[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7675-7677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          KEEP TITLE IX INTACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1972, about 30,000 women played 
college sports. Today, that number has increased by more than 500 
percent.
  In 1972, about 200,000 girls played high school sports. Today, that 
number has increased by more than 80 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that women and girls have more 
opportunity today than they did 30 years ago. That is not because they 
have more interest than they used to, and it is not because they have 
more ability than they used to. The increased opportunities are 
attributable to one law, Title IX.
  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the Federal law that 
prohibits sex discrimination in education. It states: ``No person in 
the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from 
participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to 
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving 
Federal financial assistance.''
  In essence, Title IX requires schools and colleges receiving Federal 
funds to

[[Page 7676]]

give women and girls equal athletic opportunities, including athletic 
scholarships, equipment, coaching and facilities, among other benefits.
  Unfortunately, Title IX has come under assault. Those who favor 
changing Title IX argue, mistakenly, that it has led to the 
disappearance of athletic opportunities for male athletes. While both 
sides of the debate over Title IX athletics policies agree that they 
should allow for gender parity and overall fairness in sports, the real 
question that begs to be answered is, what constitutes fairness?
  For those who wanted to alter Title IX and how it has been 
implemented, fairness means that male athletes should have a monopoly 
over opportunities and resources for their programs, regardless of how 
underfunded or nonexistent similar programs for female athletes may be.
  For these challengers to Title IX, it is fair that, while more women 
than men attend college, only 42 percent of all college athletes are 
women. For them, it is fair that females currently receive 1.1 million 
fewer, 41 percent, opportunities at the high school level and 58,000 
fewer, 38 percent, opportunities at the college level than do their 
male counterparts.
  This ill-conceived notion of fairness that opponents of Title IX put 
forth justifies the fact that men currently receive $133 million more 
than women in athletic scholarships. Division I-A colleges and 
universities allocate on average 71 percent of their scholarship money 
for men's athletics, and their recruiting dollars for male athletes 
double those spent on female athletes.
  Opponents of Title IX charge that the law takes money and 
opportunities away from men's athletics. What these people fail to 
realize is that Title IX does not deprive men of athletic resources. 
The real problem is that the resources that male athletes receive are 
distributed inequitably among men's sports.
  Take these statistics, for example. Football and men's basketball 
consume 72 percent of the total men's athletic operating budget at 
Division I institutions, leaving other men's sports to compete for the 
remaining funds.
  Sixty-eight percent of the increased expenditures for men's Division 
I-A sports programs from 1998 to the Year 2000 went to football alone. 
The increase for football exceeded the entire operating budget for 
women's Division I sports in 2000 by over $1.69 million.
  What is more, large football and basketball programs are not as 
revenue producing as Title IX proponents claim. The vast majority of 
NCAA football and men's basketball programs spend more money than they 
bring in. In fact, 64 percent of Division I and II football programs do 
not generate enough money to pay for themselves, much less any other 
sports. In 1999, these programs reported annual deficits averaging $1 
million for Division I-A athletics.
  Now, do not get me wrong, I love football, and I graduated from the 
University of Kentucky, so I love basketball. I just do not believe 
that our little girls should be denied the opportunity to play sports 
so that football teams can dip from a bottomless fount of funds.
  Opponents of Title IX not only feel that this gross imbalance is 
fair, but they oppose any efforts to salvage the progress that has been 
made. It bothers me deeply that opponents of Title IX say that male 
athletes are treated unfairly. Although 30 years of progress since 
Title IX have seen sports participation for males and females grow, 
female athletes are still not treated equitably.
  I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor House Resolution 137, 
expressing the sense of Congress that changes to Title IX athletic 
policies contradict the spirit of athletic equality and gender parity 
and should not be implemented and that Title IX should be kept intact.
  My resolution has been signed by both Republicans and Democrats, by 
men and women.

