Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696589033883.pdf (United States)
NEW EVIDENCE ON THE GENDER PAY GAP FOR WOMEN AND MOTHERS IN MANAGEMENT S. HRG.

111–789 HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee ( 61–713 WASHINGTON : 2011 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov.
For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free).

E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE [Created pursuant to Sec.
5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chair MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York BARON P. HILL, Indiana LORETTA SANCHEZ, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland VIC SNYDER, Arkansas KEVIN BRADY, Texas RON PAUL, Texas MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., Texas JOHN CAMPBELL, California SENATE CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Vice Chairman JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania JIM WEBB, Virginia MARK R. WARNER, Virginia SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Ranking Minority JIM DEMINT, South Carolina JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah ANDREA CAMP, Executive Director JEFF SCHLAGENHAUF, Minority Staff Director (II) SHAUN PsN: DPROCT C O N T E N T S MEMBERS Hon.
Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair, a U.S. Representative from New York .......... Hon.
Kevin Brady, a U.S. Representative from Texas ......................................... 1 3 WITNESSES Dr. Andrew Sherrill, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. Ms. Ilene H. Lang, President & Chief Executive Officer, Catalyst ..................... Dr. Michelle J. Budig, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Massa- chusetts ................................................................................................................. Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute ............................. 5 7 9 11 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Prepared statement of Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair .................... 30 Prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady ............................................ 31 Prepared statement of Dr. Andrew Sherrill .......................................................... 33 84 Prepared statement of Ms. Ilene H. Lang .............................................................
Prepared statement of Dr. Michelle J. Budig ........................................................ 107 Prepared statement of Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth .............................................. 117 Prepared statement of Representative Elijah E. Cummings ............................... 183 (III) SHAUN PsN: DPROCT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT NEW EVIDENCE ON THE GENDER PAY GAP FOR WOMEN AND MOTHERS IN MANAGEMENT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney (Chair) presiding.

Representatives present: Maloney, Cummings, and Brady.

Senators present: Bingaman.

Staff present: Andrea Camp, Gail Cohen, Colleen Healy, Elisabeth Jacobs, Jessica Knowles, Rachel Greszler, Ted Boll, and Robert O’Quinn.

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. MALONEY, CHAIR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK Chair Maloney.
The Committee will come to order, and I wel- come all the witnesses and my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Brady, and I will begin with my opening statement.

Good morning.

Today’s hearing on the gender gap among man- agers is part of the Joint Economic Committee’s in-depth look at women in the work place.

Women’s work is crucial for families’ eco- nomic well-being, particularly in these tough economic times.
Women comprise nearly half of the workforce, and families are increasingly dependent on working wives’ incomes, with working wives now contributing 36 percent of household income, compared to 29 percent in 1983.

Because of this, gains in women’s earning power or the absence of progress on that front is a very important economic security issue for American families.

Women earn just 77 cents on the dol- lar as compared to men for doing the exact same work.

That figure hasn’t budged in nearly ten years.


The report released today by the GAO provides additional evi- dence of the persistence of the gender gap at the highest echelons of industry.

The GAO finds a striking pay gap between male and female managers.

In 2007, female managers were paid 81 cents for every dollar earned by their male manager peers, even after ac- counting for measurable differences like age, education, and indus- try.
The pay gap for women in management shrank by just two cents from 2000 to 2007.

In short, and in no uncertain terms, we are (1) SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 stalled out.

No matter how you slice the data, the pay gap between male and female managers persists.

Even among childless managers, women earn just 83 cents for every dollar earned by their male peers.
Both the GAO and Cata- lyst also find that we have made very little progress in breaking the glass ceiling for women in management.

Women’s representation in management professions in 2007 was essentially unchanged from 2000, and motherhood continues to be a penalty for women in the workforce.

A previous GAO report showed that fathers enjoy a bonus, while mothers pay a penalty for their decisions to have children.
I like to call this the ‘‘mom bomb.’’ Today’s GAO report shows that management moms earn just 79 cents for every dollar earned by management dads, a figure that has not budged since 2000.

In all but one industry, fathers are more likely than mothers to be managers.

When working women have children, they know it will change their lives, but they are stunned at how much it changes their paychecks.
While women’s earnings are a crucial element of families’ eco- nomic security, this is particularly true for families where the wife is a manager.

Across all industries, married female managers are just like male managers in one key regard: they are their families’ majority breadwinners.

But married male managers’ paychecks represent about 75 per- cent of their families’ total earnings, compared to the 55 percent of total family earnings represented by married female managers’ paychecks.
The impact of the wage gap is particularly painful in our current economic downturn, as families struggle to make ends meet in the face of stagnant wages and job losses.

In order to further our understanding of the gender pay gap across the economic spectrum, I am pleased to announce today that I will be requesting a new report from GAO investigating gender pay and representation issues among lower-wage workers.
The GAO research team provides a great service to our nation with their impartial data-driven analysis of pressing economic problems, and I look forward to learning more from them when this report is issued next year.

Women are more productive and better-educated than they have ever been, but their pay has not yet caught up.
Women continue to bump up against everything from subtle biases to acts of dis- crimination relating to gender stereotypes about hiring, pay raises, promotions, pregnancy, and caregiving responsibilities.

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, was an important start, but additional legislation is necessary to close the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act that allow discrimination to persist.
I am proud to be the co-spon- sor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which passed the House earlier this session, and I hope that the Senate will soon act on it.

Better work/life balance policies would allow both mothers and fathers to continue to support their families and develop their ca- reers.

By ensuring that women aren’t forced to start all over again in new jobs, paid-leave policies can help keep women upwardly mo- bile in their careers, protecting their earnings.
The Working Families Flexibility Act, which I have sponsored with the late Senator Kennedy, would do just that, and I am SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 pleased to announce that just last week, Senator Casey introduced a version similar to this act in the Senate.

I would like to thank today’s panel, and I look forward very much to your testimony.

I recognize my colleague and very good friend, Mr. Brady.
[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 30.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN BRADY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS Representative Brady.

Thank you Madam Chairman.

I’m pleased to join with you to welcome our panelists before the Com- mittee this morning, and I would ask unanimous consent that my statement be entered in the record in full.

Chair Maloney.

No objection.

Representative Brady.


I support equal compensation for men and women, and our nation’s laws that are in place to ensure women are not discriminated against in the work place.

Where lax enforcement of our laws may exist, Congress should fulfill its duty in its role in conducting proper oversight, and I appreciate the Chairwoman’s sponsoring of this hearing today.
Back home, we have a number of women entrepreneurs, women in management, women in the workforce, who talk to me mainly today about jobs, the economy, and about stretching their family budget further.

They are concerned about this economy.

They have seen since the beginning of the year our economic growth has dropped by two-thirds.

We are beginning to stall out again in our recovery.

At a time when we ought to be adding jobs, we’re con- tinuing to lose them.

Small businesses are not hiring.


They’re continuing to lay off, and consumer confidence is at an 18-month low.

We’ve given back all the consumer confidence from the last year and a half.

The stimulus has not worked to jump-start the economy.
It certainly has not worked to restore consumer confidence, and businesses are holding—many of them led or with women in key management po- sitions—are holding onto more than $2 trillion of cash that ought to be going toward rehiring new workers, the old workers, hiring new ones, making new investments, adding net new sales force.

They’re not doing that, and what they tell us, both small busi- nesses and large, that they’re frightened by what they see coming out of Washington these days.
They see continued talk of higher taxes, more regulation.

They’re concerned about the health care bill driving up health care costs, its impact on their small businesses, very concerned about higher energy prices from cap and trade, and now they’re facing in January, January 1st, a nearly $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off, affecting every person in America.

Families who are trying to balance their budgets, small businesses who are trying to survive this recession.
We see women are now the fastest-growing among entre- preneurs.

I was a Chamber of Commerce executive before coming to Congress, so I got to see firsthand how women are the leading entrepreneurs among our small businesses.

Women and minority- owned businesses are really the catalysts for new small business creation in this country.
They are for the first time, as a genera- tion, building wealth, and they’re concerned about the death tax SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 coming back, springing back to full life January 1st, which will make it very difficult for them to pass their small business and their wealth back down to their children and their grandchildren.
I don’t know how anyone could believe that the way to jump- start our stalled economy is to heap new taxes on the very profes- sions and small businesses most critical to a recovery.

That doesn’t make economic sense, and I don’t think refusing to hold a vote, just a straight up or down vote, on extending the tax cuts, so there is not a tax increase on professions, small businesses, on capital gains and dividends is right.
I just think leaving Congress without letting the will of Congress be held and be known, to put lawmakers on the record of whether they support these tax increases or not, whether they’re serious about jump-starting the economy, I think, really is irresponsible.

I’m hopeful that maybe this hearing, maybe others, where we fea- ture again the challenges of women in the workforce, building wealth, of retaining their hard work and being rewarded for it will encourage an up or down vote.
I’m hopeful perhaps any effort we can make to encourage an up or down vote this week before we leave, I think, would be helpful.

With that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Representative Brady appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 31.]

Chair Maloney.

I thank the gentleman for being here.

We are focusing today on an important report that just came out of the GAO, but I need to respond to my good friend and colleague’s revi- sionist history on where our economy is.
He seems to have amne- sia, and does not remember that the last month that former Presi- dent Bush was in office, this country lost 790,000 jobs.

Because of the policies that were put in place during his eight years, we had a continued loss of jobs, down to what I call the ‘‘red valley.’’ Since President Obama took office, we have been moving in the right direction.

It is not success, but it is definitely progress.


For the past eight months, this country has gained jobs in the pri- vate sector, which is the true indicator of economic recovery.

President Obama’s actions, along with the Recovery Act, helped start moving us in the right direction.
Economists Alan Blinder from Princeton University and Mark Zandi, who was McCain’s economist—he works for the private sector for Moody’s, he’s a fore- caster—they came out with a joint report saying that if President Obama and the Democrats had not taken the steps that they did to start moving our economy in the right direction, this country would have lost an additional 8.5 million jobs and would have been thrust not into the great recession, which we are suffering in now, but into a Great Depression.
With the actions of the Obama Administration to stabilize our fi- nancial markets, to bring reform to them, we avoid the risk of tax- payers having to invest in bailouts in the future.

