[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2042-H2048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H2042]]
                  COMMEMORATING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, 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, as March slips away, a number of women in 
the House did not want to let the year go by without commemorating 
Women's History Month. We recognize this is April 1. This is no April 
fool's joke. Women are a very serious concern of the women who will 
come forward this evening.
  We note first the progress women around the world, our sisters in 
solidarity, are making; and then we compare that progress to the 
progress of American women who serve in the legislatures of their 
countries.
  According to the data used internationally, women are considered to 
be at an acceptable threshold when they are about 30 percent of their 
legislatures. There are only 14 countries that qualify. The United 
States of America is not one of them. We are pleased at the increase in 
women, especially in the House and in the Senate; but we are not where 
we should be, particularly given the ideals that our country professes.
  Interestingly, women made their greatest strides in Rwanda last year, 
and that may well be because there is a fixed percentage of women 
required in their legislature. But this should be said of Rwanda: This 
is one of the world's most tragic nations, which suffered from 
violence. Perhaps having women in the leadership will help send to that 
country the notion that violence, most of it perpetrated by men in that 
country in one of the worst cases of genocide in the 20th century, is 
no longer acceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple nights ago Women's Policy, Incorporated, 
celebrated its 10th anniversary. This is a privately financed 
organization from which many Members of the House and Senate gather the 
information that they need to keep track of women's issues and where 
women need to go as far as legislation and other progress is concerned.
  It was also the 27th anniversary of the Congressional Women's Caucus. 
It reminded us that it was in 1916 that the first woman came to serve 
in this House, the famed Jeannette Rankin. That was 4 years before 
women even got the right to vote. I believe that says something, Mr. 
Speaker, about the determination of women to exercise the vote, that 
before the Constitution of their country even gave them the vote, as a 
matter of State law they sent a representative to this body.
  Today, we have grown from one in 1916 to 76 in this House and 14 in 
the Senate, well below the 30 percent threshold that the world 
acknowledges as a decent percentage. We are still struggling. We are 
still determined to find our rightful place in this body and in our 
country.

                              {time}  1845

  We certainly do not suffer, as many of our sisters do around the 
world. For example, in Kuwait, one of our allies, women cannot even 
stand for election to any office.
  Mr. Speaker, I was a Member of the House when the so-called ``Year of 
the Woman'' was informally proclaimed. That was the year when the 
confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas brought women forward, given 
the controversy surrounding his nomination, that a man who had been 
accused of sexual harassment was nevertheless put on the bench. It sent 
a whole bunch of women to the House and to the Senate, more than before 
and more than since. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, I must say, are inclined 
to call 2004 the ``Year of the Forgotten Woman,'' and we say so because 
we look for concrete evidence of where women are going in our country 
today. And for that, I think the best place to look is in the 
President's budget.
  The budget document is the best evidence of the policy of the 
President in office. I think that the American people for whom women's 
rights, the progress of women and children means something would be 
absolutely astonished by what the President's 2005 proposed budget 
tells us about his priorities when it comes to women's concerns. So I 
want to start where the American people would start in evaluating where 
this President stands on matters affecting women and their children. 
They would start with where he puts his money. They would start with 
his budget.
  As I look at that budget, it seems as if the President went on a 
search-and-destroy mission, focused heavily on the programs that affect 
women most. I looked, because I saw many programs that might tell us 
something about where an elected official stands on a given subject. I 
looked at signature issues for women, issues that are particularly 
identified with women and their children, although I am sure my good 
friends and colleagues in this body who are men would be quick to step 
forward and say that these issues mean just as much to them. It is 
simply that women have been at the front of the line advocating the 
issues that I am speaking about at the moment.
  Let us take the child care and development block grant: frozen for 
the third year in a row. Children are not frozen. The numbers continue 
to come forward. They grow older. They need services. So that when we 
have a 3-year freeze, it means 3 years of cuts for child care and 
development. It, of course, means that we are leaving hundreds of 
thousands of women in line for child care, holding their kids' hands 
and wondering what in the world they are going to do, particularly if 
they are on TANF where the bill this House has passed says you have to 
work longer and have less child care.
  Or let us take another signature issue: the Violence Against Women 
Act. These programs are cut for next year $22 million over what was in 
the budget for this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that these programs that I am going to 
go through get the attention of the Congress and the appropriators and 
that they come to their senses and put some of this money back.
  Republicans have been grandstanding about an important issue that 
concerns all of us. I say ``grandstanding'' because the way to indicate 
that it matters to you is, of course, to put just a little money in it. 
I am talking about trafficking in women and children, where women and 
children are essentially held virtually as slaves. Well, the Bush 
budget simply eliminates the program altogether.
  By now it is gospel that the best straight line for reducing juvenile 
crime is to give kids something to do after school. Well, the 
President's budget provides half of the promised funding for after-
school programs.
  What about Head Start? Here is a program that is surely not one of 
the favorites of the President, even though children and education has 
been a signature issue for him. He has begun the gutting of the Head 
Start program by eliminating the health and nutritional aspects that is 
itself a signature of the program. We bring low-income children, we 
combine the services they need in preschool by the time they go to 
school, so that they are ready to learn.
  There will also be no educational services in Head Start. Just a 
moment. I thought this was the education President. I thought the whole 
point is to begin education and the most rigorous education that a 
child can take according to age as soon as possible, so that we meet 
this goal that by grade 4 every child can read. How are we going to do 
that if we do not begin educational services in Head Start, 
particularly for low-income children who, of course, are and continue 
to be the furthest behind?
  Speaking about behind, if the President had put just a little more 
money in Head Start, he might have given the best and biggest boost to 
his own Leave No Child Behind bill. Only 60 percent of the children who 
are eligible for Head Start are covered by Head Start. Put all of those 
children in there and we will begin to see some difference for low-
income children in school, and No Child Left Behind can begin to take 
some of the credit for it, because it will pick them up, ready to 
learn.
  Speaking of No Child Left Behind, Mr. Speaker, once again the 
President has simply declined to fund the bill. This has been a huge 
disappointment for Democrats, because this bill was passed in a 
bipartisan fashion on the promise that a very difficult issue would 
have the prerequisite funding and, therefore, a chance to succeed. That 
issue is taking children who are not learning in school and somehow

