U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–145 PDF 2011

H.R. 4869, RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN

FEDERAL BUILDINGS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4869

TO PROVIDE FOR RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS

MAY 12, 2010

Serial No. 111–108

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 12, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 4869 ..................................................................................................... 3

Statement of:

Clarke, Hon. Yvette, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York ....................................................................................................... 16

Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee ............................................................................................................. 17

Peck, Robert A., Public Building Service, U.S. General Services Administration; Kathryn H. Anthony, professor, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and Sharon Pratt, former Mayor,

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 28

Anthony, Kathryn H. ................................................................................ 37

Peck, Robert A. .......................................................................................... 28

Pratt, Sharon ............................................................................................. 43

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Anthony, Kathryn H., professor, School of Architecture, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, prepared statement of .............................. 39

Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 20

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 13

Peck, Robert A., Public Building Service, U.S. General Services Administration, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 31

Pratt, Sharon, former Mayor, Washington, DC, prepared statement of ...... 44

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 7

(1)

H.R. 4869, RESTROOM GENDER PARITY IN

FEDERAL BUILDINGS ACT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Towns, Maloney, Cummings, Watson,

Kaptur, Norton, Cuellar, Speier, and Issa.

Staff present: Adam Hodge, deputy press secretary; Carla

Hultberg, chief clerk; Marc Johnson and Ophelia Rivas, assistant

clerks; Mike McCarthy, deputy staff director; Jenny Rosenberg, director of communications; Joanne Royce, senior investigative counsel; Gerri Willis, special assistant; Alex Wolf, professional staff

member; Lawrence Brady, minority staff director; John Cuaderes,

minority deputy staff director; Rob Borden, minority general counsel; Frederick Hill, minority director of communications; Adam

Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Kurt Bardella,

minority press secretary; Stephanie Genco, minority press secretary and communication liaison; Seamus Kraft, minority deputy

press secretary; and Mark Marin, minority professional staff member.

Chairman TOWNS. The committee will come to order. Good morning and thank you all for being here.

Today’s hearing will address the issue of equal access to restroom

facilities. This is not a minor issue. I am certain that every woman

in this room has frequently experienced the inconvenience as well

as the discomfort caused by an insufficient number of women’s

restroom facilities. Women are often forced to wait in long lines to

use public restrooms or walk further to find a restroom, while men

rarely have the same problem.

The lack of restroom facilities for women has a number of causes.

Many public buildings, including universities, airports, theaters, offices, and factories were built decades ago before women entered

the work force in large numbers. Moreover, these buildings were

designed and built at a time when contractors, architects, engineers, builders, and government procurement officials were overwhelmingly male and rarely considered the needs of women.

To be honest about it, while women have made a lot of progress,

those professions are still dominated by men, and old habits die

hard. Public restroom facilities for women have still not caught up

to those for men.

2

Throughout history, public restrooms have been the site of institutional discrimination by race, physical ability, and gender. With

laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, we have made great strides in dealing with ace and disability discrimination. However, we have not done as well with

gender discrimination. Today, women still lack equal access to restrooms in many places of employment, education, and recreation.

The fact that many Federal buildings do not provide as many

restroom facilities for women as they do for men is simply unfair.

It is time for that to change.

Within the last couple of decades, public appreciation of gender

parity issues has gradually resulted in improvements in restroom

gender parity. As of 2006, at least 21 States had adopted statutes

addressing restroom gender parity. That is good, but we need to

take the next step. That is why I introduced H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Act, with my colleague, Congressman Issa, from the

great State of California.

[The text of H.R. 4869 follows:]

3

4

5

6

Chairman TOWNS. The bill requires that all new Federal buildings, as well as major renovations of existing Federal buildings,

have at least an equal number of restroom facilities for men and

women. The passage of this bill would be a milestone on the path

toward true gender parity.

I am proud to say that I introduced the bill with the support of

the ranking member, Mr. Issa, who was an original cosponsor, and

several other members of this committee. H.R. 4869 will ensure

that, from now on, Federal buildings will be constructed with equal

access to restroom facilities regardless of gender.

This hearing is the next step toward enacting this important legislation. I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses.

I will now yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the gentleman

from California, Congressman Darrell Issa, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

7

8

9

10

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for

your leadership on this important issue.

As people seldom realize in Congress, in order to move a piece

of legislation, we hold hearings. In order to understand the final

and best form of that legislation, we hold hearings. I think this is

no exception. Your leadership by drafting a piece of legislation that

attempts to create equal access is not only laudable but it is essential. As we view the legislation and with your leadership I hope

that we can gain the most important part of the intent of this legislation, that is, that we get a one-to-one ratio in access.

In preparation for this hearing, I have reviewed a number of documents and discovered, for example, the Department of Defense facilities, those that are coed, require not one to one, because there

is only about 17 percent women today in the military versus 83

percent for men. So the ratio there would be different. But I believe

your leadership is essential, because that ratio is changing. So to

find equal access there will be a different and ever-changing requirement. There is no need to build equal amounts of men’s and

women’s rooms in the Pentagon today, but that is changing. We

need to plan. We need to ensure that the architects designing new

facilities design them based on the assumption that someday there

will be roughly the same amount of men and women, potentially,

or even, in some cases, more women than men.

Additionally, through your leadership on this issue, we have been

reminded that the same number of facilities is not the same number of access. As Members of Congress were periodically invited to

the Kennedy Center, Kennedy Center events typically tend to be

equal men and equal women. Anyone who has ever been to a black

tie event held at the Kennedy Center is well aware that there is

a line at the men’s room, but it pales in comparison to the one that

wraps halfway around the building at the ladies’ rooms. The Kennedy Center enjoys equal number of facilities for men and women.

Equal in this case is not equal access.

So I join with the chairman in his leadership in recognizing that,

by the time this bill becomes law, it has to create a mandate for

equal access, for flexibility in design, so that the buildings of tomorrow and retrofitted buildings of today recognize that a longer

line for one and a shorter line for the other, no matter which way

it works, is inappropriate in our design.

Federal buildings should lead in that endeavor. The GSA and

other organizations responsible need to begin upon this notice and

hopefully begin in earnest, upon enactment, to realize that we want

architectural plans to be a model for the rest of the world in providing one-to-one ratio of access based on not only what the ratios

are today but planning for ratios that may change over time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for your leadership. This is an area in which this committee is taking a leadership

position that I believe no other committee has even begun to look

at in our oversight over Federal facilities, and the Federal work

force makes us ideally suited to shepherd this legislation. I thank

the chairman, and I yield back.

Chairman TOWNS. I thank the gentleman from California for his

very kind statement.

11

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, DC,

Congresswoman Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing, but it

really says something that we have to hold a hearing on what really should be an administrative matter.

My friends on the other side of the aisle and us over here have

a lot to disagree about, but I hope that gender parity when it comes

to men and women who equally have to go to the bathroom is not

one of them. The reason this has become an issue, of course, has

been precisely been because some facilities were designed as if

there were only men in the world, much less men who had to attend to their needs.

My friend, the ranking member, who mentions that the line is

longer for women, you will notice that we said it should equal or

exceed. But the reason I could perhaps inform him in a way that

he could not be expected to know in part is that women spend

longer in there. They are not always just attending to their wants,

sir. We go and we have to attend to our looks as well. So you will

see some people standing in line that don’t have to go to the bathroom at all when they want to see how they look. All we want to

make sure is that those who do want to attend to their needs are

able to do so equally with men who have the same needs, and the

last time I heard men and women really do have the same needs

in this one sphere.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I

thank you all for holding this hearing. I think it is a very important hearing.

We have seen the lines at sporting events, airports, museums.

Women are usually standing in extraordinary lines waiting to use

the restroom. It is a phenomenon that we have come to accept, that

there will always be a wait for the women’s facilities.

This type of gender discrimination should not exist in a time

when we have a female Secretary of State, female Speaker of the

House, two female Associate Justices and one on the way. It escapes me as to why women were treated as second-class citizens.

Restrooms are among the few remaining segregated spaces in the

American landscape, and they remain among the more tangible relics of gender discrimination. It often goes unnoticed and is considered normal, natural, or acceptable. Buildings have not kept pace

with the changing demographics of the past half century when

more women than ever have entered the workplace than ever before.

