[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1419-H1425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ECONOMIC EQUITY FOR WOMEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lead a special order on economic 
equity for women. I expect to be joined by other women Members of 
Congress, perhaps by some men as well. They would be welcome. I have 
already been joined by the energetic and able gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), to whom I will yield in a few moments.
  I come to the floor this evening during this special Women's History 
Month, Mr. Speaker. During this month, women Members, and we are 
proudly 50 Members strong in this House, of course, when you consider 
that there are 440 Members, we are the first to concede that we are 
proud, but not pleased, but we are proud to honor Women's History Month 
by participating in a number of floor speeches simply to keep before 
this body what I know most Members would not want to forget, and that 
is that women's issues increasingly dominate much of what concerns 
America, often as family issues.
  This evening I want to devote my own time to discussion of specific 
aspects of economic equity, but I remind the body that this general 
subject covers a multitude of problems, among them old-fashioned 
discrimination against women in everything from sports to jobs, women's 
new rise in small business, women's special place as now primary in 
their dependence for their economic survival and benefit on a whole set 
of gender neutral economic programs, among them Social Security.
  We say watch when you change Social Security, particularly when you 
talk about privatization, that you do not forget who lives the longest 
and who is most dependent on Social Security, and consider whether or 
not they will quickly and freely enter the market, particularly since 
it is low wage workers, among whom women are the predominant group who 
are most dependent on Social Security.
  The earned income tax credit where many women, this very month, 
simply would have thousands of dollars in reduction in pay were it not 
for the earned income tax credit, which goes in this country 
predominantly to women who are, again, the low paid workers of America, 
minimum wage.
  We got a minimum wage through, I think in no small part because this 
body understood it was talking about women, women vote, and women 
understood that that vote was a women's vote because two-thirds of 
those who qualify for the minimum wage, in a very real sense, to our 
shame, are women and women with children at that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
and thank her for coming to the floor to speak on an aspect of this 
subject.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues from the Women's 
Caucus as we work to bring greater attention to the issue of economic 
equity for women.
  I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) for her valuable leadership, both of the Women's Caucus 
and on this critical issue.
  I do want to note that, in her notice for this special order on 
economic equity for women, she cites a quote from the United States 
Bureau of the Census. And I would like to read this quote into the 
Record. It says, ``The median earnings of women with a strong 
commitment to workforce were $23,710 while those of men were a 
substantially greater $32,144.''
  I would like to bring notice to this, not only for the important data 
that is below that points out the discrepancy between the earnings 
between men and women, but as an example of how we use census data over 
and over again in our everyday lives to know where we are as a Nation, 
where we are going as a Nation. Without good data, we are just another 
opinion.
  This is one example of how the census data helps us track the 
progress or lack thereof of women in the workforce and that we, 
likewise, need to work for a fair and accurate census that is coming 
up.
  Mr. Speaker, the Women's History Month is traditionally a time to 
highlight women's achievements and an opportunity to increase public 
awareness of the unique contributions women have made throughout 
history.
  It is true that American women have made great strides. Women break 
through more personal and professional barriers every day, and we all 
should take pride in these many accomplishments. But we cannot afford 
to rest on these laurels, because the facts also show that there is a 
great deal of work that needs to be done.
  The sad reality is, almost 35 years after the Equal Pay Act was 
passed, there is still a huge wage gap. In fact, women earned equal pay 
in only two out of 90 jobs tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
1995.
  While the wage gap has narrowed by 15 percent since 1981, white women 
still make just 74 cents on the dollar to a male dollar. The situation 
is worse for the women of color. The wage gap for African-American 
women is 64 cents to the male dollar. For Hispanic women, it is 53 
cents. This fact should make us all angry. We should all be indignant 
when women are not paid the same as men for the same exact same job, 
comparable work.
  Pay inequity is yet another example of the lingering sexism and 
racism that is still in our society. Most of the wage gap cannot be 
explained away by differences in education, experience, or other 
legitimate qualifications. Even among recent college graduates, women 
earned 15.7 percent less than male graduates. While there has been some 
real progress, there is still a cultural bias against, in some cases, 
women workers.
  There are still antiquated perceptions that women possibly do not 
need

[[Page H1420]]

as much money as men, but they do. Women support their families. Their 
income is very much an important part of a two-wage family income. Yet, 
great women are supporting their families alone. As many as one in five 
American families are headed by women. Many two-parent families could 
not make it without both incomes.
  Clearly, economic equality is a fundamental issue for women. It goes 
straight to the heart of how we care for our families and the roles we 
play in our communities and the security of our retirement years, which 
my colleague is focusing on and mentioned earlier.
  Women continue to battle the glass ceiling, and virtually every 
profession is now open to us. But women have not yet broken the wage 
barrier. The notion of equal pay for equal work is so basic to the 
values of this country. If we genuinely want an equal society, we need 
to show women we value their work.
  This country can do better. We must do better. And we are working to 
achieve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record ``101 Facts On The Status of 
Working Women'', which is important information that we need to look at 
during this Women's History Month:

                101 Facts on the Status of Working Women


                       Women and the labor force

       1. In January 1997, there were 105 million women age 16 and 
     over in the U.S. Of that total, 62.7 million (59.7%) were in 
     the civilian labor force (persons working or looking for 
     work).
       2. The U.S. Department of Labor is projecting that between 
     1994 and 2005, women's labor force participation will 
     increase from 46 to 48%--nearly double the growth rate for 
     men.
       3. In 1995, 3.6 million women held more than one job.
       4. In 1995, 60% of all employed women worked in 
     traditionally female dominated occupations.
       5. Two out of every three temporary workers are women.
       6. Women comprised 44% of the total number employed in 
     executive, administrative and managerial positions in 1996, 
     up from 39% in 1988.
       7. In 1996, 42% of women in executive, administrative and 
     managerial positions were employed in the service industry, 
     compared to 31% of men. Women are also much less likely than 
     men to be employed in manufacturing, construction, 
     transportation and public utilities.
       8. Of the 1,960,000 engineers in the U.S. in 1996, only 
     167,000 (9%) were women, up from 2% in 1976.


