[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 14 (Monday, April 12, 1999)]
[Pages 597-601]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 and then introduced the 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?

[[Page 598]]

    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 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

[[Page 599]]

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 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 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, had 
sued because the university hired a head coach for men's basketball and 
paid him 4 times her salary. She won and was awarded $2.39 million and 
remained in her coaching position. She expressed pride in Howard 
University's reaction to the suit, indicating that the administration 
had expressed greater openness to women's participation not only in the 
sports but in many leadership areas at the university. The First Lady 
then introduced 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. The discrimination against women at 
MIT was subtle and difficult to identify. She stated that an incident 
upset her, and she wrote a strong

[[Page 600]]

letter to MIT's president. She consulted a fellow female faculty member 
on the tone of the letter, and her colleague asked if she, too, could 
sign it. After polling others, the female faculty all signed the letter, 
and the administration was very supportive. The women gathered data on 
the problem, and the dean took immediate action to institute changes. 
The First Lady stated that often these problems are subtle and not 
readily apparent, and she commended MIT for its prompt 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?

[Professor Hopkins stated that this was the last frontier of the civil 
rights/affirmative action process. She stated her belief that it wasn't 
conscious, and the women themselves weren't aware of it. It was a subtle 
and almost unconscious gender bias that was small in each instance, but 
it accumulated to real 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 men approached these decisions differently than 
women, and women had to share 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 jobs receiving more benefits and higher pay. Mrs. 
Clinton asked how she became aware of the situation. Ms. Gantt answered 
that she had contacts in the community who shared information with her 
and that she had access to lists of how much individuals in her 
organization were paid and that, combined with her knowledge of 
individuals' duties and qualifications, led her to recognize the 
disparity in compensation. After going to the organization's board, she 
got the 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

[[Page 601]]

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 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 continued the discussion saying the pension gap was 
even greater than the 75-cents-to-every-dollar gap for regular wages. 
She pointed out that only 40 percent of women have pension coverage. The 
First Lady then introduced Patricia Higgins, a nurse who also 
encountered wage discrimination in her field, who discussed the problem 
and explained how medical advances presented increasingly complex issues 
for nurses. As her career advanced, she realized that retirement savings 
were not sufficient. She noted her daughter was planning to be a nurse, 
and she wanted things to be better for her. Secretary Herman stated that 
there are policies in place in many institutions but practices inside 
these institutions often failed to support the policies and procedures. 
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, in her case, pursuing the 
issue in court had been very successful and, in the end, yielded solid 
results.]

    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 roundtable 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 
made available by the Office of the Press Secretary also included the 
full text of remarks of the First Lady and the roundtable participants.