    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [April 7, 1999]
    [Pages 512-516]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in a Roundtable Discussion on Equal Pay
    April 7, 1999

    [The First Lady opened the program
    with brief remarks concerning wage discrepancies between men and women.
    She then introduced the President, joking that he said the wage gap went
    the other direction in their family until he became President.]

        The President. Thank you. That is the truth. [Laughter] But Hillary
    didn't tell you the rest of the story. Senator Harkin, whose wonderful wife, Ruth, was
    also a part of our administration for several years, she has often made
    more money than her husband. And so we decided that maybe we should
    become part of a small but vocal radical caucus saying we shouldn't stop
    at equal pay; we like it when our wives make more money than we do.
    [Laughter] We have enjoyed the benefits of that.
        I would like to thank Senator Harkin and
    Eleanor Holmes Norton for being here
    and for being longtime champions of this cause. I thank Ida
    Castro, our EEOC Chair, the local officials
    who are here, and Secretary Herman, who
    bears a lot of the responsibilities for what we are trying to achieve,
    for her work.
        I'd like to make just a few brief points. Hillary has made most of
    the points that need to be made, and we all know here we're preaching to
    the saved in trying to get a message out to the country. But I'd like to
    point out as I tried to do in the State of the Union that the time in
    which we are living now in terms of our economic prosperity is virtually
    unprecedented. We had 4.2 percent unemployment last month.
        I remember a meeting I had--and huge argument I had in December of
    1992 when I had been elected but not inaugurated President, about how
    low we could get unemployment before inflation would go up. And all the
    traditional economists said, ``Man, when you get below 6 percent, you
    know, you will just see what will happen.'' And the American people
    turned out to be a lot more productive, a lot more efficient; technology
    turned out to be a lot more helpful; we were in a much more competitive
    environment. So now, we have 4.2 percent unemployment, lowest rate since
    1970, lowest peacetime unemployment since 1957, 18 million new jobs.
        But we still have some significant long-term challenges in this
    country. We have pockets of America--in rural America, in urban America,
    in our medium-size industrial cities, our Native American reservations--
    which have not felt any of the impact of the economic recovery. We still
    have substantial long-term challenges to Social Security, to Medicare.
    And we still have a significant fact of inequality in the pay of women
    and men.
        And the central point I would like to make is that we should not
    allow the political climate or anything else to deter us from
    concentrating our minds on the fact that this is a precious gift that
    the American people have received, even though they have earned it.
    Countries rarely have conditions like this. If we can't use this moment
    to deal with these long-term challenges, including the equal-pay
    challenge, when will we ever get around to it?
        That is the message I want America to send back to Washington. Yes,
    have your disagreements. Yes, have your fights. Yes, conduct your
    campaigns. Yes, do all this. But for goodness sakes, realize that this
    is, at a minimum, the opportunity of a generation, maybe more. And every
    single problem that we can take off the table for our successors and for
    our children

    [[Page 513]]

