[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H743-H747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ECONOMIC EQUITY FOR WOMEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
introduce a special order that my colleague, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton and I are cohosting for the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. We are the cochairs of the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, a bipartisan organization of 
the women Members of Congress, and in recognition of Women's History 
Month, we are holding a series of four special orders on four different 
subjects of great concern for women.
  Today we turn to the issue of economic equity. I am going to start by 
talking about the contributions of women during Women's History Month 
in the area of our economy in today's world.
  Women today are making an extraordinarily valuable contribution to 
all sectors of our economy, and in particular, to the dynamic growth of 
small businesses. Women are opening new businesses at twice the rate of 
men.

[[Page H744]]

 Over one-third of all U.S. firms are women-owned businesses. These 
firms employ one of every four U.S. workers, and between 1987 and 1996, 
the growth of women-owned firms outpaced overall growth of U.S. firms 
by nearly two to one.
  Women at all economic levels benefit from this dynamic growth. Women-
owned entrepreneurial companies are providing women with more 
leadership and management experience than they have had access to in 
larger corporations. These companies are leading the way in providing 
new benefits to employees, like more flexible work arrangements, 
tuition reimbursement, and profit-sharing. The likelihood of enjoying 
those benefits is far greater if you work for a woman-owned business.
  What is driving this explosion of entrepreneurial enterprise by 
women? Not the need to integrate work and child care, but the desire 
and determination to control their destiny. Most do not work out of 
their homes to care for their children. In fact, it will surprise the 
Members to know that women with home-based businesses are no more 
likely to have children at home than are other women entrepreneurs. 
Most establish their business because they want to control their 
lives and control that balance between work and family responsibilities 
that is at the heart of satisfaction.

  Current estimates put the number of woman-owned firms at 8 million 
businesses, contributing more than $2.38 trillion in annual revenues to 
our economy. In Connecticut, over 80,000 women-owned business firms 
account for 30 percent of all firms in the State. Employment growth in 
women-owned businesses exceeds the national average in nearly every 
region of the country and nearly every major industry. Employment in 
women-owned firms rose by more than 100 percent from 1987 to 1992, 
compared to 38 percent for all firms. Women-owned firms employ a total 
of 18.5 million workers. The number of women-owned businesses is 
increasing in every State.
  The top growth industries for women-owned businesses are diverse: 
construction, wholesale trade, transportation, communications, agri-
business, and manufacturing.
  In addition to their dynamic growth, women have proven to be good 
business managers and are more likely to remain in business than the 
average U.S. firm. Nearly three-fourths of women-owned businesses 
operating in 1991 were still in business 3 years later, compared to 
two-thirds of all U.S. firms in the same period.
  Women-owned businesses are also contributing to our global economy. 
As of 1992, and these are rather old figures, they are far better now, 
but these are the most recent we can count on, 13 percent of U.S. 
women-owned firms were involved in international trade. Globally, 
women-owned firms typically comprise one-fourth to one-third of the 
business population.
  To what do we attribute this success? Of course, to women's 
creativity, determination, and willingness to work hard, but we as the 
Nation's leaders are also a reason for these phenomenal statistics. 
Government-developed programs, along with a growing base of successful 
women business leaders to serve as mentors and role models are making a 
difference. As an example, the Small Business Administration Loans 
Program made loans to women in fiscal 1995 that accounted for 24 
percent of the total loans made and 18 percent of the loan dollars 
loaned.
  In particular, the SBA Microloan Demonstration Program awarded 43 
percent of their loans to women. These loans averaged $10,000 and are 
critical to budding businesses. One program in the SBA's Office of 
Women Business Ownership provides business skills training, counseling, 
mentoring, education, and outreach to America's women entrepreneurs. 
Since its inception in 1988, more than 60,000 women have benefited from 
this program through 54 nonprofit business centers in 28 States 
Nationwide.
  Using Federal funds as seed money, business centers, after a 3-year 
period, must become self-sufficient. More than 35 centers are now 
entirely self-sufficient, and they are examples of true economic 
development, job-producing organizations that increase earning 
potential and are developing a large pool of skilled entrepreneurs.
  Last year I introduced the Women's Business Training Centers Act of 
1996 that would authorize this SBA Program to become permanent and 
increase its funding. I will be introducing that same legislation this 
year.
  Other contributors to the growth of women-owned businesses include 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 which establishes a 5-
percent government-wide procurement goal for women-owned businesses, 
and the Women's Requalification Loan Program which enables the SBA to 
prequalify a loan guarantee for a woman business owner before she goes 
to the bank.

