The story of women and the United States Congress can be summed up in two themes: under-representation and under-utilization of the talent of more than half of the nation's adult population. Since 1916, when Jeannette Rankin (R-Mont.) was elected to the U.S. House, only 197 women have ever served in the national legislature. By contrast, 11,390 men have served as members of the Congress since the founding. Currently, 9 women hold seats in the U.S. Senate and 56 women in the House (plus two non-voting delegates). Notably, 35 of these women were elected in 1992 - the so-called "Year of the Woman" - but electoral progress since that time has returned to its glacially slow pace. 

Scholars who participated in the April 2000 conference focusing on women and Congress were drawn by several key concerns. As Mary Hawkesworth, director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers University, noted, "One argument concerns justice. As citizens, women ought to be serving our nation in all capacities - not just as voters. A second argument has to do with talent. The nation needs the talent of 52 percent of its population. Another argument has to do with democratic theory in which majority rule is a leading principle. Women are the majority of our country . . . and yet we are drastically under-represented in the halls of Congress." 

Thus the Carl Albert Center conference explored the various roles and contributions of women and Congress and asked: What impact have women had on this institution? Part of the answer to that question came through the personal insights of five women who served during the past four decades. Their reflections on congressional life reveal the intimate details of rewards, challenges, and friendships in a historically male institution. Participating in the round-table discussion were: 

Together, these five women represent 78 years of collective experience in the nation's lawmaking institution. They championed a wide range of legislation covering the gamut of issues from international trade to international security, from banking, insurance, and pension reform to support of Viet Nam veterans and military families, and from Amtrak rail service to research and funding for AIDS and breast cancer. They also shared a common commitment to issues related to children, families, and women including lending leadership and support to such landmark legislation as the Equal Rights Amendment, the Violence Against Women Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Family Reinforcement Act. Excerpts of their discussion follow. The discussion was moderated by Mary Hawkesworth. 

Heckler: I was elected to Congress by the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts, but I always represented women's interests, especially in the economic area. I introduced and spearheaded the Equal Credit Opportunity Act through the Congress in 1974. There was a time when, regardless of their income, women could not use that income to obtain a home mortgage. I introduced a bill that banned discrimination based upon marital status or gender for granting home mortgages. This was landmark legislation. We had clear needs in those days - we had to get the right to credit. Imagine not being able to have credit in your own name. And now the credit granting agencies are flooding our mailboxes with new offers for credit cards. Can you imagine someone saying "Women are not responsible for their bills. They are not going to pay their bills and we can't grant them credit." Or "They are going to have more children, therefore their professional experience is not stable and the revenue is unpredictable." We had to ban discrimination on home mortgages and small business loans. This was part of the agenda for many years, but I couldn't talk about it in my district because I was not elected to represent women. Still, I felt it was important to do. The small cadre of women who were there were empowered and required to stand up for all women.

Collins: When Peggy and I got to Congress, there was an urgency. The feminist movement was just getting into its real groove, and we were all dedicated to changing things in America for women. We had a real zeal, we knew where we wanted to go, we knew what we wanted to do, and by God, we were going to be recognized as doing it. In 1974, a big swell of people came in and there was a change with the leadership that began to open up new ideas and new thinking. To the extent that we now see an openness about women's issues, it was because of the movement. The same thing has occurred in the African-American community with the civil rights movement. When all of this was going on, everybody wanted to make everything right. The general populace was with us. There's nothing you can do in Congress if you don't have the population, the ultimate group of people, behind you. Now that everything has settled down, it's a part of our American culture, so it's easier to get some of these things done.

Vucanovich: Before that time people could not conceive of women going to Congress, leaving their homes, leaving their children, going off and just doing something on their own. You have no idea how things have changed, and I thank the people who went before me who made that happen . . . I've often said that all issues are really women's issues, whether it's raising family, getting a mortgage, starting a business, or getting an education, or health care. Many of us had to be role models for other women, but we also had to speak up in committees and on the floor on issues that were not necessarily traditional women's issues. There are some issues which are uniquely women's issues. I'm a breast cancer survivor, but before I had cancer, I really didn't pay any attention to it. But Cardiss was ahead of me and introduced legislation to cover mammograms for women aged sixty-five. What a fight! I remember Bill Natcher [D-Ky.], one of the most gracious, charming men that I ever knew, but he just simply couldn't understand. He was Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he just couldn't believe that this was something we needed. But we smartened up and included language about prostate cancer in our legislation because we just didn't have a chance otherwise.

Molinari: By the time I got to Congress in 1990, a dramatic shift was taking place. In the early 1990s, if people were discriminating, they were smart enough not to show it. They were more educated in political correctness. At a certain point in the mid-1990s, there was a sea change: people started running toward women's issues. Every man wanted to sponsor or speak on behalf of women's issues. Both the Democrats and the Republicans sought out female candidates to run because they believed that they were assets. In the last ten years, there has been a tremendous change in sentiment that was brought on by organizations outside the United States Congress - by female voters, by women who had gone before, and by some men who "got it" a little earlier than the rest. 