    is an obligation we ought to shoulder and get the job done. That's what
    this is about.
        And those of us who are old enough to remember what the economy was
    like in the 1970's with the long gas lines, what it was like in the
    1980's when we had the so-called bicoastal economy and my State and
    Senator Harkin's State had double-digit unemployment in county after
    county--I'm telling you, when times get tough and then you go around and
    try to talk to people about problems like this, their eyes glaze over
    because even the people who would benefit, they're just trying to keep
    body and soul together. They're worried about holding on to what they
    have. We have an opportunity now to make a better America for our
    children, for all of our children.
        The second point I want to make is the one I made jokingly in the
    story about Tom and me having the privilege of living with women who
    make more money than we do. And that is that this is not just a women's
    issue. The women who are discriminated against often are in families,
    raising children with husbands who are also hurt if their wives work
    hard and don't have the benefits of equal pay. A lot of the women who
    are single mothers are out there working, and they have boy children as
    well as girl children. This is not just a gender issue, and men should
    be very interested in this.
        I can say furthermore that I believe that it would be good for our
    overall economy. You know, you hear all these problems that they say it
    will cause the economy if you do this. All this stuff is largely not
    true. I mean, every time we try to make a change to have a stronger
    society, whether it's a raise in the minimum wage or cleaning up the
    environment or passing the family leave law, the people that are against
    it say the same thing. And we now have decades of experience in trying
    to improve our social fabric. And America has had a particular genius in
    figuring out how to do these things in a way that would permit us to
    generate more economic opportunity and more jobs and more advances.
        I'd like to make a third point not in my notes, but Hillary made me think of it. There are these people
    now who are out there saying, ``Well, there really isn't much of an
    equal pay problem because it's almost exclusively confined to women who
    have children. And women who have children have to have more
    intermittent periods in the workplace''--you've heard all the
    arguments--``and once you factor that out, well, there's no problem.''
        Well, I have two reactions to that. First of all, if you take that
    argument to its logical conclusion, we would be depopulating America
    before you know it. No one else has really figured out any way to bring
    children around, as far as I know. [Laughter]
        Secondly, if that is true, it still doesn't make it right. If you
    give the people the entire argument--which I don't think the analysis
    supports--but if you did, what does that mean? It means that an
    important part of the equal pay battle should be strengthening the
    family and medical leave law, for example, something I've been trying to
    do without success ever since we signed the first bill. It ought to
    apply to more companies. It ought to be more extensive. It ought to
    cover more situations. We've proved that we can do this without hurting
    the economy.
        And if you believe that having children is a significant factor here
    and if you believe as I do that's the most important work of any
    society, then why shouldn't we continue with something that's done so
    much good, this family leave law, to find other ways to do it, to find
    other incentives for flex-time, all kinds of things we could be doing if
    this is a problem.
        Now, finally, let's talk a little bit about what I think we can do
    about this right now. Earlier this year, I asked Congress to pass two
    measures to strengthen our wage discrimination laws and to boost
    enforcement of existing ones. I ask Congress again to pass the $14
    million equal pay initiative that's in our balanced budget to help the
    EEOC identify and respond to wage discrimination, to educate employers
    and workers about their rights and responsibilities--you'll hear some
    pretty impressive people talk about that on our panel in a moment--and
    to help bring more women into better paying jobs.
        Again, I ask the Congress to pass the ``Paycheck Fairness Act''
    sponsored by Senator Daschle and
    Congresswoman DeLauro, which would put
    employers on notice that wage discrimination against women is just as
    unacceptable as discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Under current
    law, those who are denied equal pay because of race can receive
    compensatory and punitive damages. This new legislation would give women
    the same right. It will make a difference. It would protect employees
    who share salary information from retaliation. It

    [[Page 514]]

    would expand training for EEOC workers, strengthen research, establish
    an award for exemplary workers.
        We can do more. Today I'm pleased to announce that we want to
    strengthen our legislation by requiring the EEOC to determine what new
    information on workers' salaries they need to improve enforcement of
    wage discrimination laws and to find a way to collect that information.
    The new provision would call on the EEOC to issue a new rule within 18
    months to gather, in the most effective and efficient way possible, pay
    data from companies based on race, sex, and national origin of
    employees.
        Addressing wage discrimination takes courage, as our panelists can
    tell you. It takes courage as an employee to speak out, to gather
    evidence, to make the case. It takes courage as an employer to recognize
    problems in pay equity and take steps to remedy them.
        Just recently--let me just mention the experience of one of our
    panelists--we saw this courage among the
    administrators and women scientists at MIT, one of our country's most
    outstanding institutions of higher education. Together, they looked at
    the cold, hard facts about disparities in everything from lab space to
    annual salary. They sought to make things right, and they told the whole
    public the truth about it, which is a rare thing. And I appreciate what
    they did. I commend them. I hope their success and their example can be
    replicated throughout our country.
        Now again I say, this should not be a partisan issue. It should be
    an American issue. And as you argue through these matters this year, I
    ask you, every time you are in contact with any person in a position to
    vote on this in Congress or influence a vote in Congress, ask them this
    simple question: If we don't deal with this now, when will we ever get
    around to it?
        Thank you very much.