Actions such as the HIRE Act give a tax credit to businesses that hire unemployed workers.

And you know from the testimony that we heard before this Committee that a tax credit was one of the prime goals that economists said would help us move in the right direction.
Just last week the Senate passed and the President signed into law an important bill that we passed in the House earlier, a $30 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 billion loan fund for small businesses, directed to small businesses, to help them expand, to hire.

What we’re hearing on both sides of the aisle is that our small businesses do not have access to credit.
This money will be solely for credit to small businesses directed through community banks and regional banks, with other tax in- centives and breaks to try to get this economy moving in a stronger direction.

History speaks for itself.

The facts speak for themselves.

I would certainly take the initiatives and trends that we’re seeing now over the long line of policies that led us to the deep, red valley.

But today is not a time for this type of debate.

Women comprise half of our population.


The new GAO and Catalyst studies are very dis- turbing, and we plan to hear more about them today.

I thank our witnesses for being here, and I would like to intro- duce them, and thank them for their life’s work and for being here today.

Dr. Andrew Sherrill is a Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
He oversees the GAO’s work on worker protection and work- force development issues, and has worked there for 19 years.

He has led GAO teams in producing reports to Congress on topics in- cluding the gender pay gap, compensation for nuclear weapons fa- cilities, and welfare reform, among many other topics.
Ms. Ilene Lang is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Catalyst, the leading research and advisory organization working to build inclusive work places and expand opportunities for women in business.

She was appointed President in August of 2003, and named CEO in September of 2008.

She was the founding CEO of AltaVista Software, a subsidiary of Digital Equipment Corporation.
She was named to the Global Agenda Council on the Gender Gap at the World Economic Forum, and she is a member of the Na- tional Board Development Committee of the Girl Scouts of the USA.

Dr. Michelle Budig is an associate professor of Sociology and the associate director of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts.
She has published work on gender differences leading to self-employment, the relationship be- tween women’s employment and fertility histories, and earnings penalties associated with childcare, labor, and motherhood.

In 2003, her research won the Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Research Excellence in Families and Work.

Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Insti- tute, and directs the Center for Employment Policy.
From February of 2003 to April of 2005, she was chief economist of the U.S. De- partment of Labor.

She was Assistant to the President and Resi- dent Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute from 1993 to 2001.

Prior to that, she served in the White House under President George H.W.

Bush.

We thank all of our distinguished panelists, and we’ll begin with Dr. Sherrill and go down the line.

Thank you again for being here.


 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 DR. ANDREW SHERRILL, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORK- FORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT AC- COUNTABILITY OFFICE Dr. Sherrill.

Chair Maloney and members of the Committee, I’m pleased to be here today as you examine issues related to women in management.
Although women’s representation across the gen- eral workforce has grown, there remains a need for information about the challenges women face in advancing their careers.

To respond to your request that we update our 2001 report on women in management to 2007, we addressed the following three questions: First, what is the representation of women in management posi- tions, compared to their representation in non-management posi- tions by industry?
Second, what are the key characteristics of women and men in management positions by industry, and third, what is the dif- ference in pay between women and men in full-time management positions by industry?

My remarks today are based on our full re- port, which is being released at this hearing.

To examine these questions, we analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for the years 2000 through 2007.
We analyzed managers across all of the broad industry cat- egories used in the survey, representing almost the entire work- force.

We defined managers as individuals classified under the manager occupation category in the survey, which includes a wide range of job titles.
In our analysis of the differences in pay between male and fe- male managers working full-time and year-round by industry, we used annual earnings as our dependent variable, and we made ad- justments for differences of certain characteristics that were avail- able in the data set, and are commonly used to estimate adjusted pay differences.
These include age, hours worked beyond full-time, race and eth- nicity, state, veterans status, education level, marital status and presence of children in the household.

In summary, we found that when looking across all industries combined from 2000 to 2007, fe- male and male managers’ characteristics remained largely similar.

However, differences narrowed substantially in level of education and slightly in pay.
With regard to women’s representation, women comprised an es- timated 40 percent of managers and 49 percent of non-managers on average in 2007 across the 13 industry sectors we analyzed.

This compares to 39 percent of managers and 49 percent of non-man- agers in 2000.

In all the three industry sectors, women were less than proportionally represented in management positions than in non-management positions.
They were more than proportionally represented in construction and public administration, and there was no significant difference in their representation in the trans- portation and utility sector.

On average across the 13 industry sectors, an estimated 14 per- cent of managers in 2007 were mothers, with their own children under age 18 living in the household, compared to 17 percent of non-managers.
With regard to characteristics, according to our esti- mates, female managers in 2007 had less education, were younger SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 on average, more likely to work part-time, and were less likely to be married or have children than male managers.
While the average female married manager earned the majority of her own household’s wages, her share of household wages was smaller than the share contributed by the average male married manager in his household wages.

However, a key story in our re- port was that female managers’ gains in education surpassed those of male managers from 2000 to 2007.
Looking to the estimated difference in pay between female and male managers working full-time, it narrowed slightly between 2000 and 2007, after adjusting for selected factors.

When looking at all industry sectors together and adjusting for these factors, we estimate that female managers earned 81 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned by male managers, compared to 79 cents in 2000.

This is the bolded line on the first graphic on the chart up there.
The adjusted pay difference in 2007 varied by industry sector, with female managers’ earnings ranging from 78 cents at the low end in the construction and financial activities industries, to 87 cents on the dollar in public administration.

To examine the effects on pay of having children, we conducted two additional analyses.

We first compared only managers with children, and then the second compared only those without chil- dren.
In 2007, the adjusted pay for female managers with children was somewhat lower, 79 cents for every dollar earned by male managers with children.

That compares to 83 cents on the dollar for female managers without children.

While this indicates that the factors associated with having chil- dren explain some of the differences in pay between female and male managers, it also suggests that other factors are involved in the remaining unexplained differences, the large, gray portion of those last two graphics.
Some of the unexplained differences in pay seen here could be ex- plained by factors for which we lack data or are difficult to meas- ure, such as level of managerial responsibility, field of study, years of experience or discriminatory practices.

Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared remarks.

I would be happy to answer any questions you or the Committee members may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Andrew Sherrill appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 33.]

Chair Maloney.
Chair Maloney.

Thank you for your testimony.

Ms. Lang.

MS. ILENE H. LANG, PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CATALYST Ms. Lang.

Good morning, Chairman Maloney and members of the Committee.

Thank you for inviting me on behalf of Catalyst.

Founded in 1962, Catalyst is the leading non-profit working glob- ally to advance women in business.
Our research, widely consid- ered the gold standard on women in business leadership, identifies major barriers to women’s advancement and presents the most ef- fective strategies for creating sustainable change.

Today I will share Catalyst’s latest findings on the representa- tion of women in leadership positions, and their implications as we SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 look at issues of pay equity.
First, the good news.

Women currently make up 46.7 percent of the labor force, and more than 50 percent of management, professional and related occupations, and have for a long time.

But despite their sustained workforce participation and economic influence, women have experienced a shockingly slow rate of progress advancing into business leadership, regardless of industry.
According to Catalyst research, the percentage of women execu- tive officers and board directors in Fortune 500 companies is stuck in the teens, and a staggering 97.4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are men.

The Catalyst census of Fortune 500 companies is a pre- cise count of women leaders in our nation’s largest 500 corpora- tions, as measured by revenue.

We analyze the Fortune 500 because the country’s most powerful and influential companies set the standard.
Catalyst believes we will not see systemic change until we see it at the nation’s leading corporations.

So let’s look at the data.

While women are 46.4 percent of the Fortune 500 workforce, they are only 25.9 percent of senior officers and managers, hold only 15.2 percent of board seats, are only 13.5 percent of executive offi- cers, and just 2.6 percent of CEOs.

That’s 13 CEOs out of 500.

The numbers reflect a deep leadership gap.


The current gender ratio of top earners at Fortune 500 companies raises another red flag.

Executive officer compensation remains a visible indicator of women’s status in corporations.

In 2009, women were only 6.3 per- cent of top-earning executive officers within the Fortune 500.

Women are stuck.

Despite decades of efforts to create opportuni- ties for advancement, deep inequities persist.
Our recently released report, ‘‘Pipeline’s Broken Promise,’’ revealed that talented female MBA graduates still start lower, are paid less, and climb more slowly than equally qualified men.

The report surveyed more than 4,100 women and men MBA alumni from 26 leading business schools around the world.
Taking into account time elapsed since earning the MBA, years of work ex- perience pre-MBA, industry and region, the survey found (1) women averaged $4,600 less in their initial jobs after controlling for their job level; (2) women were outpaced by men in salary throughout their careers.

In fact, the gap in pay intensified as time went on, and cannot be explained by career aspirations or parent- hood status.
And (3), even if they both started at entry level, men progressed more quickly than women up the corporate ladder.

If this is hap- pening to our best and brightest, one can only imagine the inequi- ties throughout the rest of the system.

These inequities must be addressed because it’s the right thing and the smart thing to do.
Catalyst Bottom Line research found that Fortune 500 compa- nies with more women corporate officers, on average, financially outperformed those with fewer, and the same holds true for For- tune 500 companies with more women on their boards of directors.

On average, companies with more women on their board of direc- tors significantly outperformed those with fewer women by 53 per- cent on Return on Equity, 42 percent on Return on Sales, and a whopping 66 percent on Return on Invested Capital.
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 What’s good for women is good for American business.

From the perspectives of leadership advancement and pay equity, companies that disadvantage women lose out on half the available talent.

That’s like playing cards with half a deck.

Women aspire to success just as much as men do, and they define it similarly.
But until women achieve parity in pay and business leadership roles, they will be marginalized in every other arena.

To address inequities, Catalyst advises companies to establish strict accountability regarding promotion and pay.

We strongly support legislation that targets inequity.

A bold step forward for American business and the economy would be for the Senate to join the House in passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Chairman Maloney and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

I have also submitted a writ- ten testimony that includes further details about relevant Catalyst research and our methodology.