[[Page H2043]]

making it possible for them to learn; and not only that, Mr. Speaker, 
but indicating that they were not going to graduate unless they 
learned. Well, on the basis of that promise, this became a bipartisan 
bill. It overcame many doubts and much skepticism.
  Now the promise of funding has dropped out of the President's budget. 
It has caused consternation in the House and in the Senate. But if we 
think that is all it has caused, we need only go into our own States 
and hear the howls and the cries about No Child Left Behind, its broken 
promises and the difficulties that States are having in meeting its 
goals, precisely because the promise of funding has not been kept.

  Moving right along, Mr. Speaker, to Even Start. Now here we have not 
only a woman's program but a family values Congress program. Because, 
essentially, what the program does is to put adult literacy and 
childhood education and vital parental education all in the same 
package and say, if you put them all together, then we will get what 
children need to learn. They will have parents who know how to read and 
who have an appreciation for learning. That is the adult literacy part. 
They will have childhood education, which is focusing on the child 
itself. And, of course, the parental education is absolutely essential, 
because once you know how to parent, you recognize the value of 
education, and the rest is likely to take care of itself.
  Well, this program, Mr. Speaker, is eliminated, not cut, but 
eliminated in the President's budget. I do not see how we can go home 
and leave that zero on our record, even though the President has left 
it on his.
  Maternal and child health block grant, if ever there is funding that 
gets the motherhood award of agreement of everyone, it is that grant: 
frozen.
  Some of the freezes are just plain cruel. Why would we want to cut 
off hearing screening for newborns? This program was started because we 
learned that if you catch a newborn with hard of hearing very early, 
the chances of correcting it soars. Hearing screening for newborns 
wiped out. Can you hear us, Mr. President? This is not a program to 
eliminate. It is not very costly. It is very vital.
  Perhaps the greatest forgotten issue of the Bush administration is 
health care for the uninsured. Twenty million of them are women without 
health insurance. What does the President have to give to them? A 
$1,000 tax credit for individual coverage only. I hope you have a job 
so the tax credit can help you out. But even this $1,000 tax credit 
will cover only 5 percent of the uninsured.
  Women, of course, we are told in this House, particularly by our 
Republican good friends, are the fastest-growing small business people. 
Indeed, they are about half of the small business people now, they have 
grown so fast. Why, then, would the President want to say, well done, 
women. Let us cut $79 million from the Small Business Administration, 
the chief agency you turn to for help, assistance, and funding.
  We want the President to know that there are many of us in this 
Congress to remind him that 3.8 million women are looking for jobs and 
cannot find them. Nobody even talks about women's work anymore. We 
assume the obvious, that women must work; and indeed, Mr. Speaker, they 
must. And the fact that they cannot find work has a greater effect on 
children than any single group who cannot find work because of the 
disproportionate number of these women who are heads of household.
  Mr. Speaker, I have more to say about women, but I see that one of my 
distinguished colleagues has come to the floor and, therefore, I would 
like to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her 
comments on this vital subject.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her perseverance and, as 
well, the rightness of her words.
  Let me thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) for remembering the month of March. The gentlewoman has 
indicated that this is not an April Fool's joke, that we have just 
continued that month a little longer. In fact, what better way to 
commemorate than to say that the issue is so important that if April 1 
becomes March 31 and-a-half, or that we begin to say that it is foolish 
to ignore the history of women and we do it on this day, what an 
important tribute, and we thank the gentlewoman.
  The gentlewoman has aptly laid out, and will continue to do so I know 
this evening, the misery that we are facing in light of the President's 
budget and, of course, the need to address the concerns of child care, 
of health care, some of the issues that women Members of the United 
States Congress have had very high on their agenda, and then some of 
the points that the gentlewoman has made, to cut out the resources 
needed for hard to hear children, and she mentioned child care, as I 
said.
  What I would like to do this evening very briefly is to add a 
personal note to the concerns about maternal and child health block 
grants that have been cut and Head Start that has been cut and, 
particularly, child nutrition services, which I find particularly 
important, inasmuch as I spent some time in my district a couple of 
weeks ago visiting a school and participating in their school lunch 
program.