    [Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman thanked
    the President and First Lady and made brief remarks. She then introduced
    the roundtable participants, and each made brief remarks on their
    perspective on equal pay issues.]

        The President. I would like to just start. We're going to do a
    little roundtable and just give the participants a chance to answer a
    few questions and amplify on their remarks. And taking account of Sanya
    Tyler's voice problems, I still want to ask her
    one question, because obviously the situation at Howard and the
    situation at MIT were resolved in different ways.
        After you won the lawsuit, did you feel that the administration
    treated you and other people who were in the same situation fairly? Did
    you feel like that the work environment was worse, and did you believe
    that the program also began to get more support, as well as on the
    wages? Was title IX and the other efforts you made, did you get more
    support for the program, as well as for your income?

    [Ms. Tyler, head coach of women's basketball at
    Howard University, said she was proud of the university's response after
    she won her title IX discrimination suit, indicating that the current
    president made it clear that women had a significant role not only in
    the sports program but in the development and leadership of the
    university. The First Lady then
    called on Professor Nancy Hopkins,
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who stated that 5 years ago
    there were only 15 tenured women in MIT's School of Science and that
    discrimination against women at MIT was subtle and difficult to
    identify. She said that when an incident inspired her to prepare a
    strong letter of complaint to MIT's president, the other female faculty
    members all signed the letter and gathered data on the problem. After
    reviewing the data, MIT administrators took immediate action to
    institute changes. The First Lady agreed that often such problems were
    not readily apparent, and she commended MIT for its action.]

        The President. You know, the question that I wanted to ask, because
    this MIT thing is so unusual, is, do you
    believe that they knew it was going on before? And if they didn't know
    it was going on before--but all the women you went to had immediately
    related in the same way you did and signed up--how did it happen?
    Because I think this is something that data may not tell you. But I
    think this is what is really important, because there may be a lot of
    organizations out there where this sort of just creeps in, but the
    people now running these organizations don't know it.
        And what I'm hoping is that--it's not like--it may not be as overt
    as it was when Carolyn was in the work force, so how do you think this
    happened? It's very impressive that the president said, ``Okay, let's go
    do the right thing.'' But that raises the question of how did it happen
    in the first place?

    [[Page 515]]

    [Professor Hopkins stated that the top levels
    where power resided were the last frontier of the civil rights/
    affirmative action process. She said that the discrimination there
    wasn't conscious, and thus the women themselves weren't aware of it;
    however, gender bias that was small in each instance added up to 20
    percent pay.]

        The President. Let me ask a specific question. Do you think--if there was no deliberate policy to hire all
    these people at a lower salary, and then not to raise them at some point
    to a comparable salary, and there was never a systematic policy, do you
    believe that--here's what I'm trying to get at--is there a still, sort
    of in the minds of at least the men who are making these hiring or pay
    decisions, this notion that there's a marketplace out there, and it's a
    big deal for a woman to be a tenured professor at MIT? And therefore,
    this was a market-based decision; this is what I can get this talent
    for; and this is what I'm going to pay? Is that what you think happened?
    And if not, what is it that you think happened?

    [Professor Hopkins said that men approached
    these decisions differently than women, and that women had to share in
    the decisionmaking power. The First Lady then introduced Carolyn Gantt, an employee at a Washington, DC, senior center, who
    during her career had witnessed men with the same or lesser
    qualifications, in the same or lesser jobs, receiving more benefits and
    higher pay. When Mrs. Clinton asked how she became aware of the
    situation, Ms. Gantt replied that contacts in the community gave her
    access to lists of how much individuals in her organization were paid,
    and her knowledge of individuals' duties and qualifications led her to
    recognize the disparity in compensation. After going to the
    organization's board, she got a promotion but became a pariah. When she
    moved into a new position in the District of Columbia Government, she
    encountered the same situation.]