I’m ready to answer questions now.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ilene H. Lang appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 84.]

Chair Maloney.

Thank you very much.

Dr. Budig.


DR. MICHELLE J. BUDIG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Dr. Budig.

Chairwoman Maloney and members of the Com- mittee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Today I testify that a significant portion of the persistent gender gap in earnings among workers with equivalent qualifications and in similar jobs is attributable to parenthood.
Thus, policies that target the difficulties of balancing work and family responsibilities, as well as discrimination based on workers’ parental status, may be the most effective at reducing the remain- ing gender pay gap.

I’m going to address four points: The relative absence of wives and mothers among managers, the larger gender pay gaps among parents, the evidence of motherhood penalties and fatherhood bonuses, and work family policies that are associated with smaller motherhood wage penalties.
The GAO report shows that, compared with male managers, women managers are far less likely to be married, to be parents and have smaller family sizes when they are.

The absence of moth- ers and the rising childlessness among workers is also found in na- tional data.
Table 1 in the handout I’ve distributed shows that controlling for important labor market and family characteristics, the gender em- ployment gap among the childless is only six percentage points, while it is 20 percentage points among parents.

Thus, high-achiev- ing women are foregoing families at rates not observed among high-achieving men.

This is an important form of gender inequal- ity.

Moreover, the relative absence of mothers may represent a brain drain of experienced, skilled workers.
The GAO report also shows that, among mothers who do persist in management, the gender pay gap relative to fathers is far larger than the gender pay gap among childless managers.

Table 2 of your handout shows that, among all full-time workers in the U.S., child- SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 10 less women earn 94 cents of the childless man’s dollar, while moth- ers earn only 60 cents of a father’s dollar.
The gender pay gap and the parenthood pay gap are strongly linked.

Research demonstrates that between 40 to 50 percent of the gender pay gap can be explained by the impact of parental and marital status on men’s and women’s earnings.

Moreover, while the gender pay gap has been decreasing, the pay gap related to parent- hood is increasing, which brings us to the wage penalty for mother- hood.
If we look just at women, the finding that having children reduces earnings, even among workers with comparable qualifica- tions, experience, work hours and jobs, is now well-established.

In your handout, Table 3 from our research shows the effect of chil- dren on earnings.

All women experience reduced earnings for children, each addi- tional child they have.

This penalty ranges in size from 15 percent per child among low-wage workers, to about four percent per child among the highly paid.
That mothers work less and may accept lower earnings for more family friendly jobs partially explains the penalty among low-wage workers, and that mothers have less expe- rience due to interruptions for child-bearing explains some of the penalty among highly-paid workers.

But a significant motherhood penalty persists even in estimates that account for these differences, such that the size of the wage penalty after all factors are controlled is roughly three percent per child.

What does that mean?


In 2009, the typical full-time female worker earned $1,100 less per child in annual wages, all else equal.

This unexplained three percent penalty may partially derive from employer discrimination against mothers, and evidence from experimental and audit studies finds motherhood discrimination in callbacks for job applications, hiring decisions, wage offers and pro- motions.
After reviewing resumes that differed only in whether they noted parental status, subjects in an experiment systematically rated childless women and fathers significantly higher than mothers on competency, work commitment, promotability and recommenda- tions for hire.

The motherhood penalty compares women against women to see how children impact wages.

Among men, fatherhood increases earnings.


Some of this fatherhood bonus is due to fathers’ longer work hours, greater experience and higher-ranking jobs, but, even after we adjust for these differences, we find a wage bonus for fa- therhood.
Figure 1 in your handout shows that, controlling for labor mar- ket characteristics, all men receive a fatherhood bonus, and this bonus is the greatest for white and Latino college graduates, whose annual earnings are about four to five thousand dollars higher than comparable childless men.

Thus, we see parenthood exacer- bates gender pay differences.

What kind of policies might reduce the gender gap in pay attrib- utable to the motherhood penalty?
In collaborative NSF-funded re- search, we’ve identified three key policies.
Figure 2 of your handout shows that universal early childhood education for pre-school chil- dren and increased availability of publicly supported affordable high-quality care for children under the age of two enables mothers SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 11 to maintain connections to employment, and therein dramatically reduces the motherhood wage penalty.
Figure 3 shows that universal moderate-length job-protected leave following the birth of a child also reduces motherhood pen- alties.

We recommend FMLA needs to be extended to all work places and workers, and ideally should be longer than 12 weeks.

Universal paid maternity and paternity leave are key.

Short-term paid maternity leave also reduces women’s exit from the workforce and reduces the wage penalty for motherhood.
More- over, non-transferrable paid leave to fathers is strongly linked to smaller motherhood penalties.

I see that I’m out of time, but I’m happy to talk about any of these recommendations, and I thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Michelle J. Budig appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 107.]

Chair Maloney.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

MS. DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today.

I would like your permission to submit the full testi- mony for the record, as well as my recent monograph, ‘‘How Obama’s Gender Policies Undermine Women,’’ which I refer to in my testimony.

I’d like to congratulate GAO on another in a series of excellent studies, and this study does not show discrimination.
On page four, if I quote from Dr. Sherrill’s letter, he says ‘‘Our analysis neither confirms nor refutes the presence of discriminatory practices.’’ Some of the unexplained differences in pay seen here could be ex- plained by factors for which we lack the data or are difficult to measure, such as level of managerial responsibility, field of study, years of experience or discriminatory practices, all of which can be found in the research literature as affecting earnings.
Dr. Budig has given a very clear summary of the research lit- erature.

I mention some of it in my testimony, so I don’t think I have to review it here.

Just one small point about the male and female managers and percent of household income.
In the bullet point on page two, it says ‘‘While the average female married manager earned the ma- jority of her own household’s wages, her share of household wages was smaller than the share contributed by the average male mar- ried manager to his household’s wages.’’ Well, when I spoke to Dr. Sherrill earlier, one reason for this is because it doesn’t account for whether the spouse worked, and there are more non-working female spouses than male spouses.
So many of the male managers were the only earner in the household, and that’s one reason they had a higher percentage of household earnings.

Well, when you account for age, experience, motherhood, time in the work force, the pay gap basically disappears according to many studies.
In fact, Professor Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Kevin Hallock of MIT have done a study on top CEOs, accounting for age and tenure in the workforce and level of respon- SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 12 sibility, and found that women managers earn 97 cents on the dol- lar.
The GAO study shows that women have been improving over the past seven years, where they were documenting this research, and the danger is not that women are going to fall behind.

The danger is that Congress is going to over-react to false discrimination claims and pass legislation that will slow the progress of both men and women.

Such legislation is discussed in this monograph here.
The Paycheck Fairness Act specifically was one of the first bills that the House of Representatives passed, but if it is passed by the Senate and signed by the President, it would spawn a tidal wave of lawsuits, and enmesh employers in endless litigation.

This bill is a full employment act, not for women but for trial lawyers, that would further burden our overburdened courts, and would slow small businesses and large businesses from hiring, and encourage them to ship more jobs overseas.
The bill would only allow employers to defend differences in pay between men and women on the grounds of education, training and experience, if these factors were also justified on the grounds of business necessity.

That means that this change could prohibit, for example, male supermarket managers with college degrees from being paid more than female cashiers, because the college degree for the male manager might not be considered as part of a business necessity.
Another provision of the Paycheck Fairness bill would expand the number of establishments subject to the law from all establish- ments to the same employer in a county.

So right now, it is county- wide, but if there are many establishments with some firms in one say low-income county with lower wages, another in a higher-in- come county, this bill would mean that they would all have to be paid the same.

But now employees who do substantially the same work in one location have to be paid equally.
Identifying ‘‘substantially the same work’’ is hard to do for disparate jobs in different locations.

Class action suits would be facilitated by the bill’s opt-out clause.

Now, if a worker wants to participate in a class action suit, she has to affirmatively agree to take part.

What the Paycheck Fairness Act would do is mean that she would have to opt out affirmatively.

Otherwise, she would be in- cluded.


The bill would require the EEOC to analyze pay data and collect more records from employers, imposing a substantial burden in terms of collecting data on race, sex and wages of employees.
So the danger is not that women have insufficient remedies for discrimination, or that they are underpaid when you take account of their age, experience, education and background, but the Con- gress will interfere and slow the economy even more, reducing job growth and family income for men and for women.

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 117.]

Chair Maloney.
Chair Maloney.

Thank you, and I’ll begin the questioning, and I’d like to ask Dr. Sherrill and Ms. Lang about a recent Wall Street Journal article that reported that the number of women in finance has fallen dramatically over the last ten years, despite the rise of SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 13 the number of women in the industry and their educational level.
What does the GAO report tell us about female managers’ rep- resentation and pay, in the financial services industry, and how has their position evolved over the last decade?

Dr. Sherrill.

Dr. Sherrill.

Our analysis of the financial services industry indi- cates that women’s representation in management positions dropped from about 53 to 50 percent over the time period we looked at.

Also, that this industry has the biggest pay difference for male and female managers, at 78 cents to the dollar for men.
That’s tied with construction.

We also found that the financial services industry by far has the biggest difference between men and women managers in the per- centage with bachelor’s degree or higher: 26 percentage points.

GAO has also done some prior work, separate reports, looking spe- cifically at women’s representation and minorities’ representation in management over time in the financial services sector, and basi- cally found that from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, it’s remained largely stagnant.
There have been some initiatives, but there’s been obstacles in terms of recruiting more minorities and also getting buy-in from middle-level managers to some of these initiatives like recruitment and internships.

Chair Maloney.

And Ms. Lang, would you like to comment on this?

Ms. Lang.

We don’t have any research that shows anything dif- ferent from the GAO.

Chair Maloney.
Chair Maloney.

And how does this compare to other fields that you looked at in your report, such as education, social services, and other lower-paying fields?

Dr. Sherrill.

The financial services industry is one of the higher- paying industries, and, in comparison, we didn’t find any strict cor- relation between the representation of women in management posi- tions and the size of the pay difference in different sectors.
But you mentioned health care and social services, just to com- pare them with the financial services industry.