                               pay equity

       9. Since 1981, the wage gap has narrowed from 59% to 71% in 
     1996--a decline of less than a penny per year.
       10. The wage gap for African American women is 64 cents to 
     a white man's dollar; for Hispanic women it is 53 cents.
       11. The average woman loses approximately $420,000 over a 
     lifetime due to unequal pay practices.
       12. The total amount of wages lost due to pay inequity was 
     over $130 billion in 1995.
       13. About 60% of the improvement in the wage gap during the 
     last 15 years can be attributed to the decline in men's real 
     earnings.
       14. According to a recent report, between one-third and 
     one-half of the wage difference between men and women cannot 
     be explained by differences in experience, education, or 
     other legitimate qualifications.
       15. Demonstrating that there is still not equal pay for 
     equal work, in 1995 female sales workers earned 43.1%, female 
     managers 32%, female college professors 22%, administrative 
     support 22%, health technologists and technicians 18%, female 
     elementary school teachers 12%, and female nurses 3.1% less 
     than their male colleagues.
       16. At all educational levels, women suffer from a wage gap 
     compared to male workers. College educated women earn $14,217 
     a year less than college educated white men, and only $794 
     more than white men who have never taken a college course.
       17. College educated African American and Hispanic women 
     annually earn $17,549 and $14,779 less, respectively, than 
     their white male colleagues, and college educated African 
     American women earn $2,558 less than white male high school 
     graduates.
       18. Even among recent college graduates, women earn 15.7% 
     less than men.
       19. While women constituted 46% of the work force in 1995, 
     over 63% of all workers earning the minimum wage or below 
     were women.
       20. The median weekly earnings for all men in 1996 was 
     $557, compared to $418 for all women, $362 for African 
     American women, and $316 for Hispanic women.
       21. Women in unions in 1995 earned weekly wages that were 
     35% higher than women who were not union members.
       22. Poverty rates are higher at every age for women who 
     live alone or with non-relatives than for their male 
     counterparts.


                         women-owned businesses

       23. According to the National Foundation for Women Business 
     Owners, there are nearly eight million women-owned businesses 
     in the U.S., employing over 18.5 million people and 
     generating close to $2.3 trillion in sales.
       24. In 1996, women-owned firms accounted for over one-third 
     (36%) of all firms in the country, and provided employment 
     for one out of every four (26%) U.S. workers.
       25. The growth of women-owned businesses is outpacing 
     overall business growth by nearly two to one, with an average 
     of 1,400 starting each day.
       26. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms 
     increased by 78% nationwide, employment by these firms 
     increased by 183%, and sales grew by 236%.
       27. Women-owned firms are more likely to remain in business 
     than the average U.S. firm. Nearly three-fourths of women-
     owned firms in business in 1991 were still in business three 
     years later, compared to two-thirds of all U.S. firms.
       28. An estimated 3.5 million women-owned businesses are 
     home-based and employ 14 million full- and part-time workers.
       29. Women business owners are more likely than all business 
     owners to offer flex-time, tuition reimbursement, and profit 
     sharing, and are more likely than men to volunteer and to 
     encourage their employees to volunteer.
       30. Women will own 40 to 50% of all U.S. businesses by the 
     year 2000.


                        women in the fortune 500

       31. According to a 1996 Catalyst study of the Fortune 500 
     companies, 1,302 out of 13,013 (10%) corporate officers are 
     women, up from 8.7% in 1994.
       32. A total of 394 companies (78%) have one or more women 
     corporate officers, up from 77% in 1994, and 105 companies 
     (21%) have no women corporate officers, down from 23% in 
     1994.
       33. Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) is the 
     only company with women in more than half (57%) of corporate 
     officer positions.
       34. Women comprise 57 (2.4%) of the 3,430 highest corporate 
     rank positions (chairman, vice chairman, CEO, president, COO, 
     EVP).
       35. The highest level of women corporate officers can be 
     found in savings institutions (22%), while the lowest level 
     is found in brokerage firms (4%).
       36. Only 47 (1.9%) of the 2,500 top earners in the Fortune 
     500 are women.
       37. Of all of the Fortune 500 companies, 417 have women on 
     the board of directors, but only 177 (35%) have two or more 
     women. Eighty-three companies (17%) have no women on their 
     boards.
       38. The rate of increase of women on boards is actually 
     decreasing--it grew by 9% in 1994, 7% in 1995, and 3% in 
     1996.
       39. Only 626 (10.2%) out of 6,123 of board positions are 
     held by women.
       40. A total of 53 women of color sit on boards (12.6% of 
     women board members, 1.4% of total members).
       41. The industry with highest number of women on boards is 
     the soap/cosmetics industry with 19%, while the mail/package/
     freight delivery industry has the lowest number, with only 
     3%.
       42. The industries with the highest percentage of companies 
     with no women on boards (43%) are computers/data service, 
     engineering and construction.
       43. There is a direct correlation between the number of 
     women on a company's board and the number of women serving as 
     corporate officers and at the highest corporate level at that 
     company. Companies with one woman board member have an 
     average of 7.1% women at the highest corporate levels, 
     whereas those with three or more women on the board have 
     30.4%.