                              {time}  1900

  Seeing the joy of the children participating in having a nourishing 
meal and the equalizing of that nourishing meal by letting all the 
children have it. In fact, they gave me an assignment which said that 
we should cut out low income and literally just give free meals to all 
of the children who are at the schools what are targeted because all 
the children are in need of good meals.
  And that impacts women because it clearly impacts those women who are 
needing supportive services as they are seeking to educate their 
children. We know for a fact that we are under siege as relates to 
choice. And I always say the choice has no respect for age or income.
  When I say that, this is not a question of child-bearing years. It is 
so much a question of humanity and the respect we have for the dignity 
of women to be able to make determinations along with their physicians 
and as well their spiritual advisor and their family.
  Yet time after time we come to the floor of the House with constant 
undermining of the Roe v. Wade decision, which is a clear choice. It is 
not one that promotes one aspect of making a decision about an abortion 
or not. It does not promote an abortion, does not promote an abortion. 
What it does is it gives women the right to choose, the right to their 
own human dignity.
  Why, then, do we have these constant battles regarding the partial 
birth abortion? As we speak, right now there are massive lawsuits 
across the country by physicians who have felt that their whole 
Hippocratic oath that they have had to take has now been challenged. 
And the rights of women to protect their own health has been damaged 
because of the legislation that was, if you will, signed into law by 
those who believe that they must make decisions for women and take away 
their individual dignity.
  I hope that as we make these points we will be reminded of the 
historic contributions of women. And I can begin to recite certainly 
from the early beginnings of our history the numbers of women who 
engaged in this process. I remember the words of Abigail Adams who said 
to her husband as he went on to the Constitutional Convention, ``Do not 
forget the ladies.'' Unfortunately, I think in time we did.
  Certainly in this country not only were women not able to vote, but 
certainly those of us of African American heritage know that we were 
two-thirds of a person receiving more than a double indignity as 
relates to women.
  So we know what it is like to premise, if you will, our respect for 
this month of women's history to the fact that women have been a part 
of the history of this Nation for a very long time.
  In doing and recognizing their history, I am going to take a moment 
of personal privilege just to cite some of the individuals in my 
community who have given of themselves. And I will start with words 
from Barbara Jordan: ``We want to be in control of our lives whether we 
are jungle fighters, craftsmen, company men, gamesmen. We want to be in 
control. And when the government erodes that control, we are

[[Page H2044]]