In health care and social services, we saw an increase in the representation of women as managers of up to four percentage points, up to 70 percent, the highest of all across the industries, and the pay gap was 81 cents to the dollar in 2007.

In educational services, women represented about 57 percent of managers in 2007.
The pay gap was somewhat less, 86 cents to every dollar earned by the men.

That’s one of the smallest pay gaps across the industries we analyzed.

Chair Maloney.

And Ms. Lang, are there sectors of the economy where women are not represented at all at the upper rungs of the corporate leadership?

Or Dr. Sherrill, if you’d like to comment.

Are there some areas where they’re not represented at all?

Are there other areas where they’re more represented?

Ms. Lang.

Thank you.


We look at the Fortune 500, and we look at industry breakouts, and in particular when there are ten compa- nies in an industry, we compare, and what we found is that there are women in leadership throughout—and senior corporate leader- ship in every industry.

The only place where you don’t see women SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 14 is in the CEO role.
There are some industries that have no women CEOs.

That’s not to say that the representation is equivalent across the board.

Some do better and some do worse, but, in fact, there are women on boards in just about every industry, and, again, in the C-suite and in management.

Some industries have a much higher percentage of women in the overall workforce than others, but it doesn’t seem to make that much of a difference overall as to how far they advance, except to the CEO.

Chair Maloney.

Thank you.


My time is up.

Mr. Brady.

Representative Brady.

Well, discrimination against women in the workforce or society is wrong, period, and we ought to root that out, and we ought to apply the principles that allow merit in hard work and effective work to be rewarded on an equal level with men, period.

The question is one, what is government’s role in doing that, and secondly, does it—and how does it—exist?
I think Ms. Furchtgott-Roth pointed out, as did Dr. Sherrill’s re- port, that it is sometimes difficult to compare apples to apples.

We have male-dominated industries and female-dominated jobs.

You’ve got education, skills, tenure, workforce, a whole number of vari- ables in it.

I want to get to the point about how that affects women entrepreneurs specifically.
But I also want to point out the women in my district, and we meet regularly with our chambers of commerce or small business groups, and they really sincerely today are most worried about jobs, the economy and this debt and this country.

I think today 90 percent, the latest poll, 90 percent of the Amer- ican people believe this economy is in bad shape and not getting better any time soon.
They raise real doubts and skepticism about the stimulus bill, because it has lost, what, three and a half million jobs now along Main Street since that was put in place.

Almost every economist has downgraded our economic growth over the next year.

The fact is that, at this level, it will take much of this decade to return to the unemployment levels of the Bush years.

We have a bipartisan, I think, goal in getting this economy back on track.
Back home, what I’ve seen over the last decade is a dra- matic increase in women in leadership roles in the community, leadership roles in business, and especially among small busi- nesses, entrepreneurs.

All you need do is go to any chamber of commerce meeting in any community, and you’ll see that it is dominated by women running small businesses.
So my question to the panelists is what studies have you done to identify how women in small businesses, entre- preneurs owning their business, launching their small business are doing?

What type of equality occurs in the marketplace?

You know, are consumers and clients rewarding small businesses run by women?

Is there discrimination in that area?

Have there been any studies done?

I would open it up.

I ask that because that’s the growing area of job development and creation in the country.
This is where I see major gains occurring.

I want to see more of that occurring.

Has anyone made some comparisons, identified those levels?

Dr. Budig.

Is this on?

 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 15 Representative Brady.

There you go.

Dr. Budig.


A decade ago, I wrote my dissertation on gender dif- ferences in self-employment, so my data might be a little old, but I think I can speak to some of your, part of your question.

Self-em- ployment and entrepreneurship, particularly among women, is really very varied, right?

I mean it runs the gamut from women opening hair salons in their basement to starting up businesses in the tech sector.
What I observed in my analysis was that, among those engaged in professional forms of self-employment, for the highly educated and highly skilled, there were no gender differences in the impact of self-employment and entrepreneurship on family economics.

Both men and women benefited from it.

But among non-professional work, it’s very different.

So you have men opening businesses in crafts and trades such as plumbing, car- pentry, and those are pretty lucrative, whereas the things women are doing are not.
In fact, the motherhood penalty is even stronger among self-employed, non-professionals than it is in the regular workforce.

There, that can’t be employer discrimination, because you are your own employer.

I didn’t study consumer discrimination, so I can’t speak to that end of it.

Representative Brady.

But that data’s a decade old?

Dr. Budig.

Yes, it is, uh-huh.

Representative Brady.

Okay.

I appreciate the point you’re making.


I think the last decade has seen tremendous growth in women entrepreneurs.

I imagine there are, if you’re the mom, and you run the company, and you’re taking time off either for the birth or for those early years, clearly there will be an impact.
I’m just curious in the marketplace itself, have there been any studies on, you know, do small businesses owned and run by women make less, generate more income, have greater profit mar- gins, employ more, employ less?

Do they have different policies for merit, you know, and productivity in their own business?

I just think these are areas—again, I see tremendous growth in this area, and again discrimination doesn’t belong in the market- place, period.
I’m just trying to get to that apples and apples com- parison.

Thank you.

Chair Maloney.

Mr. Cummings.

Representative Cummings.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank you for having this hearing.

It’s so very impor- tant.

Dr. Budig, can you—maybe you can comment on this.


The women in my district, there are huge percentage of them who are single mother head of household, and you know, when I hear you talk about the bonus for fatherhood and then you said what, the penalty for women, you know, I’m trying to figure out how does that—have you broken your numbers down as to how they affect single mother head of household?
The reason I ask you that is because these are the women who have no help usually, who have no support systems.

They’re the ones that have to get up at five o’clock in the morning, dress the baby, get them to a babysitter, you know, and deal with all of those issues, while somebody who may be married may have a partner who can take on some of those tasks.
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 16 So I’m just wondering, has there been research done with regard to that, and the other reason I asked the question is because, if you’ve got a single earner, and if her wages, if she is penalized for having children, it seems like in those circumstances she’s in a tougher, much tougher situation than somebody who may be mar- ried.
The other reason I ask the question is because, when we look at our divorce rates, you know, and I wonder how, you know, I’m sure you didn’t get into this, but I wonder how all of this, that is when women go out and they’re trying their best to move up these lad- ders, how that might affect the family when they are together, when they are married, and divorce rates.

So you’ve got a whole—I’d like to just have your comments.

Dr. Budig.

Certainly.


Because single mothers tend to not dis- rupt their employment when they have children, they have more continuous employment records, and that does help them a little bit, but, for low-wage workers, I have a study coming out next month in American Sociological Review, that looks at the impact of motherhood in terms of the motherhood wage penalty across the distribution of women earners.
And among the lowest-paid workers in the economy, they pay the highest wage penalties for motherhood.

In part, that’s due to the fragility of their child-care systems, that oftentimes that women at that end of the spectrum, when they have work family crises, they have to quit their jobs because they’re in jobs with very few bene- fits or accommodations, whereas women at the higher end of the spectrum usually have more resources to deal with child-care crises and so forth.
But certainly the wage penalty for motherhood is going to be ex- perienced more seriously in a family that is not getting the father- hood bonus because there’s no man in the home, so children are profoundly affected by the loss of earnings that their mothers incur.

Representative Cummings.


Now, in many jobs, there is a ne- cessity or requirement, and any of you all may comment on this, that a person go back and get credits, say, for example, teachers, lawyers, and, in many instances, as we well know, education and continuing education is one of those factors that would allow a woman to move up the work ladder.
I would imagine that if somebody does not have that support sys- tem that’s another factor that comes in, that makes it almost im- possible to do all the things I just talked about doing, work and then go to night school, take care of the kids.

So I was wondering have you all addressed that issue at all, with regard to continuing education?

Mr. Sherrill, Dr. Sherrill?

Dr. Lang, Ms. Lang?

Either one of you.

Ms. Lang.


One of the things that Catalyst does is examine prac- tices among companies to see what are the best practices, what goes the longest way towards improving the work environment at companies, and the notion here is that, in a competitive work envi- ronment, where you need talent and you talk about continuing edu- cation, which is improving the talent, you want to be the employer of choice, and what do the best employers do in those situations?
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 17 And those are situations where the best employers sponsor their employees for the continuing education.

They invest in their em- ployees.

They support them, and they have paid leave for them, so that’s kind of where we see the best employers going, that they are trying to make sure that they do not lose their employees because of situations like what you’ve described.
Representative Cummings.

I see my time is up.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Representative Cummings appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 183.]

Chair Maloney.

Thank you very much, and building on Mr. Cummings’s questions, in 2003, GAO did another report that I re- quested on mothers’ pay, and it showed that mothers pay a wage penalty while fathers earn a wage premium.

Dr. Budig, are there specific industries where the ‘‘mom bomb’’ is more of a problem than others?
And if so, what do you think might explain those dif- ferences?

Dr. Sherrill, or anyone who’d like to comment.

But if you could begin, Dr. Budig?

Dr. Budig.

I have—sorry.

I have in the past done analyses by industry, and I did not see that there were better or worse indus- tries for mothers to be in, but the wage penalty for motherhood oc- curred in the same way in all jobs and industries.

Chair Maloney.

Do more educated women face a bigger mother- hood wage penalty than those who are less educated?
Dr. Budig.

Education seems to be protective, so the more edu- cation you have and the longer you delay motherhood, the less of the penalty you’d incur.

So it’s worse for younger mothers and for the less educated.

Chair Maloney.

And do women face an additional penalty when they have a second child?

In other words, is the ‘‘mom bomb’’ a one- time explosion, or is it a cluster bomb?

Dr. Budig.

Women face—it’s a cluster bomb.

Chair Maloney.

It’s a cluster bomb?

Dr. Budig.

It is.

Chair Maloney.


Really?

Dr. Budig.

Each additional child impacts earnings in a non-lin- ear fashion, so it actually gets exponentially worse, and the wage penalty for motherhood doesn’t go away in my, the research I’ve done, as the children age, but actually grows over time.

So it’s a permanent penalty.

Chair Maloney.

You also mentioned that education is somewhat protective, and we have seen in the last decade that women have outpaced men in receiving college degrees.
How have women’s edu- cational gains translated into leadership positions in the industry, and I ask Ms. Lang, Dr. Sherrill, anyone?