                           women in politics

       44. Four women serve in the Cabinet of the second Clinton 
     Administration.
       45. Two women occupy seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
       46. In 1997, women hold nine (9%  of the 100 seats of U.S. 
     Senate and 51 (11.7%) of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. In addition, two women serve as Delegates to 
     the House representing the District of Columbia and the 
     Virgin Islands.
       47. Of the 62 women serving in the 105th Congress 
     (including the two Delegates), 12 are African American, four 
     are Hispanic, one is Asian American/Pacific Islander and one 
     is Caribbean American.
       48. California has sent more women to Congress than any 
     other state--a total of 21. Seven states have never elected a 
     woman to either the U.S. House or Senate. They are: Alaska, 
     Delaware, Iowas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont and 
     Wisconsin.
       49. Currently, two women serve as governors of their states 
     and 18 women serve as lieutenant governors.
       50. Women hold 25.1% of the 3223 available statewide 
     elected executive offices in 1997, an increase from 18.2% in 
     1992.
       51. In 1997, 1,597 (21.5%) of the 7, 424 state legislators 
     are women, up from 18.3% in 1991 and 5.6% in 1973.
       52. Of the 100 largest American cities, 12 have women 
     mayors.


                          older women's issues

       53. Women on average can expect to live 19 years into 
     retirement while men can expect to live 15 years.
       54. In 1993, 48% of women employed full-time by private 
     employers were participating in an employer-provided 
     retirement plan.
       55. Almost 12 million women work for small firms that do 
     not offer pension plans.
       56. Only 39% of all working women and fewer than 17% of 
     part-time working women are covered by a pension plan.

[[Page H1421]]

       57. Less than 33% of all women retirees age 55 and over 
     receive pension benefits, compared to 55% of male retirees.
       58. The median amount of women's pensions is $250 monthly, 
     compared to $650 for men.
       59. Two-thirds of working women are employed in sectors of 
     the economy that have the lowest pension coverage rate, 
     including the service and retail sectors.
       60. Workers covered by union agreements are nearly twice as 
     likely to have a pension. Women, however, are half as likely 
     to be in these jobs.
       61. Since women change jobs more frequently than men--women 
     stay with an employer for an average of 5.8 years, compared 
     to 7.6 years for men--many women leave jobs before they reach 
     the required years of service to qualify for employment 
     retirement plans, usually five to seven years.
       62. Only 20% of all widows receive a survivor pension, 
     which is usually only 50% of what their husbands benefits had 
     been.
       63. Fewer than one-fourth of divorced women age 62 and 
     older receive any employer-sponsored pension income, whether 
     from their own or their ex-husband's past work. Often, 
     divorced women are left with no share of their ex-husband's 
     pension, even after a long marriage.
       64. In 1995 women comprised only 58% of the total elderly 
     population but comprised 74% of the elderly poor. Older women 
     are twice as likely as older men to be poor, and nearly 40% 
     of older women living alone live in or near poverty level.
       65. A widowed woman is four times more likely, and a single 
     or divorced women five times more likely, to live in poverty 
     after retirement than a married woman.
       66. Of all unmarried women age 65 and older, 40% rely on 
     Social Security for 90 % or more of their household income.
       67. The U.S. has the greatest percentage of elderly women 
     in poverty of all the major industrialized nations.


                            working families

       68. The net increase in family incomes between 1973 and 
     1993 was driven almost entirely by the gains for married 
     couples with working wives, the only family type for which 
     real income increased significantly over the period.
       69. Despite the fact that employed mothers and fathers work 
     in similarly sized organizations, fewer mothers than fathers 
     are eligible for coverage under the Family and Medical Leave 
     Act (FMLA) because of women's higher rate of part-time 
     employment.
       70. In 1960, women were the sole support of less than 10% 
     of all families. In 1994, this figure was 18.1%. Of these, 
     38.6% had incomes below poverty level.
       71. Most women will spend 17 years caring for children and 
     18 years helping an elderly parent. Eighty-nine percent of 
     all women over age 18 will be caregivers to children, parents 
     or both.
       72. Less than one-fourth of new mothers leave the paid 
     labor force.
       73. Women average 11.5 years out of the paid labor force, 
     primarily because of care giving responsibilities; men 
     average 1.3 years.


                             HEALTH ISSUES

       74. It is estimated that 19% of women in the U.S. are 
     uninsured. Hispanic women are 2.5 times and African Americans 
     are 1.8 times as likely to be uninsured than white women.
       75. Women and their children are disproportionately 
     represented among the nation's uninsured population, 
     primarily due to women's segregation in service and retail 
     jobs, which have low rates of employer-provided insurance and 
     low wages. In 1993, 59% of uninsured women were from families 
     with an annual income of less than $25,000.
       76. More than 184,000 women were diagnosed with breast 
     cancer in 1996 and 44,300 women died from the disease. 
     Research indicates that universal access to screening 
     mammography would reduce breast cancer mortality by 30%.
       77. Many poor women and women of color do not have access 
     to mammography screening because they lack health coverage 
     and earn low wages. Because Medicare requires a woman to pay 
     a share of the cost, 85% of women covered by Medicare only 
     (without supplemental coverage) did not have a mammography 
     screening in 1992 or 1993.
       78. More than 52% of uninsured women ages 18-64 did not 
     have a Pap Test in 1993.
       79. Almost one in four women does not receive prenatal care 
     during the critical first trimester of pregnancy. Hispanic 
     and African American women are twice as likely as white women 
     to receive little or no care.
       80. While men have higher death rates from many diseases, 
     women suffer more from chronic and debilitating physical and 
     mental illnesses. Minority women disproportionately suffer 
     from the chronic diseases of hypertension, asthma, diabetes 
     and chronic bronchitis.
       81. Older women, ages 65 to 85, frequently suffer from 
     multiple chronic diseases: 27% suffer from two chronic 
     diseases and 24% suffer from three or more. Half of women 
     over 80 suffer from osteoporosis.
       82. Almost half (49%) of disabled women have annual incomes 
     below $15,900; 19% are on Medicaid or receive public aid; and 
     24% live alone.
       83. In 1995, 59% of Medicaid recipients and 60% of Medicare 
     enrollees were women. Of the women on Medicaid, 61% have been 
     on for more than two years and 37% for more than five years.
       84. Only one-third of women enrolled in Medicare live with 
     spouses compared to over half of men enrolled in Medicare.
       85. Women ages 15-44 had out-of-pocket expenditures for 
     health care services ($573) that were 68% higher than those 
     of men of the same age ($342).
       86. The most common reasons women give for failure to 
     obtain clinical preventative services are cost, lack of time 
     and lack of physician counseling.
       87. One in four women report that physicians talk down to 
     them, and one in six women have been told by a physician that 
     a problem was ``all in her head.''