However, as Members of Congress, we need not look far to see

this discrimination. Just across the street at the Capitol building

was an example of restroom gender inequality. According to the

Journal of Planning literature, female Members of the U.S. House

of Representatives would have to walk down a long hallway, turn

left, then turn right into a small, windowless bathroom with only

three stalls. By contrast, men walked only a few feet away from the

House floor. Since then, ladies’ restrooms have been added to the

12

first floor of the House and, most recently, in 2000, had three additional stalls added; and, according to Ms. Norton, that is definitely

not enough.

In the early 1990’s, in the Senate, Nancy Kassenbaum and my

colleague from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, were not allowed to

use the Senators-only restroom, which was, in fact, a male-only

restroom. They had to trek downstairs and stand in long lines with

the tourists. Senate majority leader George Mitchell announced

that he was having women’s restrooms installed just outside the

Senate chamber to accommodate the growing number of female

Senators.

And then, in the 110th Congress, Mr. Chairman, I joined you all

in cosponsoring the Restroom Gender Parity Act for Federal Buildings; and I join you again and do so gladly.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I submit the rest of my statement for

the record; and, with that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

13

14

15

16

Chairman TOWNS. I would like to thank the gentleman from

Maryland for his statement; and, of course, now we will turn to our

first panel of witnesses: U.S. Representative Steve Cohen from the

State of Tennessee, the 9th District; and U.S. Representative

Yvette Clarke, the 11th District of New York.

Now it is committee policy that all witnesses are sworn in, and

so will you please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOWNS. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that

both witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Let me begin by saying I ask the witnesses to summarize their

testimony in 5 minutes.

You know the rules about the lights. I don’t have to explain that

to you. You’re very familiar with them. In fact, you turn them on

and off. The yellow light means you have a minute left; and the red

light means stop, of course. And then, of course, we will have time

to ask questions.

So why don’t I start with you first, Representative Clarke; and

then we’ll go to Congressman Cohen. Congresswoman Yvette

Clarke, Brooklyn, New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Chairman Towns, Ranking

Member Issa, for inviting me to speak before the committee this

morning.

I am here in support of H.R. 4969, the Restroom Gender Parity

in Federal Buildings Act. This bill, which was introduced by Chairman Towns, with Ranking Member Issa, Representative Visclosky,

and myself as original cosponsors, requires the Federal acquisition

regulation be revised to require the number of toilets in women’s

restrooms equal or exceed the number of toilets and urinals in

men’s restrooms in all future Federal buildings or in major renovations of existing Federal buildings. Once passed, this legislation

will align the Federal Government with the restroom gender parity

laws that are already on the books of several States and municipalities, including Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and

New York.

As a former New York city councilwoman, I introduced the women’s restroom equity bill, which created a two-to-one ratio of women’s restrooms to men’s restrooms. My bill became city law in 2005.

Previously, New York City had required a one-to-one ratio for women’s restrooms to men’s restrooms.

Restroom parity refers to equity of access to public restrooms by

all users. Though the issue of inadequate accommodations may

seem trivial to some, restroom gender parity is an issue that impacts a women’s health as well as her quality of life. Research underscores the potential health implications for women waiting in

long restroom lines. These include abdominal pain, increased risk

of cystitis, urinary tract infections, bladder infections, all of which

can cause renal damage if not adequately treated. Pregnant women

and older women suffering from incontinence are particularly impacted due to their need to visit the facilities more frequently than

others. To avoid using inadequate restroom facilities, we women ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:49 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\63145.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
17

tentimes forgo eating or drinking and will often ‘‘hold it’’, which

poses problems. Inadequate restrooms are more likely to affect

women because they often have small children, may be breast feeding, have feminine hygiene needs, and usually have to wait in a

long line.

According to Sarah A. Moore’s 2002 law review article, Facility

Hostility? Sex Discrimination and Women’s Restrooms in the Workplace, gender discrimination in restrooms can be found where restrooms are unequal between men and women, when they are inadequate for women’s needs or are missing completely. Moore’s article

aptly pointed out that unequal women’s restrooms may be found in

many professional places of employment, including our Nation’s

Capitol. A Congresswoman in the U.S. Capitol must plan her trips

to the restroom properly or she may miss a vote, and I can attest

to that.

Public restrooms have historically manifested many forms of discrimination. For example, restrooms used to be racially segregated

and inaccessible to the disabled. Restrooms in airports where

wealthier travelers go are much nicer than in bus stations. Gender

discrimination is yet another form of restroom inequity.

According to a recent GAO report, most Federal Government

buildings were constructed, on average, over 46 years ago. At that

time, women were not in the work force in the large numbers that

they are today. More importantly, issues of gender equality were

a nonissue when many of the Federal Government buildings were

designed and built, primarily because women were not empowered

to the extent that they are now.

That was then. This is now. Now is the time to correct the oversights of yesterday by addressing the restroom gender parity issue.

I ask that my colleagues on this committee join me on improving

the health and lives of women by supporting the passage of H.R.

4869, the Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Buildings Act.

Chairman Towns, you are to be commended for acknowledging

this inequity that has existed in our civil society for far too long.

Let me thank you for your courage of conviction in bringing this

longstanding issue to light and moving closer to addressing this inequity for women and their families, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much. Let me thank you for

your statement and also thank you for the work that you’ve done

on this issue; and, of course, we look forward to continuing to work

with you on it.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.

Cohen.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE COHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, and members of the

committee, I thank you for allowing me to testify on this important

legislation. It is also an honor to sit next to Congresswoman

Clarke, who is a Member of the great class of 2006 and has worked

on this issue in New York, and to testify on the presence of the

18

photograph of the great Chairman John Conyers. As author of the

Tennessee Women’s Restroom Equity Act, I am pleased to address

this issue here in Congress; and I am pleased it is being addressed.

The Council of State Governments has a model act passed in the

1990’s on this issue, and so that is available. And the Council of

State Governments saw this as an issue that all 50 States should

be made aware of at least 15 years ago.

About half the States have passed some sort of restroom parity

law by now as well as Mr. Powell, and the Federal Government

needs to catch up, normally a world leader. But, in this case, Brandeis’ opportunities for the States to be laboratories of democracy

have also been laboratories for the Federal Government to learn,

not just the other States.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of times, people, when I dealt with this bill

many years ago, called it ‘‘potty parity.’’ They made jokes. But the

fact is it is not a joke. Not only is it not a joke to women, it is not

a joke for men who go with women and have to wait while they

are standing in line.

But it is also politically very popular. It’s the right thing to do,

and it’s catching up with the cultural lag in our society.

We’ve seen long lines at women’s restrooms when men have

none, and that’s gone on for years. It’s just simply a fact that, on

average, women take longer.

Congresswoman Clarke mentioned some needs, feminine hygiene, that, to be honest, didn’t hit my mind immediately, but

that’s certainly an issue, and baby’s needs. There’s more equality

now with dealing with children, but the women have oftentimes

been the primary caretaker and taken women in the restroom with

them as well.

There are many studies, including one at the University of Washington that’s extensive, on the ratio that should be required and

the need for this. And the fact is, thankfully, more women care

about their appearance than men do, and so there is more time,

and I’m thankful that occurs. There are also stalls. There’s the removal of clothing. And when men remove their clothing, you’ve got

to hang your coat up; and that takes more time, too.

So there’s many reasons for the extensive time, additional time,

and the need for more equity and proper accommodations for

women.

I first recognized this need in Tennessee when I was at Starwood

Amphitheater at a concert. The women’s line just went on forever,

and the men’s line wasn’t very long. In fact, there were women

jumping in the men’s line and joining in the men’s restroom. A lot

of beer was served at that concert. It wasn’t fair; and I realized,

you know, those women were in distress, as well as being a little

inebriated. I noticed it; and, also, I had to wait for my friend in line

and thought, well, you know, what am I going to do? I just hung

out there near the restroom, not necessarily a place you want to

hang during a concert.

So it’s an inconvenience to males as well as females, but, to us,

it is secondary. It wasn’t conscious discrimination, but, like so

many other things like institutional racism, sometimes it is there

without people knowing it. It just happened over the years and has

19

been perpetuated, and this is somewhat institutional racial—gender discrimination.