What is the impact of these gains in education?

Has that also been reflected in gains in leadership positions and in narrowing the pay gap?

Dr. Sherrill.

Our prior work on the gender pay gap has shown that women’s gains in education and level of work experience in oc- cupations that they’re in has explained a big part of their progress at lowering the pay gap.
When we look at that particular education story here, with the women in management analysis we did, it’s kind of a mixed pic- ture.
For example, if you look at the industry where the levels of SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 18 education are most similar for male and female managers, that’s in manufacturing, where they’re very close in levels of education, but women represent only 23 percent of management positions, so they’re at the lower end.
In construction, an industry where women have higher levels of education than male managers overall, women are only 12 percent of the managers there.

In the educational services industry, the levels of education for male and female managers are fairly close, yet women represent 70 percent of managers, so there’s no clear picture.

Education is just one factor in the story.

Chair Maloney.

Ms. Lang.

Ms. Lang.
Certainly education has brought more women into more professional positions, and has brought them into more indus- tries and on the management track, but our study about women MBAs, comparing women and men MBAs (they are sort of the proxy for future leadership)—from day one, first job after an MBA, even after you control for years of experience before the MBA, con- trol for parenthood, industry, region, whatever, women start at a lower compensation than men, so there’s a pay gap just for being a girl.
Chair Maloney.

Well, why is the pay gap so stubborn, and what do you think we can do to try to end it once and for all?

We learned from a Census report earlier this year that the gender gap has not budged since 2007, and the GAO report today shows us that the pay gap for women in management barely moved from our first re- port in 2000.

We got a two cent raise, but that’s hardly a massive improve- ment.

Two cents for seven years, between 2000 and 2007.


In man- agement, moms saw no improvement at all, so I would just like to hear your comments on why do you think the pay gap is so stub- born?

It’s barely moved.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

It’s because women like choosing family friendly jobs, so here it goes up to the most educated.
So on the Yale Law Women website, these are some of the smartest women in the country, this reads ‘‘In the aftermath of recent global finan- cial crises, Yale Law Women believes the focus on family friendly firm policies and policies designed for the retention of women re- mains more important and pressing than ever.’’ And family friendly policies are those that allow children to be combined with a career.
It means careers where you can be home for dinner, with fewer hours, and these are not careers that lead you on the CEO track.

It’s not a mom bomb.

It’s a preference for more flexible schedules, and women want these flexible schedules, and they come with lower levels of pay.

That’s why, until women stop wanting to be home with their kids, until mothers stop wanting to spend time with their children, you’re always going to have, we’re always going to have that pay difference.

Chair Maloney.
Chair Maloney.

Would you like to comment, Dr. Sherrill?

You say you accommodated for part-time work, for preferences, for leav- ing to have children, taking care of a sick parent?

Or Ms. Lang or Ms. Budig, would you like to comment on the persistence of the pay gap?

 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 19 Dr. Sherrill.

Yes.

We found that being a mother was associated with a lower level of pay.
Our prior work, like in our 2003 report, found that, for the general workforce, women’s work patterns were a key in explaining differences in pay, such as time away from the workforce, part-time work, fewer hours worked in a year, those kinds of things.

I think this points to a couple of areas.

One is the different poli- cies that help women better balance work and family priorities, and I think a second area is women’s entry and retention in some of the higher-paying industries.
As part of this story, a key issue is the extent to which women are getting degrees in the same fields of study as men, such as mathematics, science, and engineering, and to what extent that is changing over time.

Chair Maloney.

Okay.

Yes, Ms. Lang, very quickly.

Ms. Lang.

We have studied the values that women and men bring to the workplace, what they’re looking for, what they expect, and it’s a little counterintuitive.
But, in fact, women and men do look for the same kinds of work environments and the values there.

Number one and number two of women and men is having a sup- portive work environment and having a challenging job.

Number three and number four are having a good fit between life on and off the job and being well-compensated.

Numbers five and six are working at a company that has high values and having the oppor- tunity for high achievement.
Women and men are more alike than different in what they look for in the workplace.

But as it turns out, men are much more likely to get the values that they’re looking for than women are, and that’s kind of the rub here.

There’s an assumption that a family friendly work place is a lower-paying workplace for women.

That’s not true.
That’s not true.

Companies that really work at having the women, at retaining the women in their workforce, the ones they’ve invested in, the ones they’ve de- veloped, they care a lot about what those women want.
I will just conclude with the comment from the Senior Vice Presi- dent of Human Resources, a man in his early 40s with three young children, who told me recently, he said, ‘‘I meet with’’—he was a senior VP of Human Resources in a large global company—he said, ‘‘I meet with the women all the time, and I can tell you what they want is what I want.’’ Chair Maloney.

Well my time is up, but I just would like to comment and come back to this in my further questions.
Isn’t it true that, in the GAO report, you found a pay gap between child- less women and men, so we can’t blame motherhood for the entire pay gap, can we?

I think that’s a fair thing to say.

Mr. Brady.

Representative Brady.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I want to go back to the apples to apples comparison because I think that’s where we want to go.
Obviously, GAO’s report shows, I think, a 19 percent pay gap on average salaries, but an earlier GAO report, 2009, said that measurable differences account for all but seven percent.

The Department of Labor recently found the wage gap is between about five to seven percent after accounting for measurable dif- ferences.

Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, you cited a study, Bertrand and Hallock— Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

Yes.
Yes.

 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 20 Representative Brady [continuing].

That found, you know, not much of the difference in the pay of male and female corporate ex- ecutives, when they factored in a number of issues.

What are they factoring in in that study, that other studies may not be or may, you know, not be factoring in quite as heavily?

What are the dif- ferences?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.


So what they factored in is the work age and experience, as well as presence of children, and what one finds is not that mothers are underpaid but that getting on the CEO track is just very difficult to do.

A lot of men don’t make it either.

When you, if you’re a mother and you select a job that allows you, say, to be home for dinner, or you might choose, say, part-time work.
So you choose part-time work, and then the head of the law firm or whatever it is Ms. Lang talked about says, ‘‘Oh yes, I’ll give them whatever they want.’’ Say a woman wants a part-time job.

So she says, ‘‘I want to work three-quarters time and get three-quar- ters of pay.’’ Then that lowers her wages compared with men, but she’s still getting what she wants.
If you look at say recent Supreme Court nominees, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sotomayer and then candidate Harriet Miers, they didn’t have any children.

Condolezza Rice, Secretary of State, no children.

Hillary Clinton, one grown daughter when she was in the Senate, and now she’s Secretary of State.

The data from the Labor Department in 2009, I have it right here in front of me.
If you just don’t even account for occupation and education, if you look at childless, single women compared with childless, single men, on the aggregate it’s 96 percent.

Then if you just add with children under six years, it goes to 80 percent.

Representative Brady.

And your point in that study is what?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

This is the Labor Department Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009, put out in June 2010 by the Labor Department.

It has tables of average earnings.


This is Table 8 I’m looking at, women, men, married, spouse present, divorced, single.

I was just reading from Table 8.

So single women with no children under 18 earned 96 percent of what men earn, but when you add with children under six years, it brings it to 80 percent.

These women earn 80 percent, and I can do further calculations here with my pocket calculator if you want.

I can turn this data over to your staff.

It’s right there for anybody to see on the web.


Representative Brady.

Can I ask for—thank you.

Can I ask first the panelists, and Ms. Lang, you made the point that men and women may be more alike on issues of not just compensation but of time, the ability both to have a satisfying work life and a life afterwards, and time with your children or family, or pursue what- ever other interests you have.
Is the workforce becoming more flexible for those who want to have a life outside of it, and is the boom in women-owned busi- nesses, women entrepreneurs, is that perhaps a desire to have more flexibility and more control over your time and still have a satisfying work environment?

I ask that because I see women-owned, starting law practices, medical practices, sales teams.
In virtually every field, not nec- SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 21 essarily a plumbing company but a lot of businesses in our commu- nities, and one, I think it’s because it’s merit-based, the ability to control your time, to have some say over your destiny.

But I wonder what role flexibility in controlling your time has in encouraging women entrepreneurs?

Ms. Lang.

Right.
Ms. Lang.

Right.

So I’ve been an entrepreneur, and I can tell you, an entrepreneur works all the time, day and night, round the clock, 24–7, 365.

It’s a myth that women who are entrepreneurs work part-time.

That said, the idea of flexibility and the ability to control your own time is dependent on a lot of things, most particu- larly on power in the workplace.

So more senior people have more staff.

They have more re- sources.


They have more power over their own time because there’s somebody else who they can ask to do the work or command to do the work.

Now we are in a workplace today in the 21st century that is global markets, global workforces, and it’s 24–7, 365.

The workplace that will survive in that kind of economy is one where flexibility is the norm.

I’m not talking just about flexible hours.


I’m talking about flexibility that leads to innovation, flexi- bility that allows for cultural competence, so that people who work in one part of the world can support customers in another part of the world.

Flexibility for employers and employees, and women and men.
That’s really also about focusing on results, so I think that how work is done and where it’s done today are completely con- trary to the really outmoded notions about face-time and being in the office, and the technologies that are available make it much more possible for companies to structure the workplace so that there’s much more flexibility.

People can work at home.

They can work reduced schedules.

They can do other kinds of things.


The best companies are offering that to women and men employ- ees.

You know if they’re the best companies when the men take these kinds of options as well.

Representative Brady.

Right.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

So if women want to be offered reduced schedules, then they’re paid a reduced amount, and that means there’s a pay gap.

You just—— Ms. Lang.


Every credible research study that looks at this con- trols for that kind of thing, so you don’t look at the raw numbers; you look at it controlled for the number of hours worked or some of these other things.

That’s what it means to control for a factor.

So when you control for that, you can look and see what is the pay gap that nets out.

Chair Maloney.

And this report compared full-time female man- agers to full-time male managers.

It was not comparing part-time employment.


We did have a JEC report on part-time employment, and I’ll follow up when I have time on that one, but this was full- time versus full-time employment.

Mr. Cummings.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth [continuing].

Full-time is over 35 hours a week.