Kennelly: We can talk about women's issues; but as we all know, there are many men in Congress who are wonderful advocates for women. I learned this when I went on the Ways and Means Committee. I had only been in Congress one year, and there was a gentleman on the committee named Tom Downey [D-N.Y.]. He was a fabulous advocate for women and children, so I watched him, and that's where I learned to trade. He would push, and his people would be interested in other subjects, so he'd say "I'll do that for you if you'll do this for me." That's a good way of doing it but you might not get something else you want. You also have to acknowledge the staff who are very well educated on these issues and also some marvelous advocates for women's issues and organizations in Washington. They are willing to give their life to women's issues, and they come banging on your door to let you know that this is one of your responsibilities: "You're a woman in Congress so you had better do things for women." 

Heckler: I continued my concerns about women when I was Secretary of Health and Human Services. I kept asking the director of the National Institutes of Health, "Are the women receiving the grants? Are they participating in all of these studies? Are they on these panels?" But I never thought to ask, "Are women the patients?" They were not studying the women, and they never volunteered this information. I just assumed that the patient load was mixed, but it was all male. So for all those years we didn't acquire the information that I thought we were receiving.

Molinari: The issues we push, I think, have a lot to do with a certain comfort level. You bring your life experiences to the table. All other things being equal, where do you go? The war in Bosnia, defense, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, saving Social Security, saving Medicare - these are all important, but you can't do it all. How do you choose? Because we are human beings, we start and stop with issues that are relevant to us because we know them better. Barbara referred to the breast cancer legislation. There were men in Congress who had prostate cancer and whose fathers had prostate cancer, but they didn't think it was okay to talk about prostate cancer on the floor of the House of Representatives until women started talking about breast cancer. The discussion of breast cancer seemed to give them permission to talk about prostate cancer. 

Molinari: This is true of any institution, any corporation, any university. I'm a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-family medical leave, pro-nationalized daycare Republican, and I'm mouthy about those issues. I'm also a New York Italian, so I was mouthy about that too. But in order to get the equity to allow me to push these issues, I worked hard on issues like balancing the budget, cutting taxes, strengthening defense. With these issues, I was able to build up my party equity so that I was not given a bye. That is how you succeed in anything in life.

Collins: That extra duty was all the time. You have your home district constituency, but members of the Black Caucus (at that time when there were so few of us) often got mail and requests from people who did not have black representatives. They seemed to feel that because we were African-Americans, we understood their issues better. In one instance, we were approached by people in a state that's known for catfish farming. They sent letters saying that the catfish farms were not good and that the workers were not being cared for. As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but with our own money, we went to that state to see what the conditions were. They were not good, so we talked to people and created noise and had press conferences. It didn't have a thing to do with the Seventh Congressional District of Chicago - except that we like to eat a lot of catfish in the Seventh District - but in fact we went there and we made a difference because the plant was cleaned up and conditions improved. 

There are always ancillary requests from people who feel that they don't have representation. On women's issues, for example, long before I went to Congress, Congresswoman Edith Green [D-Ore.] decided that we needed help on the Education Committee to get women into more sports in universities. She felt that women needed to have an opportunity to show that they were good athletes as well as the men. So she introduced a piece of legislation, Title IX of the Education Act. These are the kinds of things that you call invisible labor: issues that come up that don't just affect your own individual congressional district. Members of Congress think about national legislation to benefit everybody in the nation, not just our little narrow provinces.

Molinari: That is right. We function in an institution that has been created and fostered by human beings. In addition to what you do for your district, you naturally gravitate toward issues that are relevant to you. If my grandmother had not died from breast cancer, maybe I wouldn't have been as interested. But you have to understand: for the people who didn't take the lead, the issue just wasn't as relevant to them. There were issues before all of us that we could have worked harder on, but we weren't quite comfortable in how to get there and so it wasn't a good use of our time. Human nature allows us to respond and take the lead on those issues that are relevant to our life experience.

Vucanovich: On some issues, women are a very different constituency, a whole different constituency, whose interests are not as visible. I represented a district where 86 percent of our land is federally owned. My constituents were miners, ranchers, and other people who deal with the land. But my constituency also included ranchers' wives and even an organization called "Women in Mining." I asked some of the women in the mining group to come to Washington to meet some of my colleagues because we were battling about what we should be doing on public lands and not kicking ranchers and mining people off the land. Most of the women were either geologists or they drove these big huge trucks with wheels this high. One gal had gone from making five dollars an hour as a waitress to twenty-five or thirty dollars an hour in mining. But because of the pressure to regulate public lands, the mining companies were moving to Chile and elsewhere. These women had families and children to care for, so they couldn't just pick up and go like the men. I got these women to come to Washington and introduced them to a lot of my colleagues so that they would see that there were women in mining, too.