not comfortable.'' Those are the words of the Honorable Barbara Jordan 
who does not fear holding the Constitution to its most important 
interpretations and that is that of freedom and that of the ability to 
be protected by a Constitution that respects the will of the people.
  And so my tribute is to Barbara Jordan who lived amongst us, served 
the United States Congress, one of the first to be elected from the 
Deep South, and, of course, the first African American since 
Reconstruction to serve in the Texas Senate.
  Sissy Farentheld who ran for Governor in Texas more than 2 decades 
ago, who was a pioneering spirit and one who did not in any way 
diminish her fight for justice and equality.
  Ninfa Laurenzo, a prominent Hispanic businesswoman who founded 
Ninfa's Restaurant that still bears her name, a civic leader, a 
philanthropist, and someone who understood the importance of women's 
involvement in business.
  Ruby Morly. How can I speak about a community activist, 70-plus years 
old, I know she would not mind me saying. Whenever there is a need for 
a senior citizen in our community, Ruby Morly is there.
  Dorothy Hubbard who works in my office, senior citizen, but takes no, 
if you will, denial of a senior citizen's right to Medicare and Social 
Security.
  Ivalita Jackson, my mom, who spent most of her life as a medical 
professional, as a baby nurse in hospitals, who understands the 
importance of health care for women.
  Valerie Bennett, a businesswoman and my aunt, someone who impacted my 
life.
  Sybil Gouden, my aunt, another academic background who likewise 
continued to help children, young people seek education in higher 
education and impacted my life.
  Representative Senfronia Thompson, the senior member in the State 
legislature in Texas who has been a champion for human rights and who 
helped to push into law the hate crimes legislation which is a model 
for this Nation.
  Representative Ruth McClendon who, out of San Antonio, is a fighter 
for justice. And we thank her for fighting against the redistricting 
undermining that was going on in the Texas legislature.
  Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, the first woman to be elected to the 
Harris County Commissioner's Court, certainly one who believes in 
women's rights who has been an excellence representative of the 
empowerment of women.
  Carol Mims Galloway, council member, who has championed the 
rebuilding of neighborhoods.
  Council Member Ada Edwards, who has fought continuously to engage 
young people in the political process.
  Lorugene Young. What can you say about a community activist who 
fights not only with her words but with her actions? And she provides 
clothing and toys for children from Easter to Christmas to 
Thanksgiving. She has never taken this attitude that the holiday is for 
me. She has been out there in the front lines for children.
  Ruby Carver, a World War II fighter, someone who was an enlisted 
woman in the women's division in World War II. We honored her just a 
week ago. I am very proud of Ruby Carver, 84 years young, very proud 
that she stood as a symbol of women's involvement in World War II.
  Mayor pro tem Carol Alvarado, who is now serving us as the mayor pro 
tem in the city of Houston and someone who is not afraid of empowering 
Hispanics and African Americans and women and fighting also to improve 
the rights of working people. And we are proud of her leadership.
  Dr. Edith Irby Jones, a pioneering physician, graduated from the 
University of Arkansas as the first African American to graduate. Has 
been in practice for 50 years and has never turned a patient away.
  Dr. Natalie Carrol Daily, likewise a past president of the National 
Medical Association and someone who has fought for doctors and the 
support of Medicare and joined me at my Medicare hearing just a couple 
of weeks ago.
  Dr. Wanda Mott, not only a physician but also a scientist, someone 
who knows and is at the cutting edge of medical procedures for women 
and has been one of the major doctors of the Texas Women's Hospital.
  Then we cannot close without acknowledging the many, many women that 
get up every day to go to work and certainly those who have made our 
job, our education opportunities their number one priority, that is, 
the teachers of America, the teachers of Houston, and the teachers of 
Texas and the teachers represented by many of the teaching 
organizations. We thank them so very much.
  Then as I close to be able to thank simply the workers, women who 
work every day in all the fields. Women who sometimes hit the glass 
ceiling, women who are in corporate management who have every amount of 
ability to be CEOs and yet have not arrived there; women who are in 
academia and have every reason to be tenured and yet have not arrived; 
women who are in the crafts and have every ability to be foremen, 
supervisors, but yet have not arrived; women in the United States 
military who we are pulling for so that their dignity can be respected 
and that the sexual abuse that we have heard in this past week can be 
corrected so that all of the military can be accepted for their talent 
and be respected for their talent, as we do the fine men that are 
serving us. And hopefully as the days go on, that they too will 
continue to rise in leadership responsibilities.
  And all of the women that have sought political office and still 
intend to seek political office, might I encourage them for the special 
insight that they bring to leadership in government, the sensitivity, 
and the ability to bring peace over war and life over death.
  Then finally to the international peace activists and heads of state 
that happen to be women. Might we encourage you, even though this month 
is particularly related to the history of women in America, might we 
encourage you to join us in this international effort of the 
empowerment of women so that we can join and link arms fighting for 
peace. Whether it is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, whether it is in 
Iraq or Afghanistan, or whether it is in the conflicts of Africa, South 
America or Caribbean, we ask the women of the world to stand up and be 
counted and join us and link arms to make this place a better place.
  I thank the Congresswoman for taking the time to yield to us this 
evening and taking the time to present to our colleagues the importance 
of women in the history not only of America, but of the world.
  I am here tonight, joined by my colleagues in the Congressional 
Women's Caucus, to ask if women are indeed in control of their lives if 
they cannot make their own decisions regarding their bodies.
  Right now we have an Administration that actively seeks to undermine 
a woman's right to choose. They falsely claim to be doing this in the 
interest of women and children, citing both the mother and child's well 
being as justifications for their actions. This same Administration has 
frozen the Title X family-planning program in each budget for the last 
three years. They have also cut domestic-violence prevention programs 
and frozen important programs for women and children, including the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Head Start, and child-nutrition 
services.
  By contrast, they have proposed more than doubling funding for 
unproven, dangerous ``abstinence-only'' programs that censor health 
information from young people--and instead of supporting programs that 
help women who face violence, they have resorted instead to exploiting 
the issue for an anti-abortion political base. Just this afternoon, 
President Bush signed the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' 
This legislation would, for the first time in federal law, recognize an 
embryo or fetus as a separate ``person'' with rights separate from, and 
equal to, a pregnant woman.
  Raising awareness must be a high priority, America must begin to take 
this threat very seriously. On April 25, I will be joined by a million 
people who believe that our bodies deserve our choices, and that we 
must be in control of our lives, not the government. Marching in front 
of the Capitol, we will make our voices heard that our right to choose 
is at its most precarious point since over 31 years ago, when Roe 
versus Wade was decided. Our message will be clear: we will not 
tolerate the persistent government attacks on women's health and 
reproductive rights.
  I am pleased that for the first time in its 95 year history, the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 
board of directors unanimously endorsed a pro

