Ms. PASCHALL. I have it in my briefcase at my desk, Senator Hatch. It is a mailing which I received from NOW, asking for money. I quoted the statement that, "Without the Equal Rights Amendment, women earn 59 cents for every dollar paid to men." The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. For the same job; you see, that is the fraudulent part of it; it is not true that men and women are paid differently for the same job. As pointed out in detail by Mrs. Finn and in some of my testimony, men and women work in different jobs for different hours and with different seniority, different experience, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. You do acknowledge that there are some women who have to go to work, and you would not oppose women being able to work.

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. No; of course, I do not oppose it. But I do oppose Government programs which induce them to go to work when they do not want to. I think the situation we have had in the past few years is that millions of wives have been forced out of the homes to take jobs simply to pay for the groceries and to meet the mortgage payment-wives who do not want to be in the work force and who are there because of what the Government has done to cause the inflation that has ruined the value of our dollar.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Do any of you personally know of any instances of sexual harassment, using the definition supplied by our previous witness, Mr. Smith, of the EEOC, in the military, in colleges or universities, or in private or public sector workplaces, using his definitions?

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Using the EEOC definitions?

The CHAIRMAN. That were described by Mr. Smith in the record. Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Well, in my testimony I described a case of what happened on the U.S. missile test ship, the Norton Sound, in which a male petty officer was convicted of sexually harassing two female sailors under his command. He was convicted, so I assume he was guilty.

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Would either of you

Ms. PASCHALL. I do not have any personal knowledge. I have read court decisions, and as an EEOC staff member, I read charges which allege sexual discrimination in the form of sexual harassment. As you discussed with Chairman Smith, reading the charge and saying you know about sexual harassment are two different things. I do not know of any from my personal knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have heard testimony from Mr. Smith indicating that they had some 130 cases thus far in their tenure and that there may be some small number of other cases that have been brought to the attention of their local officials. Senator Kennedy implied that that may be the tip of the iceberg.

What is your opinion with regard to whether that is a significant number of cases in our society today? Is it the tip of the iceberg with a much larger problem under the surface of the water that really needs to be dealt with?

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Well, in a nation where we have more than 100 million people in jobs, 118 cases which he described is such a small number that even if the real figure is 100 percent or 500 percent or 1,000 percent greater than that, it still is very small. I think that

should be put in focus when you compare these two pictures I have as my exhibits. What the National Organization for Women is complaining about is illustrated by this picture [indicating picture of man's hand pinching secretary], which I really do not think is a problem that Congress is capable of solving.

Now, the other picture shows a magazine paid for by taxpayers' money, officially put out by the Pentagon, which literally shows how some men are lusting to have women drafted into the Army and put in combat and combat-related jobs. I think we have to get some proper perspective on this, if we are talking about sexual harassment.

Really, it does not make sense to me to hear somebody complaining about the former problem and feeling that it is Congress problem to solve [indicating], when at the same time they are promoting the drafting of women and the repeal of the laws that exempt. women from combat. This is an official Government, tax-paid publication [indicating picture of woman in combat]. I call that sexual harassment.

Mrs. PASCHALL. Senator Hatch, if I may comment?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mrs. Paschall.

Mrs. PASCHALL. I think that when one speaks out against a law on a subject, one sometimes is misinterpreted and people think you are not sympathetic. It seems to me that one of the basic problems on the issue of sexual harassment is the limit to which a law or a Government agency can prevent it and remedy it. As you discussed earlier with Chairman Smith, what is acceptable to some women is unacceptable to others.

Many times, the remedy, which is, as he said, prevention or corrective action, does not satisfy the woman who feels she has been harassed. Just to say to her, "Well, the president of the corporation has now issued a statement and it is not going to happen again"-she feels, as in the case of race discrimination, that she does not want to go back to work there, but she wants something to be done.

So, this is, it seems to me, a great area for education and consultation together of men and women to see what is the point at which Government regulation is necessary but Government interference cannot be productive. There are just some things that are very difficult to regulate or enforce.

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Senator, somebody mentioned the aspect of verbal harassment. This is a very curious aspect. The laws of most of our States traditionally included a law that made it against the law for men to use bad words in the presence of women. Now, I have watched the feminist movement all over the country try to get rid of those laws as sex-discriminatory, and when courts and legislatures got rid of them, they cheered getting rid of them because they said that that was a difference of treatment on account of sex that we should not tolerate.

Now, we find these same people want to vest in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the authority to police men saying bad words or offensive words to women on the job. It seems to me that all this just simply fits in with their line of trying to transfer more power to the Federal Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Paschall, do you agree with Mr. Smith's comments that the EEOC provides adequate audits to assure that the field staff is handling the cases fairly?

Mrs. PASCHALL. Well, I never thought of taking the fifth, Senator Hatch, on agreeing with the chairman of the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have the right to agree or disagree, certainly, in this committee.

Mrs. PASCHALL. I do agree. I forget the exact words that you quote, but the auditors-in fact, we are going to have an audit of our Atlanta office in May. As an ongoing thing, auditors do come and review the files. Of course, it is impossible to sit with every investigator and overhear the questions which are put and the answers which are received.

I think it is reassuring to know that in the field offices of the EEOC, as I said earlier, a sex harassment charge is treated with the same seriousness and the same investigative process as otherwise. They are more difficult to investigate because it is more difficult to get evidence one way or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if I could ask all three of you this question: What specific ways do you feel the EEOC may be unjust, if you feel that it is? Do you not feel that an employer has some obligation to promulgate a company policy on sexual harassment and/or establish some type of internal grievance procedure?