These facilities were generally designed by architects who were

predominantly men. Engineers constructed them; and, again, they

were mostly men. It didn’t seem like an issue to them, and they

didn’t have any concerns. In the Federal buildings at that time

most Federal employees were men, and there was discrimination as

well. Today, we have reversed a lot of that history, but still we

have restrooms being built without restroom equity being taken

into consideration.

It’s not just by convenience. There are health consequences. Abdominal pain, cystitis, and urinary tract infections can occur. So we

need access, and we need to step up.

Chairman Towns, you are to be commended for doing this and

Ranking Member Issa. Sometimes for men it’s not quite as easy an

issue. It wasn’t as easy on women, also. I tried to get Speaker

DeBerry to be my sponsor the first time, and she got such ridicule

she dropped off. I got another woman to be the sponsor. She got

ridicule. Finally, we got a sponsor. But it was difficult for women

sometimes to take on the issue as well as men, but it is an issue

that is important for both genders.

As you consider this legislation, I would hope that some of the

experience we had in Tennessee could be taken advantage of, that

flexibility and discretion are needed. We had a two-to-one ratio,

and that was I think the right ratio. But we found out that sports

events in covered sports arenas—the Tennessee Titans, in originally Adelphia coliseum, now called LP Field, the upper deck had

many, many more men who were getting inebriated and needed

more men’s restrooms.

So we went back and changed the law and allowed the board to

determine the proper ratio so it could take into consideration those

places like, as Chairman Issa mentioned, the Department of Defense, where there might be more of a likelihood that you would

have a need for more men’s facilities. But at mens’ football games

on Sundays you need more men’s restrooms in the upper deck at

Adelphia. We found that out. This applies to Federal buildings, and

I think it’s so important that it be passed and passed in a proper

fashion.

Mr. Chairman, you have made great strides and we made great

strides in this country in reducing gender discrimination. We did

that better and we have done other laws such as this. But we need

to work in this area, and I appreciate you and Ranking Member

Issa for bringing forth the legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and willing to help in any way you can it becomes law. It’s

needed in America in 2010 and it’s been needed before.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Steve Cohen follows:]

20

21

22

23

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you.

Let me thank both of you for your statement; and let me begin

by saying to you, Ms. Clarke, and to Representative Cohen, how

and why did you get involved in this issue?

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I got involved in this issue because

I realized during the holidays what distress women really are

under. It’s not just the stress of having to prepare for the holidays

and being out in the public. It is maneuvering with children. I

looked at the way that commerce was being impacted. I saw women

who had to wait in line for the restroom and then have to wait on

line for a checkout counter; and I saw people just sort of throw

their hands up and say, I’m not even going to deal with it today.

I realized that there were adverse consequences, and I realized

that over time we had actually been training young girls and

women to hold it. It has just become a part of our conditioning and

behavior that was totally unnecessary.

So we looked at this in the city of New York in particular where

we are always in very crowded situations and realized there was

something we could do about it, that in the development of our

building codes we could create the conditions under which we could

create a restroom equity. So I moved forward with my colleagues

in the city of New York, and we made it happen.

So I believe it’s possible that we can do this at the Federal level,

and it will be a major leap forward so that young girls coming up

today will not be conditioned in a way that I was to have to hold

it every time we are in an environment where the line is so long

and risk impairing our health.

So thank you very much for asking that question, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can probably just say, similar to what Representative Clarke

said, I mentioned in my testimony we passed our Tennessee bill in

1994, so it was at the Starwood Amphitheater when I noticed this

extraordinary line, unbecoming but necessary conduct of some

women jumping into the men’s line and going into the men’s room.

And I just thought there is something happening here, and it is not

necessarily good. I think that’s some song I’m paraphrasing. I saw

it at all kind of facilities, and it was just indicative of a history of

lack of attention by, apparently, male-oriented architects and engineers, not intentional but just a pattern and a history of not thinking about it.

And then what I did, to be honest, I used women’s lines—after

I would be in line and I would be out and my date would still be

in line or whatever, I’d use the women’s line as a focus group; and

I would ask them, what would you think about a law to do this?

And, believe me, every one of them was real big in favor. And I told

them write—I found out who their representatives were and who

their senators were and told them to call them. We passed our bill.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much.

You know, to be honest with you, my experience was that we

were at a play; and, of course, I went to the men’s room and came

back. The second act was getting ready to start, and I was still

looking for my wife, and she’s nowhere to be found. So, finally, I’m

24

getting really agitated at the fact the second act is going to start.

When it gets dark in there, you can’t find your seat.

Finally, when she showed up, I said, ‘‘where were you?’’ She said,

‘‘I was in the line.’’ You should have seen that line. She said it was

all around the wall. I mean, people everywhere.

And then, about 3 weeks later, I was in the airport in Florida,

and I saw this long line. And then, of course, being from New York,

I thought they were giving away something. I wanted to make certain that I got some of it whatever they were giving away. And

then I looked and I realized there were only women in the line.

And then I looked and they were going to the bathroom. And I said,

gee, this is ridiculous. Something needs to be done. And that’s what

precipitated me to get involved.

I talked to my ranking member, who I must admit also spoke to

his wife about it as well. And, of course, he is now committed to

being helpful. I want you to know I appreciate that. Thank you

very much. Thank you very, very much.

On this note, I yield now to the ranking member for any questions that he might have.

Mr. ISSA. I think after you talked to Gwen and I talked to Kathy

there shouldn’t be too many questions.

With both of you having done different laws in different States,

let me try to focus on the base legislation versus where we should

go from here. Rep. Clark, Ms. Clarke, you did a mandate of two to

one in New York.

Ms. CLARKE. That’s correct.

Mr. ISSA. Was that based on a study?

Ms. CLARKE. That’s correct. That’s correct. Actually, there is a

provision in the Federal Building Code that called for two-to-one

ratio; and that’s what we followed.

Mr. ISSA. OK. In checking on this, that Federal ratio, oddly

enough, didn’t count urinals. So the GSA setup is basically one to

one if you count urinals, two to one if you don’t count urinals. So

it is a little ambiguous, and it’s one of the things we hope to resolve.

Mr. Cohen, your legislation had to be modified based on an observation that no fixed ratio necessarily solved the problem; is that

correct?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Issa, that’s accurate. Because we had the twoto-one ratio. And I think it was the University of Washington—

there were like two universities that had scholars that had done

a lot of research, and I believe that was one of them.

We took the two to one, and it worked in most facilities but

didn’t work at the Titan Stadium. I went up to the Titan Stadium,

and I climbed up there and looked. I saw they didn’t have enough

facilities, and there was just a need to change it. So we did change

it.

We gave some discretion to the State Building Association. But

I would suggest that if you give discretion that you require that

they give a reason—maybe set a standard and then require them

to give a reason why they deviated from that standard and give

some rational basis to require them to do some type of study and

explain their decision.

25

Mr. ISSA. Well, H.R. 4869 currently is a one-to-one ratio and requires GSA—which, of course, doesn’t control DOD which is a separate challenge for us—to have these various reasons. Current law

on purchase—current law when GSA builds or purchases a building is a one-to-one ratio. Current practice in September 2000 when

GSA leases is that they do an assessment based on the anticipated

ratio of men to women in the building. Now I would assume that

for both of you that flexibility of analyzing the current ratio and

adjusting it if the ratio changes periodically would be a good part

of the base bill. An all-men’s prison, don’t put in equal amounts of

men’s and women’s rooms, I assume would be good judgment.

Ms. CLARKE. I would agree. We just want to keep into account

visitors, which tend to be women and their children that may accompany them, because women oftentimes take their children, as

well as correction officers where the ranks of corrections are becoming more and more women involved as well. So those would be

some of the considerations.

Mr. ISSA. I think you’re hitting the nail right on the head. You

have those kind of ratios to consider.

Let me ask sort of an additional question. Our current legislation

doesn’t call for a new study based on certain criteria. Would such

criteria—and I would like your input after the hearing, too—as to

anticipated age of the people who are going to be in a building—

you mention that. Obviously, the gender ratio, the attire—I think

Ms. Norton sort of made it pretty clear at the Kennedy Center

women may be needing to do more that would cause them to be

even longer. Well, at a baseball game, we’re all in shorts; and just

going in and out it may be much quicker. Those and other items.