Chair Maloney.

Pardon me?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

Full-time is any hours over 35 hours a week.

Chair Maloney.

Yes, exactly.


 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 22 Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

Someone could be working, say, 36 hours, a woman, and it would be full-time, and she’s compared to a man who’s working say 50 or 60 hours a week.

So saying that those— you have to account for the number of hours, not just full-time or part-time.

Chair Maloney.

I’ll call on Dr. Sherrill to clarify the framework of his report.
Dr. Sherrill.

We did also take account of hours worked beyond full-time, as one of the explanatory factors.

Representative Cummings.

I’m sitting here and I’m listening to all this, and I’m also looking at the audience and Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, if you saw some of the expressions on some of these women’s faces, I guess you’d be surprised.

But I have two daughters, and let me make sure I understand this.

Am I to tell them that they need to wait until they’re 40 to have children?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

No.


Representative Cummings.

Now hear me out.

Now hear my whole question now.

Don’t answer me too quickly.

Am I supposed to tell them they need to wait until they’re 40 to have children, if they want to progress up the employment ladder?

Am I supposed to tell them that they are—they need to go in and if they’re going to have children, they need to expect that they will not move quick- ly up that ladder?
And I’m just trying to figure out, you know as I listen to all of this, I’m trying to figure out where, and I listened to you, Ms. Lang, and I’m thinking I agree, that you’ve got to have some flexi- bility in the employers.

But you know where that comes from?

It comes from leadership, and I wonder if there’s a correlation between who’s sitting on these boards.

If I’ve got an all-male board, it’s like imagining Congress without women.

I hate to even imagine it.


But if you’ve got an all-male board, all of whom have benefited from having as many children as they want, and they are making decisions, corporate decisions, Dr. Budig, about their employees.

I’m just trying to figure out is there a correlation with regard to sensitivity coming in there because a lot of this is about sensitivity and creating that kind of work place.
For example, I’ve seen situations where a lot of women tell me, we have some situations in Maryland where they have, for exam- ple, daycare centers right on the premises.

They love it because they can see their kids at lunch time; they’re on the way to work.

They can drop them right off, pick them up right there at work.

I mean those kinds of things, all of that.


I’m just trying to figure out what do we, instead of us being stuck here, what are the kind of things that, if I’m sitting here as an employer, and I want to make sure that women progress, what are the kind of things that I need to be doing to make sure that that happens?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

So one thing you could tell your daugh- ters is that the field they choose is very important.
They need to get a lot of education and also that some careers are more family friendly than others.

If they become a Congressman and follow in their father’s footsteps, they are not going to get a wage penalty SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 23 for having children because that is a job where the—where it’s easier to combine work and family.
If they’re a professor in a college, professors are given additional years in many universities to be able to write the publications and get tenure.

Women have been teachers frequently because they have long academic leaves in the summer.
On the other hand, if your daughters were to go into, say, invest- ment banking, where there isn’t really any concept of part-time work, or a partner in a law firm, a high-powered law firm where the client also wants to see you, you know, it could be 24 hours a day if they have a case.

That’s difficult to be a full-time working mother.

But a doctor, if she wanted to be a doctor, a medical practice.

There are group medical practices, and some doctors cover for oth- ers in these medical practices.
Representative Cummings.

And so if I—what would I say to my son?

The same things?

What would I say to my sons?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

I mean if they were to have children?

Representative Cummings.

The same questions.

The same thing you just answered.

Would I have a different answer than what you just gave me if I were talking to my boys?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

Well, it depended if your boy wanted to be home in time for dinner to see his children.

Representative Cummings.

I see.


Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.

Some men don’t care.

Some do.

Representative Cummings.

Ms. Lang, thank you.

Ms. Lang.

Yes.

I want to thank you for bringing up the issue of leadership and tone at the top, and it’s really important.

You talked about a board of directors that is all men.

There are still some boards of directors that are all men, but I am happy to say that the largest companies in the United States are increasingly seeing more women representation.
In fact, the question of representation of women that we find is less industry-specific and more size of company.

So the Fortune 500, 100, have more women, a higher percentage of women held board seats than the Fortune 101 to 200, 201 to 300, that type of idea.

Now why is that important?

You brought up a little bit of it in some of the examples, but one of the most important is that women are role models to women and men alike.

They’re not role models just for women; they’re role models also for men.
Men and women both see women in leadership roles, and one of the most difficult perceptions to get past is that I speak a lot and I say to people, ‘‘Close your eyes and picture a business leader.’’ Can you imagine how many picture a woman?

Most of them picture a man.

Getting past that assumption or stereotypic perception is very important, so when you see women on boards of directors, you know that there is diversity, inclusion of women, as well as men there.
It sets the example that this is a company at which all peo- ple can succeed.

One of the quotes that I like the most from one of our focus groups that we had was a woman saying about—and she worked in a high tech company—and she said, ‘‘When I look up and see that they’re all men, I don’t think I have a chance.
When I see di- SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 24 versity, I know that people like me can succeed, that everyone can be successful.’’ That’s what tone at the top is really all about.

So I think that the more we focus on leadership, the more impor- tant it is.
We did one study that shows that a company that has more women on their board of directors, five years later will have more women in their senior leadership, so that’s again sort of showing it’s not just that it happens organically.

It shows that it happens because there are people in the boardroom who think that it’s important to have diversity and leadership, and they stand for that and they pursue that in policy.

Representative Cummings.

Thank you.

Chair Maloney.


What is the impact of the recession on the gen- der gap?

When we did this report, we specifically looked through 2007 in order to avoid the recession, so we would have a greater long-term trend to look at, but I’m interested in knowing what the gender gap is during times of prosperity versus times of recessions.

Do women share the wealth during times of prosperity, or does the disparity grow?

Have there been any studies on that impact on the pay gap?

Yes, Doctor—Ms.

Lang.


Ms. Lang.

I’ve been a doctor three times already today.

So our study about the pipeline, looking at the MBA alums, explored that as one of several issues that we looked at.

What we found is look- ing at the period between December 2007 and June 2009, asking a group of over 1,000, about 1,500 or 1,600 of the women and men MBA alums, how did the recession treat you?

What’s happened to you over these last 18 months?


And what we found is that women and men, for the most part, did well.

These are the MBA alums.

They job-hopped much more than one would have thought.

They were promoted.

They took lat- eral moves.

They took international assignments.

However, the women and men, when we looked just at the women and men who were in the most senior levels, that group, women were three times more likely to lose their jobs.
So that was a—that’s a very serious penalty when it looks at what’s happened to women in leadership, and it has been quite pronounced, at least anecdotally.

People would ask us are senior women losing their jobs more in this recession?

This study that we did suggests that that was the case.

Chair Maloney.

Also, could you talk about women’s leadership, and how it creates opportunities for women lower down the cor- porate ladder?

You did mention that female board members help improve the hiring of women.
Would you like to elaborate more on the pipeline issue that you studied?

Others may want to comment on the pipeline issue you were commenting on, too.

Ms. Lang.

Well, what we have found in the research that we’ve done, looking at both senior levels and in the pipeline, is that women face barriers to advancement that men don’t.
We docu- mented that women MBAs, all other things being equal, start at lower compensation rates, and they are slow—they move more slowly up the ladder over the years, at least in the ten years that we covered in our study.
We have shown for years that women’s, their aspirations towards leadership are just as strong as those of men, but it’s much harder SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 25 for them to be treated seriously and have the credibility and for their accomplishments to be recognized.

Chair Maloney.

Thank you.

Mr. Brady.

Representative Brady.

No.

I really have nothing more to add.


One, I think it’s very—it’s a fascinating discussion on an important topic.

Two, I’m grateful Stephen Colbert is not here to make any comments.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I do think we’re missing two of the fastest-growing areas for business, entrepreneurship and the digital economy.
You know, all you need do is go to some of the technology companies in the Sil- icon Valley and look at the meritocracy there that they’ve created, regardless of gender, age or anything.

It is simply who produces the best results on time under budget.

And I think we are missing some of that, and, at the end of the day, I still believe we need jobs for women and men.

I do think this economy is off the track.
I don’t understand why Washington’s pur- suing the policies it’s doing; that has produced a recovery three times weaker than 1981 and 1982; why so much of America is dis- couraged about the economy and the track that we’re on, and, for the life of me, I don’t understand why we’re not voting this week to not raise taxes on women and men and small businesses and families, and capital gains and a number of other areas, I think, that could create this certainty to help get this economy on track.
So Madam Chairman, we have differences on some of the poli- cies, but I think your holding this hearing is a very important ac- tion.

Thank you.

Chair Maloney.

Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Representative Cummings.

I just want to go back to you, Ms. Lang.

You were talking to the chairwoman just a moment ago about loss of employment.

Is that right?

Ms. Lang.

Yes.

Representative Cummings.

And you said that women—what was your conclusion?

Ms. Lang.
Ms. Lang.

We looked at women and men MBA alums who had earned their degrees between 1996 and 2007, so it’s basically that Gen-X group, and they range in age from, at the time that we did this most recent study, they were kind of late 20s to mid-40s.

That’s kind of the age group.


We asked them, ‘‘What’s happened to you over this period of time during the recession, December 2007 to June 2009?’’ What we found was that the women and men—the only differences between the experiences of women and men during that period were that, in senior leadership positions, women were three times more likely than men to have lost their job involuntarily.

Representative Cummings.

That’s very interesting.


As I lis- tened to Mr. Brady, I could not help but think about, you know, I really wasn’t going to go here.

But a few weeks ago we had a vote on unemployment benefits, and I keep thinking about these women in my district, many of whom are head of household, single moth- ers, and we all know the stories.

I can tell it, you know.

I’ve seen it over and over again.

They’re the ones who are at the bus stop, six o’clock in the morn- ing.
They don’t have time to jog because they’ve got to get that kid to the babysitter.

Many of these women were the ones who lost SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 26 their jobs.

We had a vote, and there were many who, sadly, on un- employment benefits, that would have left these women with abso- lutely nothing, said no.
There’s something awfully wrong with that picture, and I guess my question, Ms. Lang, is, you know, what would you say—I mean what can government or any of you all, what can government do to encourage employers to be more sensitive to this situation that we find ourselves in, where a woman becomes penalized because she has a child?