Mrs. PASCHALL. Well, in a way, the law prohibits an employer from discriminating, and then it always gets to what discrimination is. But my observation has been that most employers do have statements of policy against discrimination and internal grievance procedures.

But, again, if you make it so specific as to sexual harassmentyou know, some women are offended when a man refers to her as a lady, quite seriously. I remember one employer who was asked, did he, in fact, as the person alleged, ask about her clothing-this was a member of the black Muslim religion-which she took as evidence of religious discrimination that he did not want her to work for him because she was dressed like that. He said, "Yes, I did ask her; I was just making pleasant conversation." He said, "It is getting so you cannot even say good morning to anybody." Well, that may be extreme, but I think that is an example of the difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to thank all three of you for making the effort to be here today and to express your particular points of view. We appreciate hearing from you. Thank you for coming. Mrs. FINN. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel will be Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Esquire, of the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Betty Jean Hall and Ms. Pat Baldwin of the Coal Employment Project of Dumfries, Va.; and Ms. Joan Vermeulen and Ms. Karen Sauvigné of the Working Women's Institute, New York City, N.Y. Ms. Norton, we will start with your testimony; we are happy to have you here and appreciate your taking time to appear.

STATEMENT OF ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; BETTY JEAN HALL, DIRECTOR, COAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECT, DUMFRIES, VA.; PAT BALDWIN, CHAIR, WESTERN KENTUCKY COALMINING WOMEN'S SUPPORT TEAM, MADISONVILLE, KY.; KAREN SAUVIGNÉ, PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER, WORKING WOMEN'S INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, N.Y.; AND JOAN VERMEULEN, DIRECTOR, LEGAL BACK-UP CENTER, WORKING WOMEN'S INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, N.Y., A PANEL

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I shall be reading sections of the testimony and, because what I perceive to be the exigencies of time, skipping other sections.

The CHAIRMAN. We would appreciate that. We have been going on a little bit long here today, but I want to give everybody the opportunity to say what they want to say, and especially you. We do appreciate summaries, however. We will put your full statements in the record.

Ms. NORTON. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to express our views today. The organizations who join in this testimony, so far as we know, represent the largest and most diverse grouping of women's organizations ever to offer a single piece of congressional testimony. I have been asked by these organizations to inform you that they have drafted me to present this testimony because of my background in equal employment work and because of the importance they attribute to the points they wish to make, but that the views I express are the strongly held positions of these organizations themselves. Together, they have a combined membership of over 700,000 women and men. Included among them are all the major women's organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the National Women's Political Caucus, the National Board of the YWCA, the National Organization for Women, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, among many others whose names you will find affixed to this testimony.

Their diversity is apparent in names that range from the National Council of Negro Women and the Mexican American Women's National Association, to the B'nai B'rith Women and the Episcopal Church Women, Diocese of Washington, and the Lady Miners of Utah, in deference to the chairman.

We appreciate the interest of this committee and its chairman in sexual harassment. Women's organizations in the United States have been greatly concerned about the incidence of sexual harassment in the workplace, which has become the focus of public attention only in recent years, as women have entered the work force in unprecedented numbers. Thus, women's organizations strongly supported a sexual harassment amendment to the "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in final form on November 10, 1980.

The staff of this committee might wish to look at the comments submitted by women's organizations during the comment period to get a sense of the strong support that the sexual harassment amendment has among women in this country. It should also be noted that the great majority of the comments from the business

community on the amendment were also favorable. The amendment, as finally issued, was improved because of the thoughtful comments of both women's and business groups. Other members of the panel can more appropriately comment on the amendment and its effect.

I do want to call attention to the basic approach of the sexual harassment amendment because of the special effort that was made to make it preventative rather than punitive. The amendment does not adopt remediation as the preferred way to deal with sexual harassment. To be sure, when sexual harassment occurs, the agencies and the courts must be prepared to handle it like other discriminatory acts.

But despite the success EEOC has had in individual cases of sexual harassment, these do not begin to touch the true incidence of the occurrence. An understandable reluctance among many women to come forward in a matter often regarded as personally sensitive and the difficulty of obtaining corroborative proof combine to make sexual harassment matters among the most distasteful and most difficult to prove in antidiscrimination work.

The burden of stepping forward at all in this kind of matter has, in practice, proved too great for many women, and the difficulty and embarrassment to the company once harassment has occurred is unfortunate, unnecessarily marring the company's image in the community.

The Commission was acutely aware of these special circumstances when drawing the amendment and believed that simple, commonsense acts of prevention could be highly successful in ridding the workplace of sexual harassment. The underlying theory of the amendment is that if sexual harassment is identified, discussed and disapproved, it will no longer enjoy the sanction and currency it derives from company silence.

Skipping to page 4 attached to my testimony is an example of company action inspired by the sexual harassment amendment that was recently brought to my attention by a women's group. It is a memorandum on sexual harassment to the staff of the New York Times from the chairman of the board, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. It contains most of the steps prescribed in the sexual harassment amendment.

The memo calls specific attention to the EEOC issuance, reiterates that sexual harassment is forbidden by company policy, outlines the substance of the amendment, and, most importantly, “encourages" those who believe they are victims "to make a complaint to a company officer or to their personnel department" with the assurance of "prompt investigation and disciplinary action, including discharge where warranted."

This memorandum, because it comes from the highest officer in the company, is designed to get the requisite attention and have the desired results. It is just such company leadership the sexual harassment amendment seeks to encourage. We hope that most businesses would desire to deal with this problem in this way; that they will take similar steps and that most sexual harassment can be driven from the workplace in the foreseeable future.

The CHAIRMAN. Allow me to interrupt you a monent. Having read the memorandum of Mr. Sulzberger, I think that one thing