Do you believe that we should include in our legislation sort of

the analysis so that we get it right the first time and what the legislation doesn’t currently envision is a flexibility of design for future ratio changes? Are all those elements that, based on your two

experiences in legislation, we should include in others?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Issa, I agree that you need to include those

things. But there’s no question, no matter where you go, there are

two types of business. And when you go in and you’re a man, you

don’t have to take off any clothing. It can be done, and you’re in

and you’re out. You don’t do lipstick and you don’t do anything and

you’re out.

Mr. ISSA. You’re not a Californian, but OK. In Tennessee, you

don’t.

Mr. COHEN. Women have always got to remove clothing; and no

matter where it is, whether it is coats or whatever, it’s going to

take more time. And so I won’t give—in almost any business, any

museum, or government building, there needs to be a two-to-one

ratio.

Mr. ISSA. This is what I’m getting to, is our current base legislation was dropped as a one to one to correct, if you will, the past

tendency to have less than one to one, even though the current

GSA guidelines were one to one. And what I’m hearing today—and

the chairman’s leadership on this, obviously, is crucial—is that we

need to, one, find out if two to one is the right ratio, find out when

it is the right ratio, make sure our legislation adjusts for total occupancy, including visitors; and then we have to have sufficient flexiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:49 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\63145.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
26

bility for the fact that we don’t want to build twice as many women’s rooms in a building that currently has nobody, but we need to

be able to adjust as that changes in Federal buildings that last at

least an average of 46 years. Is that pretty much what you’re coming to us with?

The chairman’s being indulgent with the time, but, very quickly,

can you tell me, if we’re looking at a 100-year building and we’re

in a 1962 building, is that what we need to make sure we get right

here so that we not be arbitrary but also so that we get it right

for equal access?

Ms. CLARKE. I would say those are some of the considerations.

The one thing that you probably—we probably all cannot anticipate is the length of stay for individuals within the restroom facility. Everyone is trying to rush out, yes. As we stated, women have

extraordinary circumstances that oftentimes men don’t have. We

are always carrying handbags with us. There are always extra

things that just aren’t part of the male exercise each and every

day. Women, on the other hand, have those significant challenges.

And then you’re talking about women of varying ages. So all of

those factors would have to be taken into consideration in an environment where we know that there are going to be a lot of people

traveling through.

A place like this, for instance, is a place where we know that

there are going to be visitors in addition to those who work here,

that are going to call for that type of ratio to be closely examined;

and I think that you have come up with a number of the significant

variables.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. I think the gentleman is raising some very interesting questions. Because when you look at the overall picture,

one thing we might be able to do to help out a little bit is to put

changing boards into the men’s bathroom so that the men will be

able to do some changing of the babies as well because they are not

in our bathrooms. So I think that might be one thing to sort of help

eliminate——

Mr. ISSA. We’re both in the grandparent age. We’re getting away

with a lot by saying the next generation should have these changing rooms.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much.

I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

First of all, I want to thank you all for your testimony. It has

been extremely helpful. This legislation—similar legislation didn’t

get very far the last time. I think we need to approach this, as our

chairman has, with the urgency of now so that we can make it happen; and we will certainly work with you all to try to make that

happen. That’s why I’m so glad, Mr. Chairman, that you held this

hearing today. So now we have to move it along and get this

through the House and get our Senate colleagues to act with some

type of urgency.

Because, as you have laid it out, it is an urgent situation. And

we can mess around and mess around and we will be making these

same discussions, having these same discussions 10 years from

now and so many women would have been deprived for so long.

27

So, with that, I just want to just thank you; and, with that, Mr.

Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman TOWNS. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, DC.

Ms. NORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. I now yield to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I am going to share with you my opening statement

because I don’t have a question, and I want to indicate how our

Nation’s Capitol is really slow in responding to this.

Restroom parity was brought to the national stage in 1974 when

my good friend California Secretary of State March Fong Eu

smashed a toilet bowl on the steps of our State Capitol to protest

pay toilets in the State. I was in the California State Senate when

we passed the first restroom parity bill, the California Restroom

Equality Act introduced by then Senator Art Torres in 1987. His

wife had taken several children to the Colosseum in Los Angeles;

and, you know, at half-time they ran out. The kids had been waiting all through the game, and they ran out to go to the restroom,

and the line was like around the stadium. So she took them to the

men’s restroom. Yes, they were in and out. So she took her children

that she had with her to the men’s restroom and then took this legislation to her husband and you know it got passed.

California understood then that many public buildings had insufficient facilities for women because of outdated notions of the prevalence of women in the workplace. Since then, many States and

municipalities have adopted a similar statute, but today’s bill

would be the first Federal legislation to address restroom parity.

Now we’re 3,000 miles on the other side of the country, and we’re

just now getting our State Capitol to realize this is a human basic

need and we need to correct it.

So throughout our history public restrooms have been the site of

discrimination based on race, gender, and physical ability. In the

old South, people had to—if you looked like me, you had to go to

the back room, which was usually really a place that was filthy

most of the time, uncared for, unkempt, and you were dressed in

your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes, and you had to go to the colored

restroom. So the Civil Rights Act in 1964 eliminated this form of

discrimination based on race. Just as in 1990 the Americans with

Disabilities Act required reasonable access for disabled people to

such facilities.

So with today’s legislation we have the opportunity to finally address gender discrimination in Federal facilities by requiring that

one-to-one ratio for any Federal building constructed for public use

and by mandating that preference be given to buildings that meet

that ratio when leasing new Federal buildings.

So I just want to thank our author and coauthor and for bringing

this late—not you, but this country has been late. You see, we’re

always on the cutting edge in California. So thank you for catching

up with us. Good luck. We should pass it out. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from

California for her comments. And of course we have tried hard to

catch up. No doubt about it.

28

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Cuellar.

Any questions you might have. No questions.

No other questions from the committee?

Well, let me thank both of you for your testimony. I look forward

to working with you in terms of making this a reality. I think the

time has come. You made the case. And, of course, we need to do

something about it. I want to congratulate you on what you’ve done

in New York. I want to congratulate you on what you’ve done in

Tennessee. So we look forward, as Congresswoman Watson says, to

catching up; and that’s what we hope to be able to do. Thank you

so much for your testimony.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. We ask our second panel to come forward:

Commissioner Robert Peck, Commissioner of Public Building Services for the General Services Administration; Dr. Kathryn Anthony,

professor of architecture at the University of Illinois; and Sharon

Pratt Dixon, former Mayor of Washington, DC.

Before you sit down, it is a longstanding policy that we swear all

of our witnesses in. If you would be kind enough to raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOWNS. Let the record reflect that they answered in

the affirmative. You may be seated.

Let me begin by asking all witnesses to summarize their testimony in 5 minutes. Of course, the yellow light means you have a

minute left; and the red light all over America means stop. And

then, of course, we will have time to ask questions, of course, which

is very important.

So why don’t I begin with you, Commissioner Peck. Please

present your testimony.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT A. PECK, PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; KATHRYN

H. ANTHONY, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN; AND SHARON PRATT, FORMER MAYOR, WASHINGTON, DC

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note the presence previously of Ranking Member Issa and other members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Buildings

Act. Our administrator, Martha Johnson, is interested in this, too.

GSA supports restroom gender parity. We strive to provide welcoming, easily accessible, and comfortable facilities and equally accessible restrooms for our Federal work force and visitors. GSA’s

current standards achieve parity in most instances in buildings

that we are now building and renovating, and they exceed private

building code standards. In the few instances in which our current

standards do not meet parity, GSA is revising our standards to ensure that the goal is achieved.

We own more than 1,500 Federal buildings on behalf of the

American people, and we provide space to more than 1 million FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:49 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\63145.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
29

eral employees. As you are aware in this committee, I believe, GSA

has an aging portfolio of buildings. The average age of a GSA government building is 46 years.

We have over 500 buildings that were built before 1950, during

a time in which there were fewer women in the work force or at

least the perception that there were fewer women in the work

force. As a result, most of our older buildings do not meet parity

in restrooms, but as we modernize and as we construct new buildings we improve our facilities to meet the goal of parity.