[[Page H2045]]

choice march. The Black Women's Health Imperative has also signed on. 
These organizations are part of a growing majority that believe 
contraceptive education and abortion rights for black and minority 
women must be a priority. Unintended pregnancy rates for African 
American women is almost three times the rate of Caucasian women, 
maternal mortality is 4 times higher for African American women than 
Caucasians. One out of four African American women had less involvement 
than they would like in decisions affecting their health care, with 
only 73% of African American women receiving first trimester prenatal 
care.
  By making abortion illegal, we are going to harm those who turn to 
back alleys and home remedies to ``fix'' their situation, a scenario 
faced disproportionately by minorities and the underprivileged. We 
cannot make abortion inaccessible, illegal, or shameful. We must stand 
up for women's rights and let them make informed choices. I hope you 
will join me on April 25th to speak out against these injustices.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee ) coming down to offer her comments on this important issue 
at this time, and I appreciate the quality of those comments.
  I am very pleased now to be joined by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) for whom these issues affecting women and children 
have been of priority and importance since she came to Congress.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to 
come here to speak about women's History Month and thank the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for providing all of us with 
this opportunity this evening.
  They do not call it ``history'' for nothing. In general, the history 
of our Nation and our world has been about ``his'' story, about men's 
story. And it is not surprising, as men have written history books and 
have been considered the leaders that books are written about.
  And this is not meant in any way as an anti-male statement, just a 
fact that most of history is about the leadership of men in our world.
  I wanted to just share tonight a study that was done very recently by 
the Center for the American Woman and Politics, about why it is that 
more women do not run for political office. The premise is that study 
after study has shown that when women run, women win in the same 
numbers that men do.
  And, yet, if you look at this wonderful body, our august House of 
Representatives, we are about 14 percent women. And the same is true of 
the United States Senate. And so the question really is why do we not 
appear in greater numbers and why do more women not run since they have 
equal opportunity to win?
  So they did this study and what they did is they created what they 
called an eligibility pool, 1,000 men and 1,000 women who were from the 
fields that produced most candidates, business, education, and law. And 
by definition, the thousand women and thousand men were equally 
qualified. These were people who were at mid- or upper-career level. 
They asked them a number of questions to determine the differences 
between them.
  One of the differences that was really disturbing and chilling to me 
was that when asked about their own qualifications, the women in the 
study were twice as likely as the men to say about themselves that they 
were not qualified to run for office. Now, as I said, by definition 
these men and women were equally qualified.
  And perhaps even more disturbing, that sense of being not qualified 
in twice the numbers as men ran across generations. The younger women 
were as likely to declare themselves not qualified as older women.
  So clearly we have a challenge before us. What do we do to these 
qualified women to make them feel that they are not so?
  But there was a hopeful part of that study. What it said was that the 
one factor that was in some ways the most responsible for someone 
making the decision to run for office was being asked to run for 
office, someone making the suggestion. And they divided those who make 
the suggestion into formal actors and informal actors. So, in other 
words, if someone is asked by a formal actor, that being an elected 
official, a party official or a political activist, to run for office, 
they are likely to think of themselves as candidates or potential 
candidates.

                              {time}  1915

  So to me that said, as a woman who is interested in getting more 
women involved in leadership positions, what we need to do is to 
encourage women, encourage young women and women older than that to run 
for office, to put that seed in their head and create really an old 
girl's network, if you will, that will bring women along to think of 
themselves as candidates.
  We also need to, in this 21st century, explore what are those 
situations, what is the socialization process that ends up with women 
not feeling as qualified to run for office.
  These were women who rated the activities involved in being a 
candidate as being something they were even more willing to do than 
men; and yet when it came to that final question, do you see yourself 
as qualified to run for office, twice as many women as men in this pool 
said they were not qualified.
  So this is a challenge to us, to men and women alike. If we want to 
have the kind of diversity, if we want to have the benefit of women's 
leadership, then we are going to have to build in the systems that do 
that and the support networks that will encourage women so that we have 
the kind of equality as we move forward in this century.
  So I wanted to share the outcome of this wonderful study. It is the 
Center for the American Woman and Politics. They are at Rutgers 
University. They are part of the Eagleton Institute, and over the years 
they have provided us with very useful information in moving forward to 
include more women in our political universe.
  So I thank my colleague from the District of Columbia for focusing on 
this important issue and for allowing me to participate tonight.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois 
for coming forward to inform the House of this intriguing study and for 
giving us I think some ammunition about what our responsibility is.
  Women, in fact, need to be asked. It seems to me there is some asking 
that we all need to do; and you consider that women are increasingly 
better qualified, by education, to hold office because they get more 
education. You wonder what more do they need.
  I guess it is important information for us all to have, and it is 
challenging information, and I thank the gentlewoman for staying this 
evening to come forward.


                         Partial Birth Abortion

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, a previous speaker spoke of the March for 
Women's Lives that is coming forward on April 25 next month. That march 
is being sponsored by nonpartisan organizations, tax-exempt 
organizations. So they come forward not under any political banner, but 
they do carry a banner.
  They carry the banner of American women, and they fear for the right 
of choice that women won only in the last few decades. They fear about 
the Supreme Court and whether it will hold fast or whether it will 
overturn its own precedents quickly.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, the case on the partial birth abortion ban is 
being argued in three separate jurisdictions at the very same time. 
Here we have the determination of some in the Congress and some in the 
country to simply go back to where we were before Roe versus Wade, and 
it looks like they will not stop, no matter what the Supreme Court 
tells them.
  The Supreme Court settled this question in Stenberg versus Carhart, 
and when the Supreme Court speaks, we should usually respect the 
Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court, under the Constitution of the 
United States, is the final arbiter of constitutional right. That is 
the difference between us and many other countries, because the 
Constitution says you must respect certain rights even if the majority 
does not agree, but of course, when it comes to choice, the majority 
does agree.
  Of course, late-term abortions are controversial, and this bill would 
not be controversial if it did not overstep. Under Roe versus Wade, of 
course, the State may regulate the third trimester, but that is not 
what is at issue in Stenberg versus Carhart.