                                violence

       88. Each year about one million women become victims of 
     violence at the hands of an intimate--a husband, ex-husband, 
     boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. This is seven times higher than 
     the rate of violence committed by an intimate against male 
     victims.
       89. In 1994, there was one rape for every 270 women, one 
     robbery for every 240 women, one assault for every 29 women, 
     and one homicide for every 23,000 women.
       90. Women in families with incomes below $10,000 per year 
     were more likely than other women to be violently attacked by 
     an intimate. Geographically, however, women living in central 
     cities, suburban areas and rural locations experienced 
     similar rates of violence committed by intimates.
       91. Each year nearly one million individuals become victims 
     of violent crime while working or on duty. Although men were 
     more likely to be attacked at work by a stranger, women were 
     more likely to be attacked by someone they knew.
       92. One-sixth of all workplace homicides of women are 
     committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. 
     Boyfriends and husbands, both current and former, commit more 
     than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace 
     every year.
       93. Workplace violence resulted in $42. billion in lost 
     productivity and legal expenses for American businesses in 
     1992 alone.


                       women in higher education

       94. Women earn 54% of the B.A.s awarded in the U.S., 52% of 
     the Masters and professional degrees, and 40% of the 
     doctorates.
       95. The number of colleges and universities headed by women 
     increased from 5% in 1975 to 10% in 1990. Women of color made 
     up less than 2% of these high-level administrators.
       96. In 1910, 20% of college faculty were female. In 1985, 
     women comprised only 28% of college faculty. This is only an 
     eight percentage point increase over a 75 year period.
       97. In 1995, women made up only 31% of the full-time 
     faculty of American colleges and universities, up from 26% in 
     1920--a five percentage point increase in 75 years.
       98. Women make up almost 40% of the full-time faculty at 
     public junior colleges, but only 20% of positions at top-
     ranked public and private research institutions.


                      women and charitable giving

       99. Women direct 43% of all foundations in the U.S.
       100. In 1995, women's average annual charitable 
     contribution was $983, up 26% from 1993. Men's average annual 
     contribution was $1,057, only a 6% increase since 1993.
       101. 1995 was the first year that women donated a larger 
     share of their annual income than men.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank her for 
organizing this special order and for all of her work for women, 
children, families, and working families in our society.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
her valuable contribution. May I also thank her for her very valuable 
work as vice chair of the Women's Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this evening specifically on pay equity 
for women. This is one of the great issues, working women say their 
most important issue, more important than issues which also are among 
their great priorities, education and choice and health care. They say 
pay equity.
  Why should this be so, Mr. Speaker? Well, part of the reason is that 
women are now close to half of all the workers in the United States. 
Mr. Speaker, that is an enormous increase from just 1996, when not 
half, but only less than a third, actually 30 percent of women were in 
the workforce.
  Why have they come in such numbers? I am not sure that all of them 
are like me, Mr. Speaker, born to work. I think that we all know why 
women are in the workforce today in such huge and increasing numbers.

                              {time}  1930

  I think we all know that wages have been stagnant since the early 
1970s, that even with the splendid economy, the American family has 
sent everybody who could work out to work.
  First and foremost, it is women and so almost half of the work force 
now is female. Perhaps the stagnant wages and increasing entry of women 
into the labor force helps us understand why pay equity now shows up in 
polls at the

[[Page H1422]]