We publish a facility standards document that establishes design

standards and criteria for new construction and major alterations

in GSA buildings, largely derived from industry standards, including the International Code Council standards. Our standards exceed industry building codes and generally meet restroom parity.

In other words, we provide more restrooms for both men and

women than the private codes generally require.

Since the early 1980’s, our standards have prescribed the number of toilets required in men’s and women’s restrooms. In most instances, the number of toilets in women’s restrooms equals the

combined number of toilets and urinals in men’s restrooms. In assembly areas such as training and conference facilities in our buildings, we require more toilets in women’s restrooms than in men’s

restrooms and, in fact, the ratio of three to two.

There are, however, in our current standards three tiers out of

eight—and the tiers are tiers in which we consider the number of

people per restroom—three tiers out of eight in which our facility

standards, although, again, higher than the building code requires,

where we do not meet restroom parity. We are revising our standards to insure gender parity in all circumstances. We are issuing

a new facilities standards document, and it will require parity

across all of the tiers. And I would note that three of the eight tiers

we are off by one, that there are three occasions on larger numbers

of people per floor in which our current standards would allow

more men’s facilities then women’s.

I should also note we recently surveyed our buildings, and it appears that in almost all of the new courthouses and other buildings

we have been building over the last 15 years we’ve met the parity

standards. As we continue to modernize older buildings in our inventory, we meet these parity requirements.

In addition to federally owned buildings—and your legislation

contemplates this—we also lease a lot of facilities for the Federal

Government. The GSA standard leasing solicitation for offers, an

FSO, requires lessors to provide toilet fixtures, and it currently

says based on the ratio of men and women who will occupy the

leased space. I think that’s a standard that is hard to contemplate,

hard to predict, and we’re going to change our standard to require

that restroom parity be available in every leased facility where we

can find it.

I just have to note that there are occasions in which we lease facilities in rural or very small areas, small towns, in which we don’t

have a lot of competition; and it may not be possible to find a

leased facility that has parity. But those will be waiver instances;

and, otherwise, we’re going to require it.

30

As I mentioned, we support improving the quality and equality

in restrooms wherever possible. We are going to address this issue

as we undertake future construction, modernization, and leasing

actions. We fully support the intention of this bill; and, as I say,

we are moving today to make sure that in those few instances

where we don’t currently meet the standard that we will.

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today; and, of

course, I’m happy to answer any questions.

One other note is I would like—we will submit our current facility standards for your record that you can see them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peck follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much, Commissioner Peck.

Now I would like to call on Dr. Kathryn Anthony, the professor

of architecture at the University of Illinois.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN H. ANTHONY

Ms. ANTHONY. Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, members of the committee, thank you so much for the invitation to appear before you today. It’s an honor and one of the highlights of

my professional career.

I’m the only female full professor in the school of architecture at

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I’ve taught

for 26 years. I have published widely on gender issues and design.

I applaud the committee for addressing an issue near and dear to

my heart and near and dear to the hearts and bladders of women

and children all across the United States, one that is long overdue.

Ever since California led the way by passing the Nation’s first

potty parity legislation, many States and municipalities across the

country have passed similar laws and ordinances to provide equal

speed of access for women and men to public restrooms. Yet today

marks a milestone. It’s the first time that this issue is addressed

at the Federal level. Congratulations.

I stand here today on behalf of your mothers, grandmothers,

daughters, granddaughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, and countless female friends. No matter what our race, color, creed, age, size,

shape, or political party, Democrat, Republican, independent, or

green, we all share one frustrating experience. All too often, we

watch our male counterparts zip out in and out of the restroom in

a flash, while at the ladies room we are stuck waiting in long lines,

and the men in our life have been stuck waiting for us. Why?

Much of our built environment, including that owned by the Federal Government, was constructed in a different era, one where

women were not as prevalent in the public realm and in the work

force as we are today. Until recently, most architects, contractors,

engineers, building code officials, and clients were not concerned

about this issue. They rarely contacted women about their restroom

needs. Women were rarely employed in these male-dominated professions, nor were they in a position to effect change, but, finally,

now we are.

Why is this important? The average person uses a toilet about

six to eight times a day, as many as 2,920 times per year. By age

80, we will have taken 200,000 trips to the toilet and spent 2 years

of our life in restrooms. No matter what our stature in life, whether we are the President of the United States, the First Lady, or the

homeless person on the street, we are all use them.

We may laugh, and we may joke, but for millions of people

around the world, boys and girls, men and women of all ages, especially pregnant and menstruating women, using the restroom is no

laughing matter. Emergencies happen, accidents happen, urinary

tract infections happen, delaying voiding can result in serious medical conditions. Unsanitary, unsafe restrooms in our Nation’s

schools force thousands of children’s to wait to use their bathroom

at home; and holding it in can take its toll.

Forcing half the population to wait in line for restrooms is a subtle yet powerful form of gender discrimination. Public restrooms

38

are just one of many instances where women and girls are disadvantaged by design, a topic I’m writing about in my new book.

Even in the U.S. Capitol, until recently, Congresswomen and

women Senators were forced to use restrooms far away from the

House and Senate floors, causing some to miss important votes.

Public restrooms are a fundamental part of our Nation’s infrastructure, just as important as our roads and bridges. Taking care

of our bodies is just as important as taking care of our cars. Public

restrooms are a health and safety issue. In this respect, we lag far

beyond countries like Japan where clean, safe, available restroom

are integral parts of urban landscape.

If it were up to me, contracting cutting-edge, well-designed, safe

21st century public restrooms should be part of another national

stimulus package. They make downtowns more user friendly, they

encourage walking and help combat obesity. It would be money

well spent.

In an ideal world, I would call for even greater numbers of women’s to men’s fixtures, as is already the case in many States and

municipalities with ratios of two to one, three to one or even four

to one. Such ratios are most needed when large groups of people

amass all at once, such as when a court session adjourns or when

a group of schoolchildren visit.

In an ideal world, I would call for a mandatory retrofit to all existing buildings, not just renovation and new construction. Just as

millions of persons with disabilities benefit every day from the

Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], millions of women and children would benefit every day from even greater potty parity laws.

But, as a realist, I believe that this act paves the way for future

changes that could have just as sweeping an impact as the ADA.

It’s now time for the Federal Government to act. Today’s proposed legislation is a small but significant step in the right direction, an achievement worth celebrating, one that you can all be

proud of. It will have a positive impact on women and children

across the USA and on the men who wait for them. That’s one

small step for Congress, one giant leap for humankind. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anthony follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much, Dr. Anthony, for that

very powerful statement.

Now we will have Sharon Pratt, the former Mayor of Washington, DC, and the only woman ever to be Mayor of Washington, DC.

Ms. Pratt.

STATEMENT OF SHARON PRATT

Ms. PRATT. Hopefully, that will change.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the House Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform, I appreciate the opportunity

to testify in support of H.R. 4869, the Restroom Gender Parity in

Federal Buildings Act.

I believe an overwhelming number of Americans, especially

women and girls, support the principles and purpose of this legislation. However, some may be hesitant about coming forward to support this legislation because it’s so easy to make light of this effort

and to mock those advancing this cause. As such, I truly appreciate

the leadership you have provided, Chairman Towns, Congressman

Issa, Congresswoman Clarke, Congresswoman Visclosky have provided in this matter.

I’m a native Washingtonian, as is my distinguished representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and except for 3 years in New York

City I have lived here all my life. Not surprisingly, I have regularly

patronized Federal buildings for meetings, major events, and recreation; and I can speak from personal observation and experience as

a woman resident, as the former Mayor of this city, as the mother

of two daughters, as a grandmother now of a granddaughter.

With regards to the disparity in restrooms, you can characterize

it as follows: It is glaring, it is inconvenient, it is enormously inefficient, and it is downright unfair. Indeed, given the logistics associated with the restroom ritual, true parity would probably require

a two-to-one ratio of toilets for women to men. Nonetheless, I am

pleased to support and endorse in my way legislation that at least

ensures some level of parity in this matter.