[[Page H2046]]

  This law is worded, it would seem, deliberately to trap the second 
trimester as well, the trimester where, of course, women are freer than 
they would be in the final weeks. Under the wording of this law, it is 
as clear as day that beginning in the 13th week procedures that are the 
most commonly used could not be used without risking prosecution.
  The fatal flaw in the bill, of course, is that there is no health 
exception. So no matter how grave the risk to the health of the woman, 
a woman would not be allowed to have an abortion, as it turns out, 
under this bill, beginning with the 13th week, as it is worded and 
certainly not beyond.
  I think that the American people are depending on a Supreme Court 
that will, in fact, respect the constitutional rights the Court itself 
has indicated are there for women. I want to quote from what the 
Supreme Court indeed said in the Stenberg decision to indicate why I 
really do not fear that the law that has just been passed, and indeed I 
think was signed today by the President, I do not fear that that law 
will be overturned by this Court. I do fear we could get a different 
Court, and that is something that every woman in America, when she goes 
to the polls in November, should bear in mind.
  This Court has said the following, and I am quoting:
  ``Using this law some present prosecutors and future attorneys 
general may choose to pursue physicians who use the most commonly used 
method for performing previability, second trimester abortions. All 
those who perform abortion procedures using that method must fear 
prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. The result is an undue burden 
upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision. We must quickly find 
the statute unconstitutional.''
  The court has spoken. Trying to overturn the Supreme Court does not 
work in our system. Let us hope that whatever the Court says this time 
is, in fact, respected.


                          Equal Pay for Women

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am a former chair of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, so I cannot let this hour go by without saying 
a word about perhaps the right that most women depend upon today and 
recognize today and that is the right to equal pay.
  This Congress has not looked at the Equal Pay Act since it was passed 
40 years ago in 1963, more than 40 years ago now, and yet we are in a 
different world, with women with different aspirations and jobs totally 
different from what they were at that time.
  To that effect, many women and men in this body are trying to update 
the Equal Pay Act with a Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness 
Act is not a very radical piece of legislation. It would add national 
origin and race to the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act bars unequal 
pay on the basis of sex alone.
  It would seem that by now everybody would agree that it is time to 
make sure that the typical protections involving the groups that are 
most likely to experience discrimination would find their way into the 
Equal Pay Act.
  A very important part of the Act would keep a person from being 
punished or being fired for discussing her salary or his salary in the 
workplace with others. This is a favorite ruse of many employers. They 
do not want colleagues of one another to know what they make because, 
if they do, women might say, I do not know why this man is being paid 
more than I am.
  A woman should be protected. If she goes to a man who is doing a job 
like hers or unlike hers and says, could I ask you what is your wage, 
what is your salary, there is no such protection now, and a woman could 
be fired for discussing or inquiring of the wage of another colleague.
  Along with Senator Tom Harkin, I have introduced the Fair Pay Act. 
Just as the Paycheck Fairness Act updates the Equal Pay Act, our bill 
would update the equal employment opportunity, Title VII of the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, so that jobs that have the same skill, effort and 
responsibility would have to be paid the same.
  Today, there are women doing work of equal value to the work of men 
who are being paid grossly differential salaries. For example, a man 
and a woman both graduate from college at the same time. He becomes a 
probation officer. She becomes a social worker. Guess who makes the 
most money? It would be very difficult to make the case that his job as 
a probation officer is more difficult than her job as a social worker.
  The reason for the discrimination is that we still have sex 
segregation of jobs in our society, jobs that are essentially for women 
and jobs that are essentially for men, and the jobs that are for women 
are paid often according to gender, as opposed to the job to be done.
  Women work in essentially three fields: clerical, sales and factory 
jobs. You will find that where women are bunched together their 
salaries are lower than men who do comparable jobs. As a result, the 
society is flailing around looking for women in the traditional women's 
occupations: teaching, nursing, social work. Women are fleeing those 
occupations, for no reason other than they are going where the money 
is. Nurses are becoming doctors. Social workers are becoming lawyers. 
Heaven knows who is going into teaching today when we most need them.
  People who get educated are not going to continue to join professions 
that do not pay them according to what they are worth. Because women 
have filled very vital occupations in our society, this is dangerous 
indeed. One has only to go into the hospitals of America to understand 
what pressure we are under. We cannot get enough nurses. There are 
strikes at hospitals. Nurses have to work on weekends, do not enjoy 
holidays. It cannot go on this way forever. An easy way to right that 
wrong is raise the pay.
  I am an attorney. I have to tell you that this profession has been 
overpaid since it came into existence. Pay has nothing to do with the 
worth of lawyers. What it does have to do with is that it has been a 
male profession. I joke with my friends who are lawyers that as there 
are more women in the legal profession we are going to drive down the 
wage because it will be seen as a woman's occupation.
  Very seriously, the occupations that concern me most are occupations 
that the society perhaps most depends upon: people to teach our 
children, nurses who in a very real sense are more vital than doctors 
today because of the breadth and depth of the health care tasks they 
perform, social workers because there are so many parts of what the 
society needs that have now integrated their skills.
  We are in very deep trouble when people abandon these professions. We 
can recruit all we want to. We can preach all we want to. The way to 
get men and women into these professions is to pay these professions 
what they are worth.
  Under our bill, a person could sue if, in fact, in the same workplace 
somebody in a comparable job was not paid for reasons of sex the same 
as that person. You would have to prove it. The burden would be on you. 
This would not change our economic system in any way.