top, the number 1, top issue for men and women; not women alone, Mr. 
Speaker, but men and women.
  I would hypothesize that the reason that people are saying that equal 
pay or pay equity, traditionally a woman's issue, is at the top of 
their agenda, that the reason is that women's pay has now become 
central to family income.
  When the women go out to work with the men and if there is a male in 
the household, he looks at her paycheck and then looks at his, and he 
says, how come you are not bringing home what I am bringing home, pay 
equity shoots to the top of the agenda, because he is talking about his 
family now. What we have seen is truly extraordinary. This women's 
issue has morphed into a family issue and into the number 1 issue 
according to the polls.
  That is driven, Mr. Speaker, not only by the fact that women have 
come in such huge numbers into the work force, it is driven by their 
lower wages compared to men. Study hard and do your homework, girls are 
told, and you can grow up to be anything you desire. I was told that, 
even as a skinny little black girl in the segregated public schools of 
the District of Columbia.
  And so that is exactly what good little girls do; they become good 
students. And today, it turns out that they have been good at 
everything except getting the equal pay they have earned.
  They have cracked open virtually every profession, but they have yet 
to crack the wage barrier, Mr. Speaker. They now collect 55 percent of 
college degrees. Men, Mr. Speaker, get only 45 percent of college 
degrees today. Women get 65 percent of the 3.5 grade point averages. 
None of that has done it. Study hard, little girl, and you can grow up 
to be anything you desire, so long as you do not ask to be paid the 
same as men who do the same work.
  I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have been chasing fair pay for women 
for 20 years, since the Carter administration when I chaired the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. We had the first hearings on pay 
equity at the EEOC in 1980, and later commissioned the landmark study 
by the National Academy of Sciences that is remembered and referred to 
still today because it confirmed that there is comparable pay 
discrimination against women.
  Mr. Speaker, women today have a comparable pay problem, not an equal 
pay problem. A comparable pay problem comes when people, mostly women, 
have the same skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions as 
men, but get paid less for jobs that are not the same, except in all 
the essentials of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
  When I came to Congress, I brought my experience at the EEOC to the 
only place that can do something about gender bias. My bill, H.R. 1302, 
the Fair Pay Act, now has more than 60 cosponsors; and I thank the 
Members of this body who have cosponsored this bill with me. It takes 
the pay gap head-on by barring discrimination based on section or race 
when jobs are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility, and working 
conditions.
  The Fair Pay Act would end the discrimination between, for example, 
the pay of a probation officer and the pay of his wife, a social 
worker. Both these people have gone to college. They may have even come 
out at the same time, they work every day. He hears from people who 
have been released from jail and may be on probation for years. She 
goes into some of the most troubled neighborhoods to work with 
disadvantaged people and their children. It is time that the Nation 
seriously ask whether we can expect women to continue to pursue higher 
education with the same vengeance only to earn close to $800 more than 
men who pass up college altogether.
  The budget reconciliation bill we have just passed offers tax breaks 
to help more women and men go to college. We should engage in some 
self-congratulation for that bill passed last year, Mr. Speaker. Now we 
must make the incentives to pursue higher education equal for women as 
for men. Pursuing pay discrimination will send the signal that college 
pays.
  Over and over again we say, we need to send more young people to 
college. Women have heeded that call so that they can meet the global 
competition in greater numbers than men. We do not want to have a 
reverse effect after some years when they figure out that college does 
not matter in pay.
  This signal is surely needed now to counter the danger signals of the 
1990s on pay for women. The gender gap has stabilized again.
  Mr. Speaker, the increase in closing the gap, or should I say the 
``decreasing of the gap,'' has stopped. It stopped at the end of the 
1980s. We have seen no real movement since closing in on a man's 
dollar, and we keep fluctuating, all in the upper 70s, between 70 
percent, sometimes getting as high as 75 percent or 76 percent, but 
always going back down in the ensuing year.
  The country simply cannot afford another 25 years of wage gap 
stability, not with so many women in the work force, not with the 
greater call for education, not with family income increasingly 
dependent on women's wages. As we have seen by the gender gap 
retrenchment of the 1990s, the gap will not close itself, or else it 
would have simply continued, unabated, to close.
  Congress has an obligation to eliminate the gender discrimination 
that sustains the gap. Good girls who go on to be good students deserve 
better when they go to work. I think they deserve what my Fair Pay Act 
would bring them.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not a country that will allow the 
rise in real wages for women that we saw during the 1990s to simply top 
out, that is it, glass ceiling in wages, you have had it; go on for 
another 10, 15 years, and maybe you will slip up again the way you did 
in the 1980s. The country will not tolerate that this time. Too many 
women in the work force are too dependent on their income. And yet, 
between 1979 and 1997, we have seen increases that encouraged us. Women 
earned $395 in median weekly earnings in 1979. That $395 turned to $431 
by 1997.
  Women reached their highest ratio of earnings to men in 1993 when the 
ratio was almost 77 percent of a man's dollar. Since 1995, and this is 
the bad news, Mr. Speaker, the wage gap has actually increased so that 
women in 1997 are showing about 74 percent of men's median earnings.
  Some have asked whether or not women have caught the so-called ``male 
wage disease.'' That disease is the disease, as it were, that has 
stalled men's wages for what seems like an eternity when they stopped 
rising in the 1990s. We have every reason to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, 
because we are now living in the best of times economically.

  The fact is that over and over again we are told by everybody from 
the President to the nightly news that we are now living in the longest 
period of sustained economic growth since the end of the Second World 
War. How then to explain the lack of real growth in women's wages and 
in men's wages during the 1990s?
  We explained it for men's wages by saying, well, men were in 
manufacturing, they were moving overseas, it would all straighten 
itself out. In that sense, they are in worse trouble than women, 
because it has been downhill all the way with no respite such as women 
got during the 1980s when the gap, in fact, was closed.
  Mr. Speaker, what concerns me most is that women's wage gap-closing 
is not explained by the growth in real wages. A substantial amount of 
the closing of the gap is not closing at all. It is because men have 
not, in fact, had an increase in their real wages, and that simply 
leaves them where they are, or declining, causing women to meet them 
more easily than if their wages had continued to go up since the early 
1970s.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is not what we had in mind when women started to 
close the wage gap. We do not mean to do that at the expense of men, 
our husbands, our fathers, our brothers; and of course, it is not at 
their expense that we are doing it. What these figures show is simply 
that they are not rising for whatever reasons women's are and, thus, 
there is the appearance of the closing of the gap that is in fact not 
the case.
  Beyond the fact that much of the closing of the gap of women's wages 
is really nothing more than a decline in men's wages, there is also a 
serious problem, and that is that most of the closing of the gap is not 
due to an increase in women's real wages.