                              {time}  1430

  Through these programs we have nurtured a dynamic resource for 
national economic growth. We need to continue that effort. There is 
more work to be done. Because despite their positive achievement, there 
are still areas of concern for women in business. These include the 
need for expanded access to capital, increased participation in Federal 
and private procurement markets, better access to training and 
technical support, greater access to affordable health care plans, a 
broader knowledge base about women-owned businesses. Women-owned 
businesses have become a key component of our national economic growth. 
And I know this body is going to be interested in and willing to 
support growth initiatives that the caucus will bring to our attention 
in the months ahead.
  It is now my great privilege and pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], a woman of great 
leadership, enormous determination, passion, and intelligence.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, for her kind 
words, for her very hard work on behalf of women, for her 
bipartisanship and for her great intelligence and energy in this body. 
It is a great pleasure to commemorate Women's History Month, as a 
partner with my co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.
  This is the 20th year of the Congressional Women's Caucus, so Women's 
History Month this year means something very special to the 53 Members, 
who are women in the House of Representatives. It is a special enough 
occasion so that tomorrow the women Members will be going to the White 
House at 5:00 p.m. in order to commemorate its 20th anniversary with 
the President of the United States.
  I want to indicate before I begin, Mr. Speaker, that my co-chair and 
I are only beginning this series. The second week of this series for 
Women's History Month will concern women in the military. That is an 
issue of great importance to the Women's Caucus this year, particularly 
considering the sexual harassment and sexual assault charges that have 
arisen at Aberdeen and other places.
  The third week of March, the subject will be women's health. That is 
a very special matter for this caucus, since, I believe it is fair to 
say, the caucus can take much of the credit for advances that have come 
from this body on the issue of women's health. The gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] will lead us the third week of March on women's health. But 
where the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I begin is perhaps the place 
to begin this year discussing women and economic equity. The emergence 
of women in the workplace puts a burden on this body and on the 
American people to absorb this very large group with fairness and 
equity and equality.
  The new woman is a woman who works. She is often a woman with 
children working part time. She is often a woman who works only after 
her children are in school. But it will be a rare woman of the coming 
generation that has not spent some time in the work force.
  Last year, April 11, the President declared National Pay Inequality 
Awareness Day. That was the day on which a number of bills to encourage 
greater fairness toward women in the workplace were introduced. The 
reason April 11 was chosen last year is that was the day on which 
American women's wages for 1996, when added to their entire 1995 
earnings, finally equaled what men earned in 1995 alone. This year I 
will be introducing the Fair Pay Act on that day. That is a bill I have 
introduced before and will introduce

[[Page H745]]