Our society has come a great distance in my lifetime. We certainly are a society today that now genuinely supports equal rights

for women. However, it’s a practical reality that a woman would be

late for a meeting, miss much of a concert because there are builtin impediments to equally navigating the world at large. Stemming

from an absence of parity in restrooms, women are still not equal.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I heartily applaud you for your leadership on H.R. 4869.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pratt follows:]

44

45

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Let me thank all three of you for your testimony. I think you’ve

been very, very helpful; and let me just sort of ask a couple of questions.

First, Dr. Anthony, how can we get people to take this more seriously?

Ms. ANTHONY. Yeah, I think that is an excellent question. And

so many people joke about this subject, but when it affects you personally, it is not funny. How we can get people to take it more seriously is, there are a lot of people out there with invisible issues

that really desperately need bathrooms right away but we don’t

know who they are. They know who they are. We probably all

know people who have these situations, but they may not all make

them apparent to us.

Combat war veterans, people who have been injured may have

serious situations with bladder control. Older men with prostate

problems, also an issue. Anybody who has experienced that, imagine what it would feel like if you needed to relieve yourself and you

couldn’t find an open stall right away. That is what it feels like for

women on a regular basis and for children on a regular basis.

There are a lot of people who have reasons why they would need

to use a restroom right away—all sorts of colitis, other kinds of

issues, people who have to change ostomy bags, a lot of people out

there who really, really need better restrooms. So it is a health and

safety and a medical issue.

Chairman TOWNS. Ms. Pratt, let me ask you, being the former

executive of a city that has a tremendous amount of Federal buildings, do you think that if we would improve this situation that it

might even assist us economically?

Ms. PRATT. Well, I would have to encourage—it would have to be

a plus, in terms of encouraging use of Federal buildings. Because,

to me, the overarching issue is just how illogical it is, how, you

know, obviously inefficient and illogical it is. And you are discouraging at least a half, if not more, often, of the population from

using your facilities. So I think it could only be a plus in terms of

encouraging use of our Federal buildings.

Chairman TOWNS. Let me ask you, Commissioner, you know, I

know you have a lot of issues over at GSA; how important is this

issue at GSA? Is it a priority?

Mr. PECK. Well, let me answer two ways.

It is clearly an issue that, over the years, has been enough of an

issue that we have changed our standards and brought our standards up to one of parity. I do want to say, it is not an issue I had

given a lot of thought to until you scheduled the hearing, and I

think that is quite useful.

In the kinds of buildings that we at GSA run—and I want to

note, we are one of about 30 land-holding and building-owning

agencies in the Federal Government—our buildings tend to be office buildings, courthouses, and laboratories where that kind of

work of the government gets done. And for most of the square footage that we operate, people have the option of going to the bathroom at their will. So it is spread out during the day. And when

we take surveys of tenant satisfaction in our building, we are not

46

finding complaints about the availability of facilities, either for men

or women.

Having said that, and I noted in my testimony, we do have conference areas, assembly areas, we have offices that are run for Social Security, Internal Revenue, Citizenship and Immigration Services, in which the public does come into our facilities, and courthouses too obviously, and which it is important to us that people

have a good experience when they come to the Federal building.

And so, I think in those areas, in particular, where we already

have a ratio required higher than 1:1, again, we believe we are on

the right track, but, quite honestly, I would be interested in seeing

more research on whether we are providing enough facilities.

Chairman TOWNS. Let me just ask you this before my time runs

out, Dr. Anthony. You know, this is among the last bastions, of

course, of gender discrimination. And I can’t figure out, why are we

still fighting this battle?

Ms. ANTHONY. Why are we still fighting this battle? I am glad

you asked that question. I think it is a key question of the day. We

are in the year 2010, and how come this issue hasn’t already been

addressed?

Things move very slowly. I am always amazed how, in our world

of technology—you know, we have had the Internet and iPods and

iPhones, and so many things have come about in our lifetime so

quickly, but when it comes to this issue of restrooms, particularly

for gender parity and restrooms, we have been moving at a snail’s

pace—at a snail’s pace.

One of the reasons why is, I think women really need to have

a voice on this issue, and we haven’t had a voice on this issue until

now. Look at who is here today and who is interested in this issue,

and look at who is behind me. I think the fact that we are here

is significant.

I think one of the reasons why: Women who are pregnant, big

issue for them, they are often very busy and don’t have time to

come and do what I am doing today, nor have they had the opportunity or the invitation to come.

Our ADA was passed now about 20 years ago. That has been a

long time. We had many issues that have come about throughout

our course of history that have moved slowly, and others have

moved more quickly. But this particular one, why now, and why is

it one of the last bastions of gender discrimination? I think it has

to do, in part, also, with the fact that toilets have been a taboo

topic. We all use them, but they are a hidden part of our environment, a secret part of our environment that we don’t talk about

much. And we have to bring them out from under the rug.

One of my colleagues, Jack Sim, has been involved in a World

Toilet Organization. He founded an international organization,

about 50 member countries, been trying to improve sanitation conditions all over world. I applaud him. He has been noted as one of

the most effective social entrepreneurs in the world. We need to do

the same here in the United States: Get this issue out from under

the rug and get us talking about it and legislating about it.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings.

47

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peck, if a woman feels that there are not enough, say, restrooms in her workplace for females, both in the Federal buildings

and in the private sector, where would she voice that concern? And

how would that be handled?

Mr. PECK. Well, probably the same way that we get complaints

if the heating or air conditioning aren’t working or if the restroom

facilities that we do have aren’t working. And, of course, we run

a lot of buildings; we sometimes get them.

She would generally take it to her supervisor, or, in most buildings, we pretty prominently let employees know that there is a

number they can call to have their agency’s facilities manager get

in touch with the GSA building manager in those buildings where

GSA actually manages it. Some agencies manage their own buildings even though we may own them. We have it pretty clear for

people to know where they can go for their complaint of that nature.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And do you have any idea what the history is

with regard to those complaints and remedies? And I understand

that sometimes it can be very difficult, but do you have any knowledge of—say, for example—I guess what I am concerned about—

you know, we are in a hearing now, and I hope and I do believe

the bill will pass, but, in the meantime, I am just trying to figure

out, you know, exactly what is going on and how those issues have

been addressed.

And, I mean, is there any kind of protocol for that kind of thing,

you know? I guess that is what I am trying—or is it just they have

a complaint and then it is dropped into a black box that is never

opened?

Mr. PECK. No, you know, Congressman Cummings, in both the

private sector and public sector, while the issue of gender parity in

restrooms is not a big issue, the issue of availability of facilities in

general and their cleanliness is a huge issue in building management. And I would say, right behind complaints about whether a

person’s work station feels too warm or too cold—probably that is

the largest number of complaints you get in a building—complaints

or concerns about the adequacy of facilities and their cleanliness is

right behind it.

So we do field those all the time. It is a serious issue. As I said,

when we modernize buildings, you know, the one thing you know

you are going to modernize in an old building are the restroom facilities.

I also, as I noted, we survey all our tenants on a rolling basis

every 3 years. And so, where we do get complaints about the restroom facilities, we are pretty quick to address them. We grade our

building managers on how people feel about their building.

So I have to tell you that the complaints we generally get are

about whether the fixtures are working or the cleanliness in a facility, and I am not aware—and we did take a quick look. We don’t

seem to have a lot of complaints in our buildings, because they are

mostly office space, of the adequacy of women’s facilities.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Maybe one reason why you may not get as many

complaints is because it has become accepted. You follow what I

am saying?

48

Mr. PECK. Sure.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And people get to a point of saying, well, why

even bother? And you still seem like—you are not really hitting

my—I know it is not your intention to avoid my question——

Mr. PECK. No. Congressman, can I——

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. So let me state it another way.

If, when somebody comes with a—cleanliness, I understand that

is probably pretty easy to resolve. But when it comes to women in

a workplace and they see a situation where it is just ridiculous

with regard to the parity and they feel that they are experiencing

some of the things that we have heard witnesses talk about already, I mean, you know—and I am not talking about just a 3-year

survey because, again, I am talking about the urgency of this moment.

So what happens in the meantime? In other words, they have to

wait, or do they have to wait for 10 years when you renovate the

building, or 15 or 20? I mean, what—do you follow me?