                              {time}  1930

  It fits right into the way in which title 7 requires that you prove 
discrimination, and here you would have to prove that the difference in 
wage is based on discrimination. Because the difference in wage can be 
based on any number of factors, and the burden would be on the women.
  In case you think this is a far-out idea, let it be known that 20 
States have already done wage studies and adjusted the wages of women 
State workers based on those wage studies that showed that the wages of 
women were out of whack because they were women. In these States all 
over the United States, not following any particular pattern, north, 
south, east, and west, the wages have been raised for women who were 
teachers, nurses, clerical workers, and librarians simply based on 
looking at the skill, effort, and responsibility of the jobs they 
perform.
  The evidence that women are continuing to be paid less is rampant in 
our society. The favorite I would cite is Wal-Mart, because it is the 
largest corporation and the most expanding corporation in our country 
and women there make $1.16 per hour less than men. Is that why the 
prices are so low? Are they saving on what we spend on the backs of 
their own women workers? That is worth finding out.

[[Page H2047]]

  Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to say a word about poor women, because 
there is so little discussion about women who do not work and want to 
work. I am very concerned about the TANF bill. About the most important 
thing that happens to a woman who becomes pregnant before marriage is 
that she wakes up and understands that there is somebody she is 
responsible for besides herself. It is an extraordinary awakening that 
occurs and maturity for such a woman. And I have seen what women are 
willing to do after the birth of such a child that they were not 
willing to do before, and one of those things is to go to school.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the TANF bill that we 
passed would not allow a woman to work part time and go to college part 
time if she had the gumption and the energy to do so. I do not know 
what we expect. Should she go off TANF and work at a minimum-wage job, 
or one close to minimum wage for the rest of her natural life? How does 
that help the children?
  The whole point of this bill was to bring greater responsibility and 
to encourage people to take that responsibility or we were not going to 
pay for them. About the best way to take greater responsibility for 
yourself is to educate yourself and make sure you can support yourself 
decently, not just support yourself. What have we done? We have 
increased the work hour requirements to 40 hours per week and then 
limited what counts as work. It is penny-wise, pound-foolish, and 
cruel.
  And, Mr. Speaker, one thing we are not going to let this House forget 
is that the Republicans in this House killed the child care credit for 
poor women and poor families; that those families that earn between 
$10,000 and $26,000 a year, including military families, cannot get 
that child credit. That issue is not going away. We are going to carry 
it to the American people. We are not going to let this House forget it 
until we have made good for those who most need the child care credit.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close simply by paying tribute once again to 
Dr. Dorothy Height and thanking the Congress of the United States for 
conferring on Dr. Height the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  Dr. Height was for many years a resident of the State of New York. It 
is my great good fortune that a few years ago she moved to the District 
of Columbia and has become my constituent.
  This is an American who richly deserved the honor she got last week. 
She has spent her whole life doing what many leaders have found 
difficult to do, fighting for a particular group while bringing people 
together. It is easy enough to fight for your own group. To a black 
woman, nothing is easier than for me to get up and talk about black 
women and what they need and what has been their history.
  As the president emeritus of the National Council of Negro Women, 
that of course is what Dr. Height has done for most of her life. She is 
now 92 years old. Why America was justified in awarding her the 
Congressional Medal of Honor is she has managed to fight with great 
strength for African American women while preaching the message of 
inclusion and brotherhood and sisterhood of all people at the same 
time. They are not contrary messages, but there are few who have been 
able to bring them forward and make them believable to those they 
reach.
  I am particularly grateful as a young woman when feminism emerged 
that Dr. Height was one of those feminists who made black people 
understand that as white women came forward and demanded their equal 
rights, that that took nothing from black people; that their own 
movement for full equality was a movement that called forth universal 
principles; that black women had much in common with white women; and 
that this was not a cause for the two to be in dispute, but rather to 
be in coalition.
  The world does not have enough leaders like Dorothy Height. That is 
why we extol them when we find them: the Mandrels of this world, the 
Martin Luther Kings of this world, and, yes, and the Dorothy Heights of 
this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have been granted this time so that 
American women understand that March would not go by, for those who 
expected women to come forward in this House and commemorate Women's 
History Month, that that month would not go by entirely without us 
remembering that this House, this Congress must never forget its women; 
that we must never forget the women of the world. And one way in which 
we indicate that women are always on our minds is to choose a month 
where we talk about them.
  We have been talking about women throughout this House. We have been 
talking about their issues. It was time to talk about women on the 
floor of the House of Representatives this very evening.