until there is more substantial progress for women in the workplace.
  I also support a bill that has been introduced in the Senate entitled 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act will be introduced 
here in the House, and I intend to be a cosponsor. It is a far milder 
bill than the bill that I have written, the Fair Pay Act, and, 
therefore, it is a bill that I would hope most Members could embrace.
  It will require greater penalties for violators of the Equal Pay Act. 
It will require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to maintain 
payroll records by race, sex, and national origin even as it now 
maintains these records with respect to other terms and conditions of 
employment. And it will require the EEOC to train its employees in wage 
discrimination.
  This bill is necessary because the notion of equal pay for equal 
work, embraced by virtually everyone in this body, is not getting the 
attention by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission it should get 
today, and there has been a decline in the number of cases. We think 
that the Paycheck Fairness Act and what it would encourage will 
increase vigilance under the Equal Pay Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I was the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission during the Carter administration. As such, I enforced the 
Equal Pay Act and the other discrimination laws, including those that 
relate to pay. Out of that experience, it has become clear to me that 
we need the Equal Pay Act to be amended to do for women in the 1990's 
what the Equal Pay Act did for women in the 1960's.
  The Equal Pay Act has been one of the most successful bills or one of 
the most successful pieces of legislation designed to offer equal 
opportunity ever passed by the Congress. It has in fact helped to 
narrow the gap between men and women in pay. But no one would stand in 
the well of the House and say, it has done its work or that it is as 
effective as this statute, the Equal Pay Act, could in fact be. 
Progress has been made but a great deal of that progress is sadly 
illusory.
  Women's wages have now gone from 62 cents on a man's dollar, as was 
the case in 1982, to 71 cents on a man's dollar today. The problem with 
that progress is that it does not reflect straightaway progress for the 
average woman in the work force. The new presence of highly educated 
women in entry level positions accounts for part of that progress. But 
sadly, part of that progress simply shows up because men's wages have 
fallen so precipitously.
  Why then is there a wage gap today? The wage gap persists largely 
because most women are still segregated in a few low paying women's 
occupations, pure and simple. If you got the opportunity to go to law 
school or business school or medical school, you are not among those 
women. But the fact is that the average woman makes about $14,000 a 
year, and that is because she works below her skill level in a women's 
occupation.
  These occupations have stereotyped wages. They do not in fact pay in 
equivalency what a man would get in a job of equal skill effort, 
responsibility and working conditions.
  The jobs may be dissimilar, but why should the pay be different if 
the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions are the same?
  For example, would anyone like to indicate to me why an emergency 
services operator, a female, dominated-occupation, should be paid less 
than a fire dispatcher, a male, dominated-occupation? There is no 
defensible reason for the disparity in their wages, but there is an 
easily ascertainable reason. And that is clearly that the wage scales 
have built in the fact of gender in the occupation. That is a problem 
that pervades the work force and pay levels.

  My bill, the Fair Pay Act, would simply require that in the same 
workplace an employer pay men and women who are doing jobs of 
equivalent skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions the 
same, even if the jobs are not exactly the same.
  This bill poses no threat to the way in which employers do business 
or the way in which our economy operates. The burden would be on the 
woman to show that her wage, the difference in her wage, for example, 
between the fire dispatcher and the emergency services operator, is not 
because of market conditions and supply and demand, but the burden 
would be on her to show that the reason for the disparity is 
discrimination based on sex. I am the first to indicate that not all 
women will be able to show that they earn less money than men in a 
comparable occupation because of gender discrimination. All my bill 
does is to allow those women who do the opportunity to show that they 
in fact are paid less than men because of their gender.
  By now it is a truism that the decline in men's wages and the decline 
in the standard of living over a couple of decades as well have made 
work a necessity for the average husband-wife family. The growth in 
female heads of household, the return now or the entry now of welfare 
clients into the work force means that we must redouble our effort to 
make sure that women are paid what they are worth in the workplace.
  The Fair Pay Act takes up where the Equal Pay Act leaves off. We have 
already seen in at least a half dozen States, from the State of 
Washington to the State of Connecticut, that one can enforce comparable 
pay discrimination without upsetting the economy of a State, for the 
State employment systems in those States have done exactly that.
  To illustrate the currency of the issue of equal pay and comparable 
pay, let me finally cite the case of Marianne Stanley. Marianne Stanley 
is now coaching at Stanford. The sports aficionados will, of course, 
recognize who Marianne Stanley is. She was known especially for her 
work as head coach at Old Dominion, where she had a winning percentage 
of 351 to 146 during her stay there. The school won the AIAW titles in 
1979 and 1990 and added an NCAA title in 1985 to her credits.
  Until this season, by the way, when Tennessee's Pat Summit won her 
fourth national title, Stanley and Summit were tied for the most 
national women's basketball titles. Marianne Stanley has now brought an 
Equal Pay Act suit.