[[Page H1423]]

  Mr. Speaker, 41 percent of the closing is due to an increase in 
women's real wages, but that leaves 59 percent which comes because of 
the decline in men's wages, and Mr. Speaker, the proportion of the gap 
that is closed due to the growth in real wages is only 19 percent; and 
that is in this decade, the 1990s.

                              {time}  1945

  Compare that to the 1980s, when the proportion of the closure of the 
gap for women due to real wage growth was 51 percent. Fifty-one percent 
of the gap closed because of real wage increases in the 1980s. Nineteen 
percent of the decrease in the gap in the 1990s is due to an increase 
in real wages for women. That is unsatisfactory, Mr. Speaker, and it 
tells us perhaps all we need to know about why pay equity has found 
itself at the top of the agenda for men and for women.
  We are talking family business here, Mr. Speaker. It is family wages 
that are falling. There is no such thing as women's wages anymore. 
Women are single heads of households. Imagine what this slow-up in the 
rise in women's wages means to women who have to support children by 
themselves.
  A third of all children in this country are born out of wedlock. Many 
more simply live for huge periods of time after divorce or separation 
with their mothers alone. These women are out here trying to make it on 
a woman's wage. Even when a woman is part of a two-earner household, 
men are so disquieted by the failure of the woman to bring home her 
fair pay that they have joined with women to put pay equity at the top 
of the list, at least according to the polls; a serious, serious 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, to get some sense of just how serious it is and why this 
body needs to pay attention to it, and I offer my Fair Pay Act as one 
approach at hand, an example comes out of what has happened to the pay 
of the women one would most expect to be ahead of the game.
  Let us look at women with Bachelor's Degrees. Mr. Speaker, they 
earned $28,701 in 1996. A man with a Bachelor's Degree earned $46,702. 
Let us look at high school graduates. A woman with a high school 
education earned $16,161, Mr. Speaker. A man with a high school 
education earned $27,642.
  Even if we consider that there are some reasons to discount part of 
this discrepancy, such as perhaps the woman has taken some time out to 
have children, perhaps the woman, and these are all either high school 
or college graduates, perhaps the woman has taken some time to have a 
part-time job, but can you really tell me that the difference should be 
almost $20,000 between a man who graduated from college and a woman who 
graduated from college? That gap is simply too great to be explained 
away by any explanation except some degree of discrimination in wages 
for women.
  We think that discrimination comes because, Mr. Speaker, wages in 
this country and throughout the world have been designed for women. 
When a job is a traditional women's job, throughout human time, that 
fact and that fact alone has depressed the wage scale. What the Fair 
Pay Act asks is that one eliminate that factor and that factor alone 
from wage-setting.
  My bill respects the market system. I am not crazy. This is a free 
market system, and I do not want to change it one bit in that regard. 
But the free market system does not allow men and women who do the same 
work to be paid dissimilarly, and the reason is because discrimination 
is not a market factor, or at least it is not a legitimate market 
factor.
  In the same way, the free market system should not allow 
discrimination to be a factor in the difference between what a 
probation officer and a social worker receive. Assuming they are 
measured objectively by the grade point scale widely used throughout 
industry, they are performing work that is comparable in skill, effort 
and responsibility, and working conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways to rectify this matter. I 
shall be speaking about the filing of a complaint, but I would like to 
speak to an old-fashioned market system way to rectify this 
discrimination. That is through collective bargaining.
  In every market system one way to legitimately raise wages is simply 
to bargain for increases, and the theory of bargaining for increases is 
that the market will keep the union from getting more of an increase 
than the market will bear. If it does not, workers will be laid off or 
other sacrifices will have to be made, and the employer's bargaining 
position in a market system will keep the wage from becoming higher 
than the market should allow.
  I believe we should take a very close look at what unions have done 
to bring pay equity for women. It is worth noting that white union 
women earn $151 more than their counterparts who are not unionized, a 
38 percent difference; that black union women earn $73 more than their 
counterparts who are not unionized.
  Mr. Speaker, these figures are weekly earnings, of course. That 
figure is an 18.5 percent difference. Hispanic women earn $24 more per 
week than their nonunion counterparts. That is a 6 percent difference. 
Looked at at the bottom line, women who are in unions are about one-
third closer to union white men's earnings.
  Why does this occur through unionization? Why are women increasingly 
coming to unionization? Why are so many people of color attracted to 
unionization? Because it tends to standardize wages in and of itself by 
the way bargaining occurs, and therefore, naturally, to eliminate some 
of this wage disparity and to reduce wage gaps.
  Of course, the fact that women and minorities have a voice in wage-
setting through their unions and the democratic practices of unions 
means that they can exert pressure on their unions to keep men and 
women's wages from getting out of line. If the difference is out of 
line and their consciousness is sufficiently raised, then they can in 
fact democratically compel their union to bring about greater 
equalization.
  Unions themselves, frankly, have stepped to the forefront often to 
raise the consciousness of their own members, rather than the other way 
around. I would like to offer some examples, because I think that they 
point up what can be done using this traditional market system 
approach.
  AFCSME, which by the way also represents many Federal workers, in the 
private sector has raised over $1 billion in wage adjustments alone for 
women workers. This is the American Federation of State and Municipal 
Employees.
  Their Minnesota pay equity contract is particularly noteworthy. 
AFCSME in fact bargained for a pay equity study in 1985, and looking at 
comparable skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, 
AFCSME got a contract that provided $21.7 million to reduce wage and 
equity in female-dominated jobs. That was an approximate increase of 9 
percent, and it occurred without reducing the number of jobs for women 
in State government, where this landmark win took place.
  That is important to note, again, because the way in which collective 
bargaining works, if the union finds that it is asking for an increase 
that the employer will make up for by laying off women or other 
workers, it gets nowhere. So again, the market system, using collective 
bargaining, disciplines how one bargains for increases in wages 
involving pay equity for women. It is a wonderfully neat and classic 
approach to improving wages for women.
  Occasionally this straight-out collective bargaining will not do it. 
Occasionally, therefore, there have been strikes. In 1981, AFCSME Local 
101, Council 57, had to go on strike. This occurred in the City of San 
Jose, California. What happened as a result, however, was a $1.5 
million increase in female-dominated jobs.
  It says something about a union that is willing to go on strike to 
bring pay fairness to its women workers, because it means that the men 
and women went on strike. And if the strike was successful, and it was, 
it was a nine-day strike, by the way, and it was, then what it means is 
the employer in fact gave an increase, but obviously, not from his 
point of view, more of an increase than the market would bear.
  Another union, SEIU, Service Employees International Union, has moved 
aggressively in the pay equity area. I am most intrigued by a 
settlement they won in 1987 in San Francisco.
  Essentially what SEIU did was to negotiate a $35 million settlement 
with the City of San Francisco. In order to