        The President. Let me just use this remarkable woman's case as an illustration of a point I made in
    my remarks, that this is something that imposes great economic costs on
    the society as a whole.
        You have seven children, right?
        Ms. Gantt. I still have seven, but they're
    grown. [Laughter]
        The President. And you're still working part-time? And how old are
    you?
        Ms. Gantt. Do you really want me----[Laughter]
        The President. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you another question.
    You are----
        Ms. Gantt. ----[inaudible]--category. [Laughter]
        The President. I know I shouldn't have asked. [Laughter] The reason
    I ask you is because you look so much younger
    than you are. [Laughter]
        But let me ask--the point I wanted to make is, she has been for some
    time eligible for Social Security. Here's the point I want to make about
    the issue. You know we're having this big Social Security debate here
    now, and we're in an argument in the Congress about how to save Social
    Security. Why? Because the number of people over 65 are going to double
    between now and the year 2030. And the Trust Fund runs out of money in
    35 years. And for it to be stable, it needs to last for 75 years. But in
    addition to that, we need to lift the earnings limit for people who work
    when they're over 65, I think, so they can still draw their Social
    Security, number one. And number two, we need to have a remedial program
    to deal with the fact that the poverty rate among single elderly women
    is twice, almost twice the general poverty rate among seniors in this
    country.
        Why? A lot of it is because of stories like this. So you've either
    got people like this remarkable lady who is healthy enough and, as you
    can see, more than quite alert and on top of things and energetic, who
    continue to work on and on, or you have people who can't do that, and
    they are twice as likely to be living in poverty even when they draw
    Social Security.
        This is another of the consequences of this. And so the rest of you
    are going to have to pay to fix this, unless you just want to let it go
    on. And I don't think, since we have some money to fix it now, I presume
    none of us want to let it go on, and we'd like to fix it.
        But we should understand that none of this--this kind of
    discrimination is not free to the rest of us, as well. Just because you
    haven't felt it directly doesn't mean that you're not weakened and
    lessened because of the quality of life, the strength of your society,
    the fabric of it is not eroded by this. And that's the point I wanted--I
    didn't want to embarrass her about her age, but I think it's important
    that you understand that this is a cost imposed on the whole

    [[Page 516]]

    society. And one of the big efforts we're going to make this year in
    this saving Social Security is to do something about this dramatic
    difference in the poverty rate. And it would be much, much lower if no
    one had ever had the experiences you just heard described.

    [Secretary Herman commented that the
    pension gap was even greater than the 75-cents-to-every-dollar gap for
    regular wages and that only 40 percent of women had pension coverage.
    The First Lady then introduced
    Patricia Higgins, a nurse who had
    encountered subtle wage discrimination in her field. She said that while
    the profession required idealism and dedication, medical advances meant
    that levels of training, skill, and responsibility had increased, and
    compensation should also increase. Secretary Herman commented that many
    institutions had good policies and procedures which were often not
    supported in practice. She said the administration was supporting
    legislation to share salary information without fear of reprisal and
    asked Ms. Tyler if she thought that would be
    helpful. Ms. Tyler stated that pursuing her case in court had been very
    successful and generated real dollars for the many coaches affected.]

        The President. Thank you very much. Let me say on behalf of all of
    us, we're delighted that you're here. We especially thank Senator
    Harkin and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
    Norton for their leadership, and we
    thank our panelists. They were all terrific.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The discussion began at 1:53 p.m. in Presidential Hall (formerly
    Room 450) in the Old Executive Office Building. In his remarks, the
    President referred to Title IX--Prohibition of Sex Discrimination, part
    of Public Law 92-318, the Education Amendments of 1972. The transcript
    released by the Office of the Press Secretary also included the full
    text of the remarks of the First Lady and the roundtable participants.
    The National Equal Pay Day proclamation of April 7 is listed in Appendix
    D at the end of this volume.