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, in other words, if you really went in and you

saw the need right now, how would that be resolved? I mean,

would you say, OK, maybe we need to knock out that room down

the hall there and create a bathroom? And is there any history of

that? That is what I am trying to get to.

Mr. PECK. In my experience—and I held this job in the Clinton

administration for 5 years also—I have not been—I was not aware

of any complaints in our buildings—I will go back to your question

of whether we are getting the complaints in the first place—I am

not aware of any complaints in our buildings that indicate that we

have an inadequate number of women’s facilities versus men’s.

And, again, I think one possible reason for that is that we are

mostly an office environment. We don’t get the surge that you get

in a ball game in the seventh inning or at a concert during intermission. So people can, sort of, spread out their response to their

need over the course of the day.

Whether people have given up, whether women have just sort of

said, ‘‘I guess this is the way it is,’’ I don’t know. But I informally

asked some of our senior managers last week at a meeting from

around the country if they are aware of lines on the office floors

or in our lobbies at restroom facilities, and these are people who

are career employees, have been doing this in many cases for more

than 20 years, and they are not aware.

But, again, I think it is the nature of our facilities in GSA. We

don’t run very many museums, for example, which have a very different—a very different issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much.

I now yield to the ranking member, Congressman Issa of California.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And 5 minutes isn’t enough, but it will do if you will all agree

to answer our followup questions.

Commissioner, your table is, in my estimation, a fairly generous

table. If you have no surge and if you have nine employees and,

as a result of nine employees, you have three facilities, toilets, for

49

women and three facilities, one urinal and two toilets, for men, six

toilets, nine people, that is pretty generous. Six toilets, 24 people

is still probably sufficient. And then it continues that way with

your guidelines.

Is it possible that, effectively, what we are talking about is you

have too many facilities for men and too many facilities for women

but not so many ‘‘too many’’ for women but a great deal more for

men?

You know, looking at the Federal facility we are in—I have been

here a long time, not as long as some people, but 10 years. I have

never seen a line for the men’s or the women’s room in Rayburn

Office Building.

Assuming this is built to that standard, and I suspect it is, are

we really talking about a per-building adequacy that, in this case,

does not envision the 7-Eleven on the freeway, which always has

this huge line for the two facilities for 35 pumps outside; the facility at the Kennedy Center, which clearly is a disaster with equal

number of men and women in that surge that occurs at intermission and so on? Are we talking about a standard that is more

than just changing your core standard for office buildings but really about some of these other facilities?

And if you could briefly respond, more briefly than my question.

Mr. PECK. OK. I do think our standards for an office, as I have

said, appear to be generous. I will also say that I think some of

these standards probably have arisen as custom over time, not as

a result of research. I think there are a lot of other facilities that

the public goes to—we run some, we run a retail facility in the

Reagan Building, we run the National Building Museum—in which

we know that we need a different scale of facilities, higher even

than what you see here probably, and perhaps a different ratio of

men’s to women’s. And I think that, whatever you do, you should

take that into account, that there are different kinds of facilities

with different needs.

Mr. ISSA. And I will tell you something from observation. I noticed the tremendous amount of restrooms that are in this new billion-dollar building we call the Capitol Visitor Center. And when

I asked about it, they said, ‘‘Well, it is based on the maximum occupancy.’’ And, apparently, we never get to 10 percent of the maximum occupancy. So that is an example where I guess they planned

for an amount that has yet to occur.

Mr. PECK. I would think that maximum occupancy in that space

must be pretty high.

Mr. ISSA. Huge.

Dr. Anthony, you probably—although it has been since 2007 for

your major publication, you have studied this as a question of,

what is parity? Do you know of much followup since your 2007

study?

And I ask this specifically because it appears as though GSA

would benefit if this committee required more statistical analysis

and study based on not just office buildings but based on the range

of Federal buildings.

Ms. ANTHONY. Uh-huh, yeah. I am not aware of further studies

on the subject, but I will say that building codes have been modified over the last few years. They are revised on a regular basis.

50

I am sure my colleague knows well about that, could speak to that

issue probably better than I could.

But they have been changing to keep pace with this issue, and

there have been modifications made to, for instance, major places

of assembly over the last several years, to have more facilities for

women than we have had in the past. So the building codes are the

places to look. But, again, they are not necessarily state-of-the-art

either. I think they are being adjusted on a regular basis.

One of the things I will also say that we do need and we have

seen some changes in more unisex facilities, more family restrooms.

So where we talk about parity, there is also the issue of the opposite-gender parent or grandparent going with the opposite-gender

child or grandchild. So that is a place where, again, the numbers

of men’s and women’s restrooms is a separate issue, but that is related and very important. So we need more family restrooms, we

need more unisex restrooms to help in situations like that.

Mr. ISSA. Well, and when Mr. Cummings talked—and he has left

right now—but after I spoke the first time, I got the feeling that

he thought I was trying to delay the legislation. And I am hopeful

that you can answer a question, not because I want to delay legislation, but because I want to get it right.

Do you believe that this committee should take apart the legislation relative to further study, not just to hearing, but further

study, to get the numbers more broadly right in the sense of future

flexibility, what the standards should be based on different types

of facilities, such as a place that has surge versus one that doesn’t,

a place in which women are younger versus older, a place in which

women are in evening gowns or slacks?

Is that worth our getting it right, in order to create, if you will,

a more as-needed design to ensure that in all cases at least there

is a good-faith effort to provide equal access?

Ms. ANTHONY. I think the building codes already do that. And I

would suggest that, since this issue is on the table right now and

it hasn’t gotten this far ever before, I think you just keep going.

I don’t think you need further study on it. I don’t think you need

further research. I think the issue is clear from the testimony that

we have all had that the problem has been around for generations

and needs to be addressed now. And I think further study would

just delay the issue and it might never get anywhere. So——

Mr. ISSA. OK. Then I just have one closing question. I brought

it up earlier. Roughly 17 percent of the Pentagon are currently

women; 83 percent are men. If this legislation were to come exactly

at a time of retrofit, it would appear as though we would simply

make sure that there were exactly the same number of women’s

rooms as men’s rooms and same number of facilities at the Pentagon. Is that what you think should happen?

Ms. ANTHONY. I would go ahead with what has been proposed,

because, again, the work force is changing. And who would have

known 46 years ago, or the average age when many of these buildings were built, what would be happening today? I think, similarly,

we can say today, how would we be able to project what the change

will be in the future?

Mr. ISSA. Following up one last time, if you are in a building that

has two-thirds women and one-third men, under this legislation we

51

are going to build exactly the same amount of facilities for women

as men, even though there are more women than men. Is that OK

with you, under this legislation? That is what is in the legislation

if we don’t do further study or amendments.

Ms. ANTHONY. Well, I think you do need to look at the building

codes of what is appropriate and what are the appropriate ratios

in the particular type of building. So we are talking about many

different types of places. So——

Mr. ISSA. Ma’am, this legislation is not the building code. This

legislation trumps the building code. This an order with certain

limited exemptions for GSA, which, by the way, doesn’t control

DOD, so it wouldn’t have an exemption for DOD for this.

And I ask that because I really want to get it right. And I just

want you to understand that, if we move the current legislation the

way it is or if we don’t know how to modify it necessarily, that is

what it would do. And I just want to make sure, because you have

studied this more than anyone else here.

Ms. ANTHONY. I think what is being proposed is very good, and

I would support it as is.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much. Let me thank the gentleman for his questions.

I now yield to the Member of Congress who has more Federal

buildings in her district than anybody else in the United States of

America, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And whose

subcommittee has primary jurisdiction over GSA, as well.

Now, to followup on the question of the ranking member, statutory law at the moment says what, Mr. Peck?

Mr. PECK. You know, we have not found a—we have not found

a statutory provision——

Ms. NORTON. So there is no statute governing this matter.

Mr. PECK. As near as we can tell. There are OSHA regs for private sector, and we have our own code.

Ms. NORTON. So, as I understand the bill before us, it says,

‘‘equals or exceeds.’’ This is obviously a bill aimed to make sure

that women are not put in an unequal position.

The ranking member is correct; you may have a building which

has more men than women who are employed in the building. I am

not sure what that tells us, necessarily, about the number of visitors to the building. It may or may not tell us something.