                              {time}  1445

  She brought that suit when she left Old Dominion, and she became head 
coach at USC, and she was there from 1990 to 1993. She was considered a 
national treasure, and led USC to the final eight of the NCAA 
tournament in 1992. Her teams, her Trojan teams, reached the NCAA 
tournament in each of her final 3 years there. This woman is a winner.
  But she was fired following the 1992 season, reportedly because of a 
dispute with her athletic director over not receiving a salary equal to 
the salary that men's coaches were paid. She brought a lawsuit. That 
lawsuit is now on appeal.
  Here is a woman who has broken through as coach in a sport where 
women got scant attention until recently, but as everyone knows, 
women's basketball is the coming sport, and here we have a champion in 
her own right who goes on to be a champion coach.
  All I can say, without knowing the outcome of the suit that is on 
appeal, is that she was not paid the same as men's coaches. I do not 
think that one who won games the way she did should be subject to less 
pay than men's coaches who, by the way, had not, so far as I 
understand, won or had the championships as she had.
  Equal pay and comparable pay issues abound in the workplace. This is 
the month to remind Americans of that. Too often we use commemorations 
like Women's History Month to congratulate ourselves for commemorating 
the fact of such a month. We must use these occasions to remind 
ourselves that there is work to do, and to then put that work forward.
  My cochair has indicated that she will be using this month to 
introduce her bills. I will be using this month to introduce bills 
designed to help women. I hope that women in the caucus and our many 
colleagues throughout the Congress will use Women's History Month to 
focus on doing something for women that will have an effect on 
increasing their opportunities in the work force.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia, and we have next the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Kay Granger. This is Congresswoman Granger's first term as a 
Member of the House of Representatives.

[[Page H746]]