I mean what kind of things can we do because, after all, that’s what we do?

We legislate.

And so I’m just wondering if you all have any suggestions.
In other words, I want folks to be all that God meant for them to be, and I don’t want them to be penalized because they decide to have a child.

Ms. Lang, you talked about entrepreneurship and women, and I know Mr. Brady’s very interested in this.

My wife is an entrepreneur, and you’re right.

It is a 24–7 job, 24–7.

Even when you go to the movies, you’ve got to compete with the Blackberry, so what kind of things can we do as government, in government, if anything?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.


Well, we can make sure existing laws against discrimination are enforced.

If women work the same hours as men, they get paid the same.

They only have a penalty for hav- ing children if they decide to cut back on their work hours after they have children.

Otherwise, the data show that they’re paid the same.

And right now, the biggest gender gap we have is in the unem- ployment rates.

Women’s unemployment rates are about two per- centage points lower than men’s.
It was two percentage points.

Now it’s 1.8.

It’s men who have the higher unemployment rates right now, and that’s a big problem we need to do something about by getting the economy going and cutting taxes.

Representative Cummings.

I understand, and you know what, and you know what?

I wish you would come to my district and tell those women that the ones who have been losing their jobs, be- cause they were last hired, and therefore they are the ones that lose their jobs.
But Ms. Budig, Dr. Budig, I see you shaking your head.

I just want to hear what you’re thinking.

Dr. Budig.

I just want to respond to the statistical models that are estimated to capture the motherhood wage penalty, is based on an hourly wage measure.

So it’s not determined by the number of hours that you work.

It is not determined by preferences, and, in fact, family friendly work places are not the places most women work.

Female-dominated occupations are not more family friendly.
They have less authority, less benefits, less pay, and often have very fixed schedules that are inflexible to the needs of families.

Those are some of the thoughts I was having.

Representative Cummings.

Thank you very much.

Chair Maloney.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cummings, and I’m interested in pursuing your line of questioning that basically asks how can we unstick ourselves and make true progress towards equality, and what government policies, Dr. Budig, do you think would be helpful?
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 27 I do have one bill in, modeled after the bill that passed in Eng- land, where you can request a flexible work schedule.

It’s not man- datory, but it’s shown just having the right to request flextime, which an employer can grant or not grant, has led to more family friendly situations.

Senator Casey is now carrying the Senate version of it.
I’ve authored this with former Senator Kennedy.

What about the ideas on paid family leave for the birth of a child?

Most industrialized countries do provide that.

Can you talk about some policies, Ms. Lang or anyone, or beginning with you, Dr. Budig, that could lead us to a more family friendly workplace and really try to attack the gender discrimination that is spelled out in so many reports?

Dr. Budig.

Yes, I can.


I’ve been, for the last five years, analyzing work family policies in 22 nations and looking at the relationship with women’s employment outcomes, and the strongest policy is the publicly funded child care.

High quality, publicly funded child care is associated with lower gender gaps in pay and a smaller mother- hood wage penalty.
Paid leave available to both fathers and mothers after the birth or adoption of a child is also linked to smaller gender disparities and motherhood penalties.

In terms of flextime, any policies that are targeted to women only tend to not address the gender dispari- ties, and any policies that serve to disconnect women from the workforce also don’t address gender disparities.

They may have other positive outcomes for families, but not eco- nomic ones.

Chair Maloney.

Anyone else, Ms. Lang.

Ms. Lang.


Yes.

I’m a proponent of shining light into darkness.

So I like transparency, and I think that we find that, in industries where some of the industries where there is total transparency about what the compensation is for individuals, there’s much less of a pay gap.
So you might be aware that the SEC ruled early this year, I think the regulations took effect in February, about mandatory dis- closure of certain kinds of factors, and, in particular, executive compensation was one that got a lot of attention.

But another one is about diversity on boards, and it is—it’s not any kind of require- ment that there be diversity on boards, but there is disclosure about whether it’s a factor taken into account, and if so, how is— how are policies implemented?
This is something that is happening in Australia and also in the U.K., and I think that mandatory dis- closure of compensation would make it possible that you wouldn’t have to go ask whether your pay is the same as somebody else’s.

But in fact it would be publicly available, and it’s amazing how people get into line when they think that the information might be on the front page of The New York Times.

Chair Maloney.

I would like to ask all of you about women’s roles as family breadwinners.
The report showed that an increasing number of women are the primary breadwinner for their families.

Dr. Budig, could you spell out for me the role that women play as breadwinners now for their families, and how important women’s paychecks are for families’ economic well-being, and how this has changed over the last several decades?

I’ll begin with you and then invite anyone else who would like to add their comments.
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 28 Dr. Budig.

Women’s paychecks are really important to families.

Increasingly, because of the lack of gains in the minimum wages, working class families cannot rely on a husband’s paycheck alone to support them, so women aren’t working always because they want to but because the family has to have them in the labor mar- ket.
Women are increasingly contributing, are the primary bread- winners in some families, although oftentimes that’s a transitory state for those families.

I lost my train of thought there.

But par- ticularly in—— Representative Brady.

The issue was just breadwinners while you were on it.

You were doing it.

Dr. Budig [continuing].


The industries that men tend to pre- dominate in have been the hardest-hit in the most recent recession, meaning that women who have been better able to keep jobs in health care services and education are increasingly more important to family economic well-being.

Chair Maloney.

Well, any other comment on the importance of women as breadwinners for their families?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth.


It’s become increasingly important be- cause women’s unemployment rates are lower right now, so a lot of men who’ve been laid off in the manufacturing and construction sector, whereas the service sector is continuing to grow.

It’s really important that we get the unemployment rate down so that men’s unemployment rate falls also, as well as women’s.
That means reducing government spending, keeping taxes low, reducing mandates on employers, so raising minimum wages means that low-skilled workers are, in fact, priced out of jobs.

Hav- ing a $2,000 per worker mandate penalty if you don’t have the right kind of health care insurance also reduces employers’ hiring.

It’s important that we let employers be as flexible as possible in their hiring, so they can hire more workers rather than fewer.

Chair Maloney.
Chair Maloney.

We’re going to close this shortly, but I’d just like to ask Dr. Sherrill and Ms. Lang if you’d like to comment on how the gender pay gap impacts families’ financial bottom line.

Dr. Sherrill.

I think the key is that our report showed that women managers earned over 50 percent of their family incomes, so obviously it’s a very important part of their family income, and especially over time, if they’re earning less income than they other- wise might be receiving, it has a cumulative effect.
Chair Maloney.

Okay.

Ms. Lang.

I think the gender pay gap basically puts less money in women’s pockets, and that’s less money that they have to spend, and that’s the problem with getting the economy moving again.

It’s the women who control over 75 percent of all spending in this econ- omy, and, if women don’t have the money to spend for themselves and their families in particular, we’re going to see a prolonged re- cession.

Chair Maloney.

Well, I’d like to thank all of the panelists.


This has been a very informative discussion about the persistence of the gender pay gap, and these new reports from the GAO and Catalyst provide fresh evidence of the stubborn pay gap facing women man- agers and women in executive roles.
Now more than ever, women’s incomes are critical to family economic well-being, and narrowing SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 29 and ultimately eliminating the pay gap is truly an economic issue for families, and for our country.

Today’s testimony will help us de- velop and enact effective policies that can move us in that direc- tion.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.


[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the hearing was adjourned.]
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD (31) SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 32 PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN MALONEY, CHAIR, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE Good morning.
Today’s hearing on the gender gap among managers is part of the Joint Economic Committee’s in-depth look at women in the workforce.

Women’s work is crucial for family economic well-being, particularly in these rough economic times.

Women comprise nearly half of the workforce.

And families are increasingly dependent on working wives’ incomes, with working wives now contributing 36 percent of household income compared to 29 percent in 1983.
Because of this, gains in women’s earning power—or the absence of progress on that front—is an economic security issue for families.

Women earn just 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men—for doing the same work.

That figure hasn’t budged in nearly ten years.

The report released today by the GAO provides additional evidence of the persist- ence of the gender gap at the highest echelons of industry.

The GAO finds a striking pay gap between male and female managers.
In 2007, female managers were paid 81 cents for every dollar earned by their male manager peers, even after accounting for measurable differences like age, edu- cation, and industry.

The pay gap for women in management shrank by just 2 cents from 2000 to 2007.

In short, and in no uncertain terms: we’ve stalled out.

No matter how you slice the data, the pay gap between male and female man- agers persists.

Even among childless managers, women earn just 83 cents for every dollar earned by their male peers.
Both the GAO and Catalyst also find that we have made very little progress in breaking the glass ceiling for women in management.

Women’s representation in management professions in 2007 was essentially un- changed from 2000.

And motherhood continues to be a penalty for women.

A previous GAO report showed that fathers enjoy a bonus, while mothers pay a penalty for their decisions to have children.
I like to call this the ‘‘Mom Bomb.’’ Today’s GAO report shows that Management Moms earn just 79 cents for every dollar earned by Management Dads—a figure that hasn’t budged since 2000.

In all but one industry, fathers are more likely than mothers to be managers.

When working women have kids they know it will change their lives, but they are stunned at how much it changes their paycheck.
While women’s earnings are a critical element to families’ economic security, this is particularly true for families where the wife is a manager.

Across all industries, married female managers are just like male managers in one key regard: they are their families’ majority bread- winners.

But married male managers’ paychecks represent about 75 percent of their fami- lies’ total earnings, as compared to the 55 percent of total family earnings rep- resented by married female manager’s paychecks.
The impact of the wage gap is particularly painful in our current economic down- turn as families struggle to make ends meet in the face of stagnant wages and job losses.

In order to further our understanding of the gender pay gap across the economic spectrum, I am pleased to announce today that I will be requesting a new report from GAO investigating gender pay and representation issues among lower-wage workers.
The GAO research team provides a great service to our nation with their impartial, data-driven analysis of pressing economic problems, and I look forward to learning more from them when this report is issued next year.