                             General Leave

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order this 
evening.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in March, we celebrated Women's History 
Month. We remembered those who have contributed to our progress, we 
recognized those who are changing our communities today, and we 
rededicated ourselves to improving the lives of women.
  Women want what men want: a fair opportunity to succeed, a safe and 
prosperous America, good paying jobs, better access to health care, and 
the best possible education for our children. Women want a secure 
retirement, the freedom to make the most of our lives and to make our 
own choices, and the chance to shape the future of our Nation.
  Yet in terms of policies to assist women, we are lagging behind. Half 
of those currently living in poverty are single mothers. More than 3.8 
million women are looking for work. Women are still paid only 80 cents 
to a man's dollar. And the Republican controlled Congress and the Bush 
administration continue to wage an assault on our reproductive rights, 
believing they can make better choices than women and their doctors.
  To open doors of opportunity for women, I am proud to support 
policies in Congress that promote equality such as the FAIRNESS Act, 
which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of race, age, 
disability, or gender. I have long been a strong supporter of 
legislation to demand equal pay for equal work. My colleagues and I 
support legislation to increase the minimum wage to help single mothers 
and working poor women provide adequately for themselves and their 
families.
  In every field, we must and will be equal partners in determining the 
future. Women represent more than half the population and are among the 
most knowledgeable and important thinkers in every field of policy, 
from science to education to health care to national security.
  Women in government have made great gains but still face continued 
challenges. When I was first elected to Congress in 1987, there were 
only 16 women in the entire House of Representatives and only 2 in the 
Senate. Today, there are 62 women in the House and 13 in the Senate.
  However, of the nearly 12,000 Members who have served in Congress 
throughout history, only 209--less than 2 percent--have been women. 
From 1916, when Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first woman 
elected to Congress, until I was elected Democratic Whip in 2001, no 
woman had ever served in the top Congressional leadership.
  In March, it was my privilege as House Democratic Leader to honor 
three magnificent women: journalist Mary McGrory, the late 
Congresswoman Mary T. Norton and civil rights leader Dr. Dorothy 
Height.
  On March 2, I hosted a reception for Mary McGrory, the pioneering 
reporter for the Washington Star and Washington Post who has delighted 
so many readers and inspired so many women. For more than 50 years, she 
has walked the halls of Congress, interviewing Members, covering 
Congressional proceedings, and providing a voice for progressive 
issues. First, as a reporter for the Washington Star and then with the 
Washington Post, she earned a reputation for her brilliant reporting 
and her ability to get to the heart of any debate. She also earned a 
Pulitzer Prize--the first to a woman for commentary--for her coverage 
of Watergate.
  On March 18, several women Members gathered in my office to unveil a 
portrait of the late Congresswoman Mary Norton of New Jersey, who in 
1924 became the first Democratic woman elected to the House. She was 
the first person in modern times to chair three major committees. A 
solid supporter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, her 
finest hour may have been passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938, while Chair

[[Page H2048]]

of the House Labor Committee. She was instrumental in raising the 
minimum wage from 40 cents to 75 cents per hour.
  In a marvelous ceremony in the Rotunda of the Capitol on March 24, 
Dr. Dorothy Height received the Congressional Gold Medal, the most 
distinguished award bestowed by the U.S. Congress. The struggle for 
equality in America in the 20th century--for civil rights, for women's 
rights, for voting rights, for human rights--is the story of Dr. 
Height's life. At age 92, she remains a beacon to her own generation 
and generations to follow. Countless young people have been inspired by 
her idealism, strengthened by her courage, and guided by her faith. She 
has empowered these young people to make a difference by her own 
passion for justice.
  It is a great honor to be the first woman to lead a party in the 
House of Representatives. When I was first elected to that position, we 
made history. Now we are making progress. As we celebrate the 
achievements of women throughout history and work toward progress of 
our own, we are inspired by the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: ``It's up 
to the women!''
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, Women's History Month has 
celebrated the achievements and accomplishments of women nationwide. 
The incredible contributions women have made in politics, science, art, 
and activism, demonstrate some of the revolutionary advancements in 
American women's rights. Women today follow in the footsteps of 
pioneers such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul, who fought for 
women's right to vote in 1920, or Dolores Huerta, a contemporary 
champion of women's rights.
  We must continue to create platforms for women's voices and opinions 
and support a continuing momentum toward women's freedom and equality. 
During this month and throughout the year, women all across the United 
States should take a moment to recognize the gains afforded to them 
through their predecessors' hard work and unwavering commitment to 
improving the lives and rights for all women.
  As a Latina, and one of 16 million Latinas nationwide, I recognize 
some of the unique and continuing societal obstacles for Latinas--like 
unequal pay, educational disadvantages, unmet health care needs, and 
civil rights struggles. I am certain, however, that through the work of 
courageous leaders in our community, our accomplishments and 
contributions as women of color will continue to grow well into the 
future.
  Together, women will continue to make the difference.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________