Heckler: There are differences in language too. It's absolutely true that women see things differently and say things differently. That's why it was necessary for the women, who intuitively understand, to speak. The men who didn't understand, didn't experience and had not read about these problems, brushed them aside in the pressure of time to prioritize life . . .When we were voting on the Equal Rights Amendment, I was walking through the line with Chairman Natcher, who was a brilliant man and an expert on so many things, and he turned around and asked, "Margaret, what is this about?" He just really didn't understand. I think this gap is narrowing but it hasn't disappeared. 

Collins: I think the most interesting times of all were the times when we all forged together. When I first went to Congress in 1973, there were thirteen women there. One of the things that we did in order to have our voices heard was to come together as a group. We called ourselves "the Congresswomen's Caucus." We got together at least once a week, and sometimes more than that, to talk about women's issues. This was such a dynamic group of women. Once, we all decided to be seen as well as heard, so we all wore red that day. And when we walked on the floor of the House, all the fellas said, "What are those gals up to?" We didn't say a word. We just stood there in all of our red to let them know that we were a voting bloc. That was important. 

Kennelly: I've always believed that if you want to affect public policy, you have to be in the room where the decisions are being made. I took a good look around when I got to Congress in 1982, and I saw that no woman was on the Ways and Means Committee. This is a committee that oversees the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare which are so important to women. I just knew that there should be a woman in that room. So I ran for the committee - you have to run for committees, especially the Ways and Means and the Appropriations. I had the hardest campaign you can ever imagine, but I got on the committee and stayed there for eight years. Then another woman, Nancy Johnson [R-Conn.] got on, and I helped her get on because women have to be in the room. This past year when I was thinking of retiring, I traded everything I had to make sure that Karen Thurman [D-Fla.] got on the Ways and Means Committee because I could not leave Congress if there wasn't a woman representing women. We women live forever; we need that Social Security!

There was no woman on the Intelligence Committee, so I went to the Speaker, Tip O'Neill [D-Mass.], and I said "Tip, war and peace, life and death, and there's no woman in that closed room?" He listened to me and didn't appoint me because Eddie Boland [D-Mass.], his best friend (and the committee chair), had a candidate. But I went back when Jim Wright [D-Tex.] was speaker, and I said "Jim, war and peace, life and death." And he appointed me.

Hawkesworth: There are some great studies that show that women in politics are not treated the same way as men are by the media. Have you had some experiences you'd like to share? 

Vucanovich: I think there's no question that the press covers women differently. They ask different questions if you're a candidate. They ask if you are married, how many kids you have. Those are always the first two questions that you get as a woman candidate. The press seems to be very concerned about what women candidates and officeholders are wearing. I have to say I was treated fairly well by the media, but my opponents were tough sometimes. One of my opponents called me an "old bag," and when I won, a lot of women who supported me got together and took out a big ad in the paper called "Old Bags for Barb."

Heckler: You can also use the press as your ally. For example, I wanted to go on the Agriculture Committee as a consumer advocate, and I was told there wasn't room on the committee. I kept insisting. Finally, I said to my leader John Rhodes [R-Ariz.], "John, I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have a press conference. I'm going to say the Republican Party will not tolerate a consumer advocate on the Agriculture Committee." Well, what do you know, the committee room was transformed and there was a seat for me. He had to add two Democrats for my Republican seat, but I had the seniority to go on that committee. 

Today, the press is different than it was then. Now we're in a situation where there is almost too much conversation. Twenty-four hours a day is just too much. When there is no news, they have to fill the time and the space with trivia. It's irrelevant and very misleading to the public. This is a major media problem, but I don't know that it's just the women who have it.

Molinari: On the positive side, women in the media have helped to foster where we've come as women in Congress. They picked up a lot of the work that we did in Congress, the bills we tried to pass. I think a lot of the women on TV helped make these issues we were trying to scratch out of the ground into political issues. In some cases, frankly, they became our right arm in moving those issues to the national spotlight.

Vucanovich: Regardless of the issue, you need to do your homework. If you're a Republican, you'd better find a Democrat to cosponsor with you. You really need to look for your allies before you start. You have to build your coalitions. You find allies, and you make sure that you can work with somebody to help you. You can't do it alone. 

When you are new, you sit with the people who were elected when you were - your class - and it has nothing to do with gender. You get to know a lot about them and their families because their families come with them. One of my classmates was John McCain [R-Ariz.], and you know, he's kind of a prickly guy, but we did a lot of things together. We also had a big battle. We were both vying for one seat on the Appropriations Committee. The Democrats were in control and they grew so tired of us two Republicans battling that they put both of us on the committee.

Kennelly: Barbara is so right about class. Classes stay friendly right from the beginning to the end. I came in on a special election. Oh, my heavens, was I lonely! But Mo Udall [D-Ariz.] always asked me "How you doing? How you doing?" One day I asked him, "