[[Page H1424]]

do that, the city had to put a referendum on the ballot, and the pay 
equity referendum passed by 60 percent. Twelve thousand workers 
benefited. Here we see a combination of democracy, collective 
bargaining, and pay equity for workers.

                              {time}  2000

  SEIU deserves a lot of credit for being among the first to raise the 
issue of pay equity for men of color as well as for women. SEIU has 
forced a study that shows that in L.A. County, 81 percent of the jobs 
were sex-segregated and 21 percent were segregated by race. This is the 
kind of study that often produces action through collective bargaining, 
Mr. Speaker.
  More recently, in 1994, there was another pay equity victory for the 
SEIU. The Local 715 in Santa Clara, California won nearly $30 million 
through achieving changes in job classifications of traditionally 
women-dominated jobs and jobs dominated by minority workers. In the 
end, these workers were brought to the wage levels of mixed-gender 
occupations.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Education Association represents not only 
teachers, but many education support personnel who have been left 
behind. The NEA has had some notable success in negotiating pay equity 
for these support workers in various school districts. More than two 
dozen contracts to be exact; 14,000 personnel affected.
  The estimate is that over a worker's career, their pay equity program 
has brought raises of a minimum of $10,000 for most of the employees 
involved, and as much as $40,000 in the career earnings for many 
others.
  In 1991, the utility workers of America negotiated a pay equalization 
increase at Southern California Gas Company. Traditional female-
dominated jobs saw increases of 15 percent. Typical of the occupation 
comparisons was the case of the female customer service representative 
who was equalized with the male service representative or meter reader. 
That is the way it is parsed out. The inside job is less, the outside 
job is more. Maybe it should be. But, in fact, often when we look at 
skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, that should not 
be the case.
  The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International, Local 34, 
negotiated a famous contract with my own university, Yale, where I went 
to law school, in 1988 for its clerical and technical workers, winning 
for these female-dominated occupations 24 to 35 percent over 4 years, 
and they had to go on strike to do it. I was on the Yale Corporation at 
time. Yale held out for a long time. There was a 10-week strike. It was 
the first pay equity strike in the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, if workers have to do that, they have got to do that. 
Hopefully, more and more employers will see that it is in their best 
interest to settle these matters peacefully, a strike peacefully, but a 
strike, of course, is almost inherently peaceful. But I would hope that 
most employers would understand that it is in their best interest to 
raise the wages of women workers so that they do not have people doing 
comparable work who are paid less than men who sit beside them or who 
work outdoors doing comparable work.
  The Newspaper Guild, perhaps some think of that as an unlikely union 
for pay equity, but it is no such thing. Here there have been three pay 
equity increases in three different newspapers. Examples of jobs that 
have been equalized are the female insider classified sales jobs and 
the historic male outside sales jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, nonunion workers may also get themselves into voluntary 
associations of one kind or another to try to negotiate pay equity 
disparities, but they will be at a severe disadvantage. They may 
advocate, but each and every one of these cases have required technical 
expertise, political support and financial resources. Pay equity case 
or matter cannot be argued without enormous backup. It must be shown 
that the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions are 
indeed unequal. That is not the case simply because the man in the 
workplace earns more than the woman in the workplace. The jobs may not 
be comparable. Most jobs are not comparable. Complainants have got to 
find in the same workplace two jobs that are comparable and then have 
to show by a very detailed and technical study that each and every one 
of these areas, when added up, should result in the same pay. Mr. 
Speaker, it is a very difficult thing to do, and cannot be done by 
getting on a PC and figuring it out. It takes lawyers, economists, 
statisticians, and a whole host of skills. That is why unions have 
proved most valuable to women and people of color in correcting pay 
disparity.
  Tom Donahue, a good friend and former Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-
CIO, said it best in a hearing in the 1980's: Bargaining about wage 
rates is something, after all, that we have been doing for decades. 
That is what unions do.
  I recognize that not everyone in this body favors unions or 
collective bargaining, strange as that may seem in a great democracy 
like ours. But that is indeed the case. It is either going to be done 
through that traditional market-oriented approach, collective 
bargaining, or my Fair Pay Act would do it for nonunion workers and, 
for that matter, for union workers if the union cannot or does not move 
forward. And one way or the other, look at the polls. We will see that 
the American family is demanding that we do something about it.
  Mr. Speaker, this discrimination in wages results in no small part 
because women have only a limited number of occupations, really about 
six major occupations to which they have essentially been consigned. If 
a woman walks into a workplace and says, ``What jobs do you have 
open,'' Mr. Speaker, if we would like to do the testing, what will 
happen is the woman will be sent to the woman's track and the employer 
will not even recognize what he is doing. It is just what he has always 
done and the company has done for decades. And what happens results in 
crowding often of qualified and overqualified people into a few job 
categories whose talents could take them almost anywhere in the 
workplace.
  The way to undo this is to bring it to the employer's attention, make 
them undo it, make them understand that it is against the law and the 
law then has a deterrent effect and it begins to then undo itself, as 
much discrimination does today. It is discrimination that has reduced 
these wages.
  Mr. Speaker, I repeat, where these wages are unequal, and the cause 
is not discrimination, I do not call for equalization. I am not trying 
to build a command wage-setting economy. Not only do I respect the 
market economy, I glory in what it can do. Of course when it does not 
do what it is supposed to do, that is what this body is here for, to 
make sure that people do not unduly suffer while the economic cycle 
works its way out.
  I am talking about pinpointing the discrimination factor in wage-
setting, and only the discrimination factor, and I am talking about 
making the woman do that as a plaintiff if the matter were to turn out 
to be a discrimination suit.
  Mr. Speaker, my backup on that, and perhaps my preference, is 
collective bargaining. Ultimately, though, we have got to take 
responsibility for this. We cannot keep sending the woman out to work 
or having her, as in most cases, go out to work on her own or having 
her have the responsibility for the family income on her own and saying 
you are on your own; if you encounter comparable pay discrimination, 
you are still on your own. Discrimination, and only discrimination is 
what I am after, Mr. Speaker.

