one-third and one-half of the wage differences between men 
and women cannot be explained by differences in experience or 
education.
  In some respects, the situation is worse today than it was three 
decades ago. Today more than 50 percent of women over the age of 16 
work. Within 6 years, two out of three women will be working in this 
country but can expect to lose approximately $420,000 due to unequal 
pay practices over their careers.
  Our economy depends upon women in the labor force. Their labor and 
earnings are no small components of what makes our economy run. The 
image of the well-paid career woman partially masks the reality of 
women in the workforce. Most women work because they have to: to 
support their families, afford expensive child care, and help prepare 
their children for the future. It is extremely important that these 
women be paid at the level they have earned.
  The fact is today's working women bear perhaps the heaviest burden of 
any group in our Nation. In most cases, the lower the family income, 
the higher the probability that the mother must work. Where the mother 
is the sole support for the family, she often must face the hard choice 
of either accepting public assistance or taking a pay rate which 
averages less than two-thirds of the pay rate for men.
  Unfortunately, we have consistently ignored this gross inequity. Our 
negligible progress since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is made worse by 
the number of pay equity cases pursued by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission [EEOC] dropping from 79 in 1980 to 2 in 1992. 
Anecdotal reports have indicated a new frustration among working women 
who may have a legitimate case for consideration by the EEOC but have 
been discouraged from pursuing their cases by a perceived indifference 
to the complaint.
  Clearly, we need to do more. Beyond the obvious need for simple 
fairness, there is the issue of economy. More than half of our 
workforce is not getting paid what they have earned and deserved.
  The Pay Equity Employment Reform Act of 1994 [PEER] that I am 
introducing today takes a large step to achieving the goal of pay 
parity between men and women.
  My legislation creates a program to help private sector employers 
develop and implement pay equity programs in their businesses and 
provides information and technical assistance to eliminate 
discriminatory wage-setting practices. It also increases the funding 
for the EEOC by $500 million over 5 years to pursue cases of unfair 
compensation. The money will also be dedicated to establishing a 
campaign to educate employees of their rights to be paid equably, 
regardless of gender.
  Most successes for pay equity have been in the public sector, 
generally on the State and municipal levels. In fact, more than 22 
States have implemented programs to achieve comparable pay for both 
male and female State employees. Unfortunately, the Federal Government 
has not been as attentive to this issue. The Federal Government's own 
job evaluation system hasn't been objectively examined for pay equity 
issues since 1925. That's probably why a male government economist 
averages $10,000 more than a female economist.
  For this reason my bill also requires that the Office of Personnel 
Management, Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of 
Labor review the Federal evaluation scale and act to remove 
discriminatory factors. The Office of Personnel Management is required 
to publish information regarding the wage gap for civil servants and 
the Government's compliance with antidiscrimination laws. This 
information is currently collected but not shared with the public.
  Currently, the legislative branch has no personnel policy to promote 
and ensure equal pay among congressional employees. Because Congress 
should be subject to the same laws it passes for the private sector, 
this legislation calls for the General Accounting Office to evaluate 
congressional compensation practices. For the first time a 
comprehensive plan would apply the principles of the Equal Pay and 
Civil Rights Acts to Congress.
  Too often in our history, the contributions of women--not to mention 
the inequalities they have faced--have been overlooked or forgotten. 
We've no better example of that than the fact that 30 years after 
identifying gender-based pay inequity, we have nothing to show for it.
  Enacting the Pay Equity Employment Reform Act will complete the work 
that was started by President Kennedy in 1963.

                          ____________________