[Page: H4860]---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. MINK) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker,
June 23rd marked the 30th anniversary of Title IX of
[Page: H4861]
I was a member of the House Education and Labor Committee in 1972. I worked diligently to promote civil rights legislation during my entire tenure. I consider Title IX to be one of my most significant efforts as a Member of Congress, and I take special pride in honoring its contributions to changing our view about women's role in America.
Title IX has opened the doors of educational opportunity to millions of girls and women who otherwise would have been shunned or relegated to a secondary place. Title IX has helped to tear down barriers to admissions, increase opportunities for women in nontraditional fields of study, improve vocational educational opportunities for women, reduce discrimination against pregnant students and teen mothers, protect female students from sexual harassment in our schools, and increase athletic competition for girls and women.
We have heard much about the many successes of Title IX, particularly in athletics. Most do not know of the long arduous course we took before the enactment of Title IX and the battles that we have fought to keep it intact. On the occasion of this 30th anniversary, it is appropriate to take time to reflect on the history of this landmark
legislation so we may never forget the struggles and we may never forget the original purpose.
From the day at age four when I had my appendix removed, I knew I wanted to be a doctor. I went to college drive with this goal. I was elected President of our college pre-med organization. No one bothered to tell me that my career goal could not be achieved because I was female. In my senior year I applied to a dozen or more medical schools. Everyone turned me down because I was female. I was stunned. I had a degree in zoology and chemistry that could not get me to my coveted profession. America the land of the free had closed its doors of opportunity to me because I was female.
Again after I got my law degree I was shut out from employment because I was female.
When I ran for elected office was ostracized because I was ``only a woman'' and presumably therefore had nothing to contribute.
This personal story of my life adds meaning to what happened in Congress. Title IX had its origins in a series of hearings on sex discrimination and equal opportunities for girls and women held in the mid-1960s and early 1970s by the House Education and Labor Committee. Throughout that time, the committee had been engaged in the process of systematically gathering a large body of evidence of discrimination against girls and women in our educational system.
In 1965, the year I first came to Congress and became a freshman member of the Education and Labor Committee, Chair Adam Clayton Powell initiated an examination of discrimination in textbooks. Our committee scrutinized textbooks and found that they portrayed girls and women in stereotypical ways and minimized our potential to lead. We hauled in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare because they were issuing brochures and films that consistently portrayed women in occupations such as nursing, teaching, or social work, but never as scientists, doctors, lawyers, judges, pilots, or engineers. We scrutinized vocational education courses and found that girls were being taught home economics while boys were being taught skills and concepts that would prepare them for higher wage careers. In addition, we found that the admissions policies of many institutions systematically excluded women from graduate and professional schools and rarely if ever afforded them scholarships, fellowships, research stipends, or staff assistantships.
In 1970, Congresswoman Edith Green (D-OR), Chair of the House Special Subcommittee on Education, held hearings on a bill she had introduced, H.R. 16098. This bill would have amended Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance--to also ban sex discrimination.
On July 3, 1970, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Jerris Leonard testified before Congresswoman Green's subcommittee on H.R. 16098. He said that while the Justice Department would not support language to amend the Civil Rights Act, ``we suggest an alternative''. The alternative was that the committee should concentrate on developing separate legislation that would prohibit sex discrimination in education. This was the genesis of Title IX.
It is important to put this initiative in the context of the times. This was right around the time of the big push for the Equal Rights Amendment. The women's movement was active and growing and supporters of equal rights for women were pursuing equal protection under the Constitution. Under the leadership of Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI) Congress voted for the ERA in 1971 by a vote of 354 to 24, sending it to the states for ratification. While Congresswoman Green's bill to prohibit sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have provided broader protections for women, prohibiting sex discrimination in education would be a giant step forward in the fight for equal rights for girls and women.
The opportunity to add Title XI came in 1971 when the House turned its attention to consideration of amendments to the Higher Education Act, H.R. 7248. It was initially Title X of H.R. 7248 and it prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational institution receiving federal funds. It also authorized the Civil Rights Commission to investigate sex discrimination, removed the exemption of teachers from the equal employment coverage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and eliminated the exemption of executives, administrators, and professions from the Equal Pay Act.
The bill was reported out of the House Education and Labor Committee on September 30 1971 and was considered by the full House on October 27, 1971.
During consideration by the full House, Representative John Erlenborn (R-IL) offered an amendment to exempt undergraduate admissions policies of colleges and universities from the prohibition of sex discrimination. This amendment won by a 5-vote margin, 194 to 189.
The provision that would have authorized the Civil Rights Commission to investigate sex discrimination (section 1007) was eliminated during the floor debate on a point of order by House Judiciary Committee Chair Emanuel Celler (D-NY) because it came under the jurisdiction of his committee.