  The women of America have so many priorities that we often lose sight 
of what really is the priority. Is it child care? Is it osteoporosis? 
Is it breast cancer? Is it affirmative action? Women have spoken in 
unison with the men. They say it is pay equity. I am out here working 
every day and want the same pay that I would get if I were a man going 
out here on the job. If I do not get it, give me a statute that gives 
me a tool, and employers will begin to do it on their own.
  Nobody in this body would want to say to a woman who was a 911 
operator, an emergency service operator, that she is worth less than 
her husband who is a fire dispatcher. Can my colleagues imagine what it 
is like to sit at 911? I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, it is 
probably more hectic than it is to be a fire dispatcher, unless fires 
occur every moment. It is time we said to working women that they are 
on their own except when you encounter discrimination, and then the 
Congress of the United States is with them.

[[Page H1425]]

  The Fair Pay Act, like the AEPA or the Equal Pay Act, the historic 
landmark statute that we passed in 1963, will root out the 
discrimination I am after without tampering with the market system. A 
woman may file a discrimination claim, but as in all discrimination 
cases, she must prove that the gap between herself and a male co-worker 
doing comparable work is discrimination and no other reason such as, 
first and foremost, legitimate market factors. Gender is not a 
legitimate market factor.
  Mr. Speaker may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado). The 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my remaining time to 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I appeared before him to seek an increase 
for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I had twice sought 
such an increase, and have once gotten one on the floor with the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) as the cosponsor. And, again, 
as chair of the Women's Caucus, when we sent a letter the chairman had 
been responsive to us.
  This year I tried a different approach and said to Chairman Rogers 
that I sought support for the President's call for a $37 million 
increase for the EEOC, which has a serious backlog and runs backlogs 
every year, but I sought it in a different way, in a way that would 
keep the EEOC from coming back for annual increases. I raise this now 
because the EEOC is vitally important to women. Pay equity, sexual 
discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, job discrimination comes 
through its doors and through its complaint process.
  We had an extraordinary case, the Mitsubishi case here, involving 
virtually pornographic, outrageous actions by male co-workers, and the 
whole Women's Caucus got involved. Essentially what I said to the 
gentleman from Kentucky is that I would like to have the EEOC do 
something comparable to what I tried to leave in place when I was at 
the EEOC, which was a system of alternative dispute resolution, a way 
that processes cases rapidly, using settlement techniques, and a way 
that I found also increased the awards to women because after a woman 
has remained in the system for 2 years, she is likely to get no award 
at all because the evidence falls away. If she settles, she gets often 
some money, assuming the case is worthy.
  Chairman Rogers was intrigued by the notion that EEOC might not come 
back every year if they got an increase this time, and put in place 
structural changes that would then last for some considerable number of 
years.

                              {time}  2015

  That is what happened when I was at EEOC. I said, forget this 
increase. You will not see me again.
  I was at the EEOC for 4 years. I never came back on increase. I put 
in place something called rapid charge processing. We brought the 
average time of processing an individual charge from 2 years to 2\1/2\ 
months and raised the remedy rate from 14 percent to 43 percent using 
settlement techniques that are commonly used to resolve cases in the 
court system.
  Chairman Rogers said, show me a plan. And perhaps if we can tie the 
President's request for an increase to a plan, that would mean that the 
EEOC would have to show structural changes and not come back for annual 
increases. Perhaps he would look more closely at this substantial 
increase for the EEOC. I thank the chairman for looking closely at my 
proposal.
  When I came to the EEOC, it was known primarily for a backlog of 
125,000 cases. We got rid of most of that backlog before I left the 
agency in about 3 years' time.
  I raise the case of EEOC not only because I am a former chair, but 
because I believe not only in quality, I believe in equity and 
efficiency. And I think those of us that are for equality had better 
stand for efficiency or we are not going to get equality. The best way 
to go about cases is to try and work them out. Then they deter 
employers and then there is a win-win for everyone.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind this body that I have been speaking here this 
evening not for myself but for 50 women in this House, some of whom 
will embrace some of what I have to say, all of whom who stand for 
fairness and equality for women during Women's History Month.

                          ____________________