                              {time}  1530

  It is receiving this wide support for one simple reason: it is the 
right thing to do. Most Americans know that it is the right thing to 
do. A Gallup poll in early January reported that seven out of 10 adults 
who understood the law supported keeping title IX intact and rejecting 
any changes. In fact, a Wall Street Journal poll from January found 
that 66 percent of Americans go so far as to favor cutting men's teams 
in order to ensure equal athletics opportunities for women.
  Any changes to title IX must be rejected on their face because 
tinkering with the law in any way implies that title IX does not work 
and that it needs improvement.
  I come from the ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it'' school; and, Mr. 
Speaker, title IX is not broken. Title IX has been the dam that holds 
back gender discrimination in educational programs for 30 years, 
allowing millions of young women the opportunity to pursue goals of 
which their predecessors, including me, could only dream.
  I am standing here to defend the integrity of this landmark civil 
rights law because it is the right thing to do, but I also rise in 
honor of my dear friend and beloved colleague, Patsy Mink. In 1972 
Patsy helped to enact title IX and in honor of her valiant work, 
Congress renamed title IX the ``Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in 
Education Act.'' She would be standing right here beside me if she were 
alive today. She struggled for 30 years to protect educational equity 
for men and women, and it is the memory of the beautiful legacy that 
she left behind that we must not give up on the fight to preserve 
equality for women.
  Opponents of title IX are trying to redefine what America sees as 
fair. As a consistent defender of gender equality and protection of 
equal rights for all of our citizens, male and female, I am outraged by 
this particular brand of fairness. Patsy would have been outraged as 
well, and she would not have tolerated it.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me with our Republican and 
Democratic friends who support this legislation as we all fight to 
preserve the integrity of this landmark law. Please cosponsor this 
title IX resolution for Patsy Mink, for our Nation's girls, and for the 
sake of equality.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for title IX. 
As my colleagues may know, title IX is facing sharp criticism from the 
Bush administration for being discriminatory. Despite the overwhelming 
successes and support that title IX enjoys, Secretary Rod Paige created 
the Commission on Opportunity and Athletics to determine whether this 
measure needs to be updated for the 21st century. The commission's 
recommendations could result in the loss of thousands of slots on teams 
for female athletes and millions of scholarship dollars.
  Donna de Varona and Julie Foudy, Olympic Gold medalists and members 
of the commission, refused to sign the proposed changes to title IX. In 
their minority report, Foudy and de Varona cited various problems in 
the commission's process, including the omission of representatives of 
high school athletics, failure to examine potential remedies for 
discrimination against women and girls, and profound imbalance of 
viewpoints in panelist testimonies. Even though Secretary Paige said he 
would not consider certain controversial proposals to alter the 
landmark legislation, there is growing concern over his sincerity, 
since he did not withdraw the recommendation to use interest surveys to 
estimate how many girls are available to participate in sports. Both de 
Varona and Foudy withdrew their support of this proposal.
  There is concern from the Bush administration that title IX has 
adversely affected men's sports programs, such as gymnastics and 
wrestling. However, these sports faced the greatest decline since 1982 
and 1992, when there was little enforcement of title IX. There are 
reports that programs such as football and men's basketball take more 
than their fair share of the athletic budget, leaving insufficient 
funds for other sports, regardless of gender.
  When rethinking title IX, we must go back to its original purpose, 
and that

[[Page 7677]]