At the same time, the Senate was working on amendments to its Higher Education Act. The Senate also argued bitterly over the inclusion of a provision banning sex discrimination in schools.
During the Senate floor debate on August 6, 1971, Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN) offered
an amendment, along with Senators EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA) and Phil Hart (D-MI), to ban sex discrimination in any public higher education institution or graduate program receiving federal funds. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) also submitted an amendment prohibiting sex discrimination in education, but decided not to offer it and instead supported the Bayh amendment.
As the Bayh amendment was considered, Senator STROM THURMOND (R-SC) raised a point of order against it on the grounds that it was not germane. The point of order was sustained by the Chair, who agreed and ruled that ``the pending amendment deals with discrimination on the basis of sex. There are no provisions in the bill dealing with sex.'' A 50 to 32 roll call vote sustained the ruling of the Chair.
The Senate reconsidered the higher education legislation in early 1972 because it objected to the House version that included provisions prohibiting the use of federal education funds for busing. Again, the bill that came out of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare did not include any provisions banning sex discrimination in schools.
Fortunately, Senator Birch Bayh was persistent on the issue of sex discrimination in education. During the floor debate that began on February 22, 1972 he offered an amendment that would prohibit sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funds but would exempt the admissions policies of private institutions. Later, Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) offered an amendment to the Bayh amendment that also provided an exemption for public single-sex undergraduate institutions. Both amendments passed by voice vote. This time, a provision prohibiting sex discrimination in schools was included in the bill passed by the Senate.
Negotiations in the House-Senate Conference Committees, held in the spring of 1972, finally yielded Title IX. The final language prohibited sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funding and applied to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education. The conference report was filed in the Senate on May 22 and in the House on May 23. The bill was approved by Congress on June 8. On June 23, 1972--30 years ago--President Nixon signed it into law.
Since its passage most people have come to associate Title IX with gains made by girls and women in athletics. Certainly, this is the most visible, spectacular, and recognized outcome of Title IX. However, many are surprised to learn that the topic of athletics did not even come up in the original discussions about Title IX. Our primary goal was to open up educational opportunities for girls and women in
[Page: H4862]
The impact of Title IX on athletics became apparent almost immediately. We were thrilled to see that athletic opportunities were starting to open up to girls and women, although these changes also sparked controversy. When coaches and male athletes began to realize that they would have to share their facilities and budgets with women, they became outraged. In 1975, this anger prompted the first and most significant challenge to the law.
Opponents of Title IX proposed an amendment to the education appropriations bill to prohibit the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from promulgating Title IX regulations to apply to college and university athletics. They paraded a number of college and professional athletes through the committee room to testify that Title IX hurt men's athletics. At the time, women athletes were so few and unknown that the only well-known athlete we could bring in to testify was Billie Jean King. The fact that there were virtually no prominent women athletes in our country was a testament in itself to the necessity of Title IX.
The amendment was agreed to by the House and was included in the 1975 House appropriations bill (H.R. 5901), but it was not agreed to by the Senate and was stricken in conference.
On July 16, 1975, I managed the House floor debate against a motion by Representative Robert Casey (R-TX) to insist on the House position. In the midst of vigorous debate on the issue and just prior to the vote, I was sent word that my daughter had been in a life-threatening car accident in Ithaca, New York. I left the floor immediately and rushed off to Ithaca to be with her. After I left, the Casey motion carried on a vote of 212 to 211. The House had voted to exclude college athletics from Title IX regulations. The newspapers reported that I had left the floor ``crying'' in the face of defeat. Without checking with my office the paper indulged in the very stereotypical smear that we were fighting against.
The following day, the Senate voted 65 to 29 to insist on the Senate position and strike the amendment from the bill.
On the next legislative day, July 18, 1975, Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) and Representative Daniel Flood (D-PA) took the House floor and explained the circumstances of my departure. Representative Flood then offered a motion ``to recede and concur in the Senate position''. An affirmative vote on this motion would reverse the vote taken by the House two days prior and would reject both the Casey position and the amendment. It carried by a vote of 216 to 178. Title IX's application to athletics for preserved.
While the story of Title IX is a story of celebration, it also a story of struggle to defend it against persistent challenges. Although we celebrate the year 1972 as the year of
enactment of Title IX, in retrospect it is clear that I was engaged in efforts to pass a Title IX law since I first arrived in Congress in 1965. There is also a clear pattern of repeated attempts to weaken or undermine Title IX from the very beginning. For 30 years, we have constantly needed to be on guard to defend it.