But in light of the fact that the bill says ‘‘equals or exceeds,’’ do

you believe that you would have sufficient discretion to deal with

buildings which may, in fact, have different genders that come at

different times?

And remember who used to come here once and who comes here

now. Remember that in the House of Representatives we have very

few women now, and yet there is parity, as the ranking member

said, here in the Rayburn and I think in most of the buildings.

Would this law keep you from exercising the appropriate flexibility as it now stands, the language?

Mr. PECK. As regards GSA, I don’t believe so. I believe it could

work. There is a provision in the legislation that says that the adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:49 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\63145.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
52

ministrator of General Services can issue a statement if the parity

is unachievable or not feasible, and I think we would want that

kind of discretion.

I would note, I mean, there are—and you have alluded to it. At

one time, we would have built a land port of entry or border station

with hardly any facilities for women, at least among the patrol

force, because Customs didn’t have more very many women agents.

And now they do. And we don’t want to factor into our planning

the way the work force looks now because we think it will change

and evolve, which makes it a little more complicated.

But, in any event, I think that the legislation gives us some discretion that is important——

Ms. NORTON. I regret that we have to do a bill at all. This is the

kind of matter that I think should be done administratively. We

are forced to do a bill because of what the experience does show.

Mr. Peck, as you know, I am also on the Homeland Security

Committee, and I have a beef with the way in which we secure our

buildings that is relevant, I think, to this hearing. I am going to

give you an example of what I mean. We are talking about people

visiting buildings, but you and I know of a building, a very new

building, to which the public doesn’t have access at all, whether

they have to go to the lavatory or not. I refer to the brand-new Department of Transportation building along M Street.

Bad enough that the security involves a Federal employee having

to come down to get even a staff member from the House of Representatives for admission to that building. But what I think is far

worse—and I pick M Street for a reason. M Street is just being

built up. We have our Southeast Federal Center bill. We are so

pleased with the progress you are making on that construction.

But imagine a woman or parent who finds herself down there on

M Street, and they say, ‘‘Oh, there is a Federal building. At last,

we have a place we can go to use the lavatory, Johnny.’’ But she

gets to the door of the Department of Transportation, and even

though there is a magnometer there to protect the public and the

building, she is not admitted to the building to use the restroom,

to use the cafeteria paid for by public funds.

How can you justify closing off lavatories to people outside of the

building who have every reason to believe that a building paid for

by taxpayers is one that should admit them, given the proper

magnometers and security and perhaps even showing some identification?

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, as you know from our previous conversations, I share your concern about the lack of consistency in building

access into buildings in Washington, DC. I have been having conversations with the Federal Protective Service, which has a role in

this; with the Interagency Committee on Security, which has some

control over this; and with some of the agencies, including the Department of Transportation, that have these rules.

I can only tell you that, so far, I have had only limited success

in changing some of the standards. But I agree with you that, in

many instances, our security standards do not and should not—our

security concerns do not require that we keep people out of the

public restrooms.

53

If I can note, by the way, our rules in GSA do require that,

where restroom facilities are accessible to the public, that they include baby-changing stations so that they could be available for

people to use——

Ms. NORTON. Oh, it is lovely if you could just get into the building in the first place.

Mr. PECK. Correct.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I think minimally, while we are concerned with

visitors going in buildings, I think that there ought to be the presumption that a taxpayer has a right to come into a building to use

the lavatory if she shows the right identification. That may be the

only building available in some parts of downtown, for example, in

many cities.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOWNS. All right. Thank you very much for your questions.

Also, let me yield now to the gentlewoman from California, who

has challenged us to catch up with California. So we want to——

Ms. WATSON. There was a question just raised by my colleague

about a facility that already has an excess of women’s restrooms.

The bill is prospective, and it directs you from here on, when you

are leasing or renovating, to be sure and—and it focuses on women.

So I don’t think that is going to be a problem even if they have a

majority of women in a facility, because it is prospective and you

will adjust based on what the need is. So I don’t think that is going

to be a problem.

I want to welcome all of you. And, particularly, Ms. Pratt, it is

good to see you again, our FEMA leader of our Nation’s capital.

Ms. PRATT. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. I want to tell you the reason why it is imperative

that we have equal access to restrooms. I am going to refer back

to the California Legislature and the Senate.

When I was elected in 1978 to the California State Senate, I was

only the second woman; the first one was elected in 137 years. To

be present in the Senate for a vote, you have to be on the red carpet. When the first woman in the Senate was elected—her name

was Rose Ann Vuich—after 137 years, there was no restroom available on the red carpet. So if she were somewhere else using a restroom out in the public hall, she could not be counted for the vote.

So when they found out she hit one, they had to take a

reprographics room and change it into a restroom. It was small like

a closet. And they never put ‘‘women’’ or ‘‘ladies.’’ They just put a

rose up. It was ‘‘the rose room.’’

Now, here I come a year and a half later, and my name is not

Rose. When I needed to go to the restroom, I would have to go to

her to get the key.

Now, they were renovating the capitol. We had a major earthquake, and they had to renovate the Capitol. When they completely

redid it, guess what? There was no women’s restroom, Dr. Anthony,

because there were only men who were architects. And when we

said, you know, ‘‘You don’t have a women’s restroom on the red carpet,’’ they said, ‘‘Oh, we didn’t think of it.’’

54

So thank God we have you there. You know, I always thought

that women should design kitchens and restrooms. And you can

think about that.

So we brought it to their attention. They took a supply room, and

they changed it into a women’s restroom. And we said, you know,

‘‘We need a place to shower.’’ You know, we needed to have equality with what the men had. And we had take them step by step

all along the way. Because if you have to excuse yourself and a

vote came up, you could not vote unless you were on the red carpet.

So it was a matter of legally participating in our elected responsibilities. And so there is a justification, and in Federal buildings,

absolutely.

So we need to modernize our thinking. There should not be a

question. We don’t need another study. Studies just delay a particular decision. We need to get about passing this bill. And I would

recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we don’t need any more testimony, any more questions. Let’s process this bill.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

Chairman TOWNS. Let me thank the gentlewoman from California for her statement, of course. And we look forward to working

with you to make this a reality.

And, of course, let me say to you, Commissioner Peck, you know,

we will continue to talk with you as we move forward. But the

point is that we really want to move this legislation forward. And,

of course, you know, there is a thing called ‘‘amendments.’’ If we

think that, you know, it will strengthen it, but not to weaken it,

you know, we want to do that. And, as I indicated, I think there

are some things that we might need to do as we move along. But

we will have dialog.

But we really, really want to get this done. And I also want to

thank the ranking member for his work on it, as well. And, this

time around, we hope to be able to move it all the way and it will

become law.

I want to thank you, Dr. Anthony, for all of your work. I want

you to know we have followed it, and you have really, really, really

spent time and you, sort of, kept this in the forefront. And I want

you to know that we appreciate, you know, your work.

And, of course, Ms. Pratt, for your work. And as the only female

ever to be mayor of Washington, DC, we thought it was important

to have you as a witness, because you have seen it, you know, from

that point as a leader in this city and, of course, with all these Federal buildings, you know, in terms of the situation.

And I think that all of you have had experiences that you probably don’t want to share, I am sure. You know, I was talking to

one of our colleagues, and she indicated to me, says, ‘‘Yeah, do it,

move it forward,’’ she said, ‘‘because I went into the men’s room,’’

she said, ‘‘because, shoot, I couldn’t wait.’’ So I am sure there are

a lot of stories like that where, you know, women have gone into

the men’s room. Because I know I was at a football game and some

lady ran into the men’s room. So, I mean, I can imagine there are

others that have done that.

And I think that the time has come that we really need to move

this legislation forward. And, of course, again, thank you for your

55

testimony. And I look forward to further input, you know, from you

as we move forward.

And I agree with my colleague. We don’t need a whole lot of

studies. I think this thing has been studied. And I think that the

fact that there is a change in the work force, we need to recognize

it. Not only is there a change in the work force, there are just more

women in the country than men. There are more female babies

born than male babies. Women live longer than men. And all of

these things are factors that we need to just, sort of, take into consideration and move forward with this legislation.

I want to thank you again for your testimony.

And this committee now stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

56

57

58

Æ