Women are more productive and better educated than they’ve ever been, but their pay hasn’t yet caught up.
Women continue to bump up against everything from subtle biases to egregious acts of discrimination relating to gender stereotypes about hiring, pay raises, pro- motions, pregnancy and care-giving responsibilities.

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signed into law—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—was an important start, but additional legislation is necessary to close the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act that allow discrimination to persist.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which passed the House earlier this session, and I hope that the Senate will take action soon.

Better work-life balance policies would allow both mothers and fathers to continue to support their families and develop their careers.

By ensuring that women aren’t forced to start all over again in new jobs, paid leave policies can help keep women on an upward trajectory in their careers, pro- tecting their earnings.
SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 33 The Working Families Flexibility Act, which I have sponsored, would do just that.

I’m very pleased to announce that just last week Senator Casey introduced a version of that bill in the Senate.

I would like to thank today’s panel of experts and I look forward to the testimony today.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY I am pleased to join in welcoming Dr. Sherrill, Ms. Lang, Dr. Budig, and Ms. Furchtgott-Roth before the Committee this morning.

I support equal compensation for men and women and our nation’s laws that are in place to ensure women are not discriminated against in the workplace.

Where lax enforcement of our laws may exist, Congress should fulfill its duty in conducting proper oversight.
But respectfully since today’s hearing is the last one before the November elec- tion, let us take a few moments to assess the economic record of President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

After taking office, President Obama proposed a stimulus bill now estimated to cost $814 billion by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Democratic Congress passed this bill with little scrutiny, and President Obama signed it into law on Feb- ruary 17, 2009.
The President’s two top economic advisers assured the American people that if Congress were to pass President Obama’s stimulus plan, then 1) The unemployment rate would remain below 8.0 percent; 2) Payroll employment would increase to 137.6 million jobs by the fourth quarter of 2010; and 3) 90 percent of the jobs created would be in the private sector.

By the standards that the Obama administration set for itself, its stimulus plan has failed miserably.
1) The unemployment rate has never been below 8.0 percent and actually rose to 9.6 percent in August 2010; 2) The United States is 7.2 million payroll jobs short of the Democrats’ promise; and 3) Since February 2009, the private sector lost 3.1 million payroll jobs.

The only sector that has created payroll jobs is the federal government, which added a mere 116,000 payroll jobs.

Incredibly, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, payroll employment has fallen by 6.6 million jobs.
While failing to offer new job opportunities to unemployed workers, the Demo- crats’ stimulus plan, their federal takeover of healthcare, and their other reckless spending schemes have accomplished two things: record federal budget deficits and a ballooning federal debt.

For the first time since Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, financial market participants are actually questioning the long- term creditworthiness of the U.S. government.
Another way to judge the economic performance of President Obama and the Democratic Congress is to compare this recovery with a recovery after a recession similar in depth and length: the August 1981 to November 1982 recession.

In the first four quarters of recovery under President Reagan, average real GDP growth was a robust 7.8 percent.

In the first four quarters of the recovery under President Obama, average real GDP growth was a mediocre 3.0 percent.
Even more troubling, growth has slowed from 5.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 to an anemic 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010.

Indeed, this may be as good as it gets under Democratic economic policies.

During the first 14 months of the Reagan recovery, payroll employment grew by 3.9 million jobs.

During the first 14 months of the Obama recovery beginning in July 2009, payroll employment fell by 329,000 jobs.
Moreover, the unemployment rate dropped by 2.8 percentage points to 8.0 percent during the first 14 months of the Reagan recovery, while the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent during the first 14 months of the Obama recovery.

The actual data, as opposed to the hypothetical ‘‘what if’’ studies of the Congres- sional Budget Office and Mark Zandi, are clear and convincing.

The Democrats’ stimulus has failed, and the Obama recovery is subpar.
President Obama and the Democratic Congress have irresponsibly pursued eco- nomic policies that have created uncertainty and needlessly undermined public con- SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 34 fidence.

The most recent example of this is the failure of the House and Senate lead- ership to hold a vote on renewing the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions that expire at the end of this year.
Although economists of all political stripes are demanding that Congress renew all of these reductions, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid prefer to let taxes increase on all Americans rather than see the defeat of their ‘‘divide and rule’’ strat- egy of class warfare on the floor of the House or the Senate.

What entrepreneur would make job-creating investments now when he or she does not know what his or her income tax rate will be next year?
On November 2, 2010, the American people will sit in judgment on this Demo- cratic Congress.

We can and should have economic policies that instill confidence, promote growth, and create jobs.

President Reagan has shown us the way forward— reducing federal tax rates, controlling federal spending, cutting regulatory red tape, and opening foreign markets to American products through trade liberalization.

I trust that the American people will institute a mid-course correction.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses.

 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 35 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 0 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 0 0 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 36 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 0 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 37 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 0 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 38 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 0 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 39 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 0 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 40 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 0 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 41 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 0 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 42 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 0 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 43 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 0 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 44 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 1 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 45 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 1 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 46 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 1 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 47 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 1 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 48 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 1 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 49 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 1 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 50 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 1 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 51 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 1 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 52 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 1 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 53 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 1 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 54 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 2 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 55 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 2 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 56 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 2 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 57 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 2 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 58 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 2 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 59 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 2 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 60 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 2 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 61 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 2 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 62 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 2 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 63 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 2 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 2 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 64 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 3 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 65 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 3 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 66 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 3 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 67 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 3 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 68 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 3 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 69 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 3 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 70 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 3 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 71 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 3 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 72 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 3 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 73 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 3 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 3 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 74 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 4 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 75 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 4 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 76 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 4 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 77 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 4 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 78 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 4 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 79 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 4 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 80 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 4 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 81 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 4 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 82 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 4 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 83 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 4 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 4 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 84 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 5 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 85 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 5 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 86 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 5 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 87 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 5 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 88 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 5 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 89 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 5 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 90 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 5 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 91 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 5 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 92 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 5 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 93 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 5 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 5 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 94 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 6 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 95 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 6 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 96 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 6 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 97 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 6 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 98 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 6 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 99 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 6 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 100 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 6 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 101 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 6 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 102 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 6 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 103 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 6 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 6 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 104 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 7 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 105 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 7 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 106 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 7 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 107 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 7 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 108 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 7 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 109 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 7 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 110 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 7 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 111 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 7 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 112 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 7 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 113 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 7 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 7 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 114 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 8 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 115 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 8 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 116 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 8 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 117 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 8 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 118 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 8 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 119 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 8 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 120 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 8 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 121 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 8 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 122 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 8 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 123 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 8 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 8 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 124 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 9 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 125 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 9 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 126 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 9 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 127 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 9 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 128 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 9 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 129 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 9 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 130 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 9 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 131 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 9 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 132 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 9 0 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 133 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 9 0 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 9 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 134 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 0 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 135 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 0 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 136 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 0 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 137 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 0 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 138 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 0 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 139 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 0 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 140 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 0 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 141 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 0 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 142 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 0 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 143 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 0 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 0 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 144 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 1 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 145 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 1 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 146 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 1 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 147 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 1 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 148 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 1 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 149 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 1 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 150 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 1 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 151 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 1 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 152 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 1 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 153 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 1 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 1 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 154 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 2 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 155 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 2 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 156 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 2 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 157 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 2 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 158 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 2 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 159 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 2 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 160 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 2 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 161 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 2 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 162 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 2 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 163 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 2 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 2 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 164 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 3 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 165 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 3 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 166 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 3 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 167 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 3 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 168 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 3 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 169 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 3 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 170 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 3 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 171 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 3 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 172 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 3 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 173 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 3 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 3 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 174 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 4 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 175 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 1 4 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 1 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 176 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 2 4 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 2 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 177 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 3 4 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 3 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 178 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 4 4 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 4 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 179 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 5 4 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 5 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 180 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 6 4 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 6 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 181 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 7 4 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 7 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 182 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 8 4 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 8 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 183 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 9 4 1 .
3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 9 4 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 184 SHAUN PsN: DPROCT 0 5 1 .

3 1 7 1 6 e r e h 0 5 1 o i l o f t e s f f o t r e s n I 185 PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.

I welcome our witnesses and thank the Chair- woman for holding this hearing on such an important topic: the issue of gender wage equity.
Some people may wonder why we are holding this hearing.

After all, earlier this month, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that gender pay disparities are at an all- time low.

Unfortunately, there is additional data which reveals underlying trends that are deeply concerning.

For example, although the pay gap seems to be closing, experts are attributing this positive step to the poor economy, which has caused many laid-off men to take lower-paying jobs.
Additionally, this year, for the first time in history, women earned more Ph.Ds than men.

However, the recent data show that women continue to earn less than men at every level of education.

A third alarming trend is the severity with which these pay gaps are impacting African-American and Latina women, who are earning 62.1 cents and 53 cents, re- spectively, for every dollar earned by their white male counterparts.
In addition to the injustice such disparities inflict on women who are being short- changed, such conditions send a poor message to young women, those whom we are trying to encourage to stay in school, attend college and pursue their dreams.
How can we take serious steps toward lowering truancy rates, increasing college completion rates, and encouraging young people to pursue the jobs of tomorrow if we can’t assure all young people, both men and women, that their hard work and perseverance will be rewarded?

I am proud that this Congress has taken the issue of wage discrimination seri- ously.
We enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which prevents employers from escaping responsibility for wage discrimination by hiding that discrimination and running out the clock.

In addition, last year, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009, which strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by giving victims of gender discrimination the same remedies available to victims of other kinds of discrimination.
Pay inequality doesn’t just harm individual workers, it harms families and our nation’s economy.

Single women who are heads of household are twice as likely to be in poverty as single men.

Nearly four in 10 mothers are their families’ primary breadwinners, and nearly two-thirds are significant earners.

Therefore, for millions of families, equal pay for women determines whether they will reach the middle-class or whether they will live in poverty.
Additionally, the wage gap has a long-term impact on women’s economic security, especially in retirement, as unequal pay affects Social Security and pension benefit calculations.

Therefore, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this issue and about steps Congress can take to ensure that all citizens of a nation dedicated to the principle of equal opportunity for all are equally remunerated for their work.
Æ SHAUN PsN: DPROCT