Five years ago, several colleagues and I came together on the House floor to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Title IX. Since then its story of spectacular successes, coupled with new and significant challenges, has continued to evolve. One of the most notable successes since the last anniversary was the tremendous victory by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team in the 1999 Women's World Cup. Hundreds of thousands of spectators attended the games and millions more watched on television. These strong, disciplined, and exciting athletes drew record-breaking audiences, inspired a whole new generation of girls to pursue their dreams, and captivated a nation.
This victory was significant not only for its impact on women's athletics but as a testament to the power of Congress to change the nation for the better. Mia Hamm, one of the team's brightest stars, was born in 1972--the same year that Title IX was signed into law. Without Title IX, she and many of her teammates may have never had the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their dreams.
Along with recent public celebrations of Title IX however, there have also been new and high-profile attacks. In 1998, the Republican majority of the Committee on Education and the Workforce inserted an 11th hour provision into the Higher Education Amendments that would have required colleges and universities to report annually any changes in funding or in the number of participants on an athletics team. In addition, it would have required them to forecast four years in advance any decisions to eliminate or reduce athletic programs or funding and to ``justify'' their decisions.
During the House floor debate on the Higher Education Amendments on May 6, 1998 TIM ROEMER (D-IN) offered an amendment to delete the provision.
Several colleagues and I argued strenuously in support of the Roemer amendment. We believed that this provision would have been extraordinarily intrusive on the decision-making processes of colleges and universities. We believed that it was impractical because it would have been virtually impossible for institutions to know four years in advance whether or not they would need to cut programs. Most importantly, we opposed this provision because of its potential for severe and adverse impact on the enforcement of Title IX. This provision had been supported by opponents of Title IX who wanted to force colleges and universities into blaming Title IX for their decisions to make reductions or cuts to minor, non-revenue men's sports teams.
The argument that Title IX is to blame for the reduction of some men's minor, non-revenue teams is patently false. Title IX regulations do not require schools to cut men's
teams in order to comply with Title IX. Instead, reductions or cuts to some men's sports teams--and to many women's minor sports teams as well--are due to choices made by college administrators in favor of the big budget, revenue-generating programs such as football and basketball. To blame Title IX is disingenuous and just plain wrong! The goal of Title IX is not to disadvantage men but to provide equal opportunities for women.
After a vigorous debate on the House floor, the Roemer amendment was agreed to by a vote of 292-129. The provision was deleted from the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
Unfortunately, the myth that Title IX is to blame for the reduction of men's minor sports teams on college campuses has continued to persist. In January of this year, the National Wrestling Coaches Association and other groups filed a high-profile lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that colleges and universities have cut wrestling teams and other men's minor sports teams in order to comply with Title IX.
This argument is unsupportable. The Department of Education's regulations regarding Title IX do not require schools to cut men's teams in order to comply with Title IX. Rather, ``proportionality'' is only one of three ways that schools can comply with the law. They may (1) offer athletic opportunities in substantial proportion to male and female enrollment, or (2) show that the institution is steadily increasing opportunities for women students overtime, or (3) show that the athletic interests and abilities of female students are being met. Institutions do not need to demonstrate all three.
While the Department of Justice filed a motion to seek dismissal of this lawsuit on May 29, 2002, the final disposition of the case is pending.
New challenges and questions have also been raised recently about Title IX and single-sex education. On May 8, 2002 the U.S. Department of Education announced its intention to encourage single-sex education in the nation's public schools by filing a notice of intent to propose amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX. According to the announcement in the Federal Register, the Bush Administration wants to ``provide more flexibility for educators to establish single-sex classes and schools at the elementary and secondary levels''. This announcement marked a reversal of three decades of federal education policy regarding single-sex education.
While advocates of this proposal cite research studies indicating that students may perform better in same-sex educational environments, opponents fear that the proposal endorses a form of segregation. In addition, many others worry that tampering with the current Title IX regulations is risky and dangerous and may have the ultimate effect of weakening Title IX.
Given difficult challenges such as these, it is especially important that we celebrate the many successess of Title IX. However, it is even more important that we not become complacent about Title IX. Many young girls and women today do not even know about Title IX and take it for granted that equal educational opportunities are safeguarded by the Constitution. While it is wonderful that equity has become the expected norm, we must also teach each new generation that there was a time when Title IX did not exist. Further, we all need to be reminded that since Title IX was put in a place by a legislative body, it can also be taken away by a legislative body. We need to be vigilant. Title IX must be protected and defended to ensure that equal educational opportunities for girls and women are preserved for all generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, as I have recounted this story here tonight, you can see that the pursuit and enforcement of Title IX has been a personal crusade for me for three decades. I am proud to have been a part of the enactment of Title IX in Congress 30 years ago, and I continue to be proud of its rich and lasting legacy of equal educational opportunities for girls and women. On this 30th anniversary, let us rededicate ourselves to the goals of dignity,
[Page: H4863]
END