 She was the distinguished and successful mayor of Fort Worth, TX.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in 
discussing the need for this Congress to help America's working women. 
It is particularly appropriate that the Women's Caucus is launching our 
weekly special orders by focusing on jobs and the workplace.
  Today more than ever working women are no longer the exception, they 
are the rule. America's working women are redefining the workplace as 
we know it. Today women own nearly 6.5 million companies. That is one-
third of all the businesses in America. By the year 2000 women will own 
40 percent of America's businesses.
  So it is vitally important that this Congress address the issues and 
the interests of this very growing segment of our economy. It is 
becoming increasingly clear that women's issues are economic issues. 
Jobs, taxes, and economic growth are the concerns of today's women.
  Female entrepreneurs are here to stay. And while Washington cannot 
create wealth, we must at least ask our government to follow the first 
principle of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.
  Government taxation and regulation and litigation hold back our 
working women. Government taxes prevent female employers and employees 
from keeping more of their hard-earned money, money needed for 
furthering their education, expanding their businesses and caring for 
their families. Today's taxes consume more family income than they 
spend on food, education, or shelter.
  We need to make our tax system flatter and fairer so that our women 
do not have to work almost half the year to foot Government cost. 
Likewise, Government rules on litigation subject our small 
businesswomen to needless time and expense. Let us let our working 
women spend more time in the board-room and less time in the courtroom 
through legal reform.
  Mr. Speaker, today's working women are the pioneers of tomorrow. As 
they struggle to create new jobs, growth, and opportunity, let us make 
our Government work for our working women.
  I would like to point out that many women work full time not only at 
the office but also in the home. In our efforts to enhance and 
encourage the careers of our women, I am afraid we have sometimes lost 
sight of the fact that many of our working women are also working 
mothers. These working mothers need the opportunity to balance their 
schedules between work and home. After all, meetings with our children 
are just as important as meetings with our staff.
  As a working mother of three, I understand there is no price tag on 
time with our loved ones. As a former mayor, I learned that comp time 
works in the public sector. Let us help our working women by giving 
workers in the private sector the same choice.
  Mr. Speaker, the working women of America are essential to ensuring 
that our Nation continues on a path of economic growth and personal 
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support measures which promote 
and protect the dual role of America's women as leaders at the office 
and leaders in the home.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 
the right to have written statements included in this special order 
from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Julia Carson, the gentlewoman from 
New York, Sue Kelly, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Constance 
Morella, who have asked to submit such statements, as well as all 
Members.
  I would also like to recognize the intention of a number of other 
women to participate in this special order; and while they have been 
detained, the gentlewoman from Florida, Corrine Brown, the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, the gentlewoman from California, Zoe 
Lofgren, and the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney, had 
intended to participate, thinking that this would be earlier.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield once again to my 
colleague, Congresswoman Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for reading 
off names of Members who may want to now place matters into the Record. 
I believe she also read Julia Carson and Kay Granger. If not, I want to 
be sure their names were included. I am certain that there are perhaps 
even more Members who will want to add statements to the Record.
  I thank the gentlewoman for acquiring this time and for sharing it 
with me.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
celebration of Women's History Month and would like to call special 
attention to the progress U.S. women have made in the workforce.
  Women have made inroads into spheres formerly dominated by men. For 
example, the number of female managers jumped from 19 percent in the 
1970's to 43 percent by the middle of the 1990's. By 1993, women earned 
a majority of all college degrees. Black women far exceeded their male 
counterparts, earning 63 percent of bachelor's degrees.
  Unfortunately, these significant gains in the public arenas of school 
and workplace are matched by some sobering trends. Women and children 
are more likely to be living in poverty than men. Among the elderly, 
women's likelihood of being poor is twice that of men of the same age.
  Under the new welfare reform law, poor and minority women will 
disproportionately suffer the impact of this legislation. For example, 
under the new law, unmarried women who have children while on welfare 
can be denied additional benefits for those children. With out-of-
wedlock birth rates highest among blacks and Hispanics, this 
restriction will disproportionately affect poor minority children. In 
addition, the new law will exclude many immigrant mothers and their 
children from receiving food stamps.
  In spite of these grim facts, I believe that women will achieve 
greater economic equity in the future. The movement toward greater 
equality in work and family roles can only be achieved over the long 
run by the succession of generations. Each generation must become more 
committed to equality than the last.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of Women's History 
Month and in tribute to the many women who, through the ages, dared to 
challenge injustice and discrimination in the workplace. It is the 
tireless work of those leaders who came before us that allow women to 
enjoy the benefits of the nineties. However, as we all know, those long 
distance runners for equality and social justice have not completed 
their course. During Women's History Month, we pause to reflect what we 
have accomplished in the past, and the work we must do for the future.
  Women have made great strides in education and in the workforce. The 
majority of undergraduate and master's degrees are awarded to women, 
and 40 percent of all doctorates are earned by women. More than 7.7 
million businesses in the United States are owned and operated by 
women. These businesses employ 15.5 million people, about 35 percent 
more than the Fortune 500 companies worldwide. And women are running 
for elected offices in record numbers. When I first came to the House 
in 1987, there were 26 women in the House and 2 in the Senate. In 1997, 
there are 53 women serving in the House, and 9 in the Senate.
  While many doors to employment and educational opportunity have 
opened for women, they still get paid less than men for the same work. 
Full-time, year-round working women earned only 72 cents for each 
dollar a man earned in 1994. College-educated women earned $11,000 less 
per year than college-educated men. College-educated women earned only 
$2,000 more per year than white men who hold a high school diploma.
  Although women are and continue to be the majority of new entrants 
into the workplace, they continue to be clustered in low-skilled, low-
paying jobs. Part-time and temporary workers, the majority of whom are 
women, are among the most vulnerable of all workers. They receive lower 
pay, fewer or no benefits, and little if any job security.
  Last year's Economic Equity Act, which I introduced along with my 
colleagues on the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, placed new 
emphasis on the economic impact of domestic violence. We are only 
beginning to understand the impact of domestic violence on American 
businesses. Domestic violence follows many women to work--13,000 
attacks each year--threatening their lives and the lives of coworkers 
and resulting in lost productivity for their companies.
  The economic problems of the elderly affect women in disproportionate 
numbers because women tend to have lower pensions and Social Security 
benefits than men. Pension policies have not accommodated women in 
their traditional role as family caregivers. Women move in and out of 
the workforce more frequently when family needs arise making it

[[Page H747]]

more difficult for them to accrue pension credit. Many must rely on 
inadequate Social Security earnings during their retirement years.
  Last Congress, however, we passed the Homemaker IRA, which is a 
milestone in the struggle to achieve pension equity for women. Before 
the Homemaker IRA, women, and men, who worked at home as family 
caregivers could only contribute $250 to an Individual Retirement 
Account [IRA]. This legislation ended the discrimination that many 
women face when they choose to stay at home and take care of their 
children. Allowing nonworking spouses to make full IRA contributions of 
$2,000, just as their working spouses do, will help homemakers save for 
their retirement years.
  Mr. Speaker, celebrating Women's History Month highlights the 
accomplishments of women and the need to open new doors in the future. 
But this special month would be meaningless if women's needs are 
forgotten during the rest of the year. We must continue to increase the 
workplace opportunities for women, which will benefit all Americans as 
we face the economic challenges of the 21st century.

                          ____________________