is to ensure that ``no person in the United States shall, on the basis 
of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or 
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' I support, Mr. 
Speaker, equal opportunity for both sexes and believe resources can be 
allocated under title IX to both male and female athletic programs in 
an equitable manner.
  Title IX does not apply solely to athletics. It includes access to 
educational programs too. Title IX and the Women's Educational Equity 
Act of 1974 have opened doors for women seeking a college or 
postgraduate degree. In 1972, the year title IX was signed, women 
earned just 7 percent of all law degrees. By 1997 they received 44 
percent. Five years after title IX was signed, women earned only 9 
percent of all medical degrees. But because of title IX, 41 percent 
received medical degrees.
  So we see title IX indeed can work.
  Education is the key to a better life, and title IX has greatly aided 
a woman's ability to achieve the American dream. I will continue to 
support title IX and to encourage my colleagues to do the same. It is a 
question of equity, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a tireless fighter for gender equity.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in 
support of title IX, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) for organizing this afternoon's effort.
  As we stand here today, title IX is being threatened by 
recommendations from the commission on title IX, a commission appointed 
by President Bush and his administration to study title IX, hoping to 
alter the law.
  Before title IX, fewer than 30,000 girls participated in 
intercollegiate athletics. Today, more than 100,000 women compete. In 
high school, fewer than 7 percent of girls played various sports prior 
to title IX, and today, the number of participants has increased to 40 
percent, over 40 percent, as a matter of fact.
  Do these gains mean that the work of title IX is finished, and that 
it is time for the supporters of title IX to take their balance and go 
home? Absolutely not.
  Contrary to the scare tactics being used by opponents of title IX to 
say that women's sports are using up athletic funds needed for men's 
sports, the facts show that women, even with title IX, continue to 
receive far less funding for their sports than men. It is a fact: title 
IX does not deprive men of athletic resources.
  In fact, the real problem is that the resources that the male 
athletics receive are distributed inequitably among men's sports. In 
addition, schools choose to eliminate teams for many reasons, and all 
of those reasons are not related to title IX.
  In fact, I had a very interesting experience as a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce when we had a hearing on title 
IX quite a few years ago, I think it was about 5 years ago, as a matter 
of fact. I sat there and I listened to the witnesses at this hearing 
tell us that men's wrestling, men's football, and every sport that the 
guys are interested in were being threatened because of women's sports 
and because of an investment in title IX.
  Somehow or another, they made a big mistake. They brought forward an 
individual representing San Francisco State University who sat before 
us and told us that the men's football program at San Francisco State 
was eliminated because of title IX. Well, I had my ability at that 
point to contradict, because, Mr. Speaker, one of my sons, I have three 
sons and a daughter, all athletes, including my daughter. One of my 
sons was an all-American football player from San Francisco State 
University. He was a tackle. He was the captain of the defensive team, 
and I went to every single game. Mr. Speaker, I loved cheering for that 
kid and that team. Well, there were no programs at the games, there was 
no band, there were no food vendors, and the reason was, nobody at that 
school was particularly interested in football. And I knew that, we 
knew that, and a few years after my son graduated from college, the 
program was discontinued. But it had nothing to do with title IX; it 
had to do with the fact that at that time in San Francisco at that 
particular university, it was a State University, there was just no 
interest in the program.
  Title IX, therefore, must continue to be defended. We cannot have it 
used as the reason for men's sports not getting their due when they get 
more than their due. In my own State of California where women make up 
over 56 percent of the full-time students at our 108 State and 
community colleges, women's sports receive 35 percent of the athletic 
budget. And let me remind my colleagues, they make up 56 percent of 
full-time student bodies.
  In Georgia, more than 86 percent of the legislative branch for 
stadiums, for lighting and equipment at public schools went to boys' 
sports projects; 86 percent. So while title IX is transforming the 
playing field for men's and women's sports in general, it is not level 
yet.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to keep title IX strong. We need to fight any 
attempts by this administration or Congress that will weaken its 
effectiveness. It is not just because we want girls to get to play; it 
is because when one plays on a team or when one is in an individual 
sport and that sport is valued at all, one learns. One learns 
competitiveness; one learns how to compete with one's self and do 
better the next time; one learns how to win and one learns how to lose, 
and one learns how to play on a team. All of that plays out later when 
one is involved in the business world, when one is involved in raising 
children, when one is involved in knowing how important one's own self-
esteem is and how important it will be to raising one's children. So we 
must strengthen title IX. We must never weaken its effectiveness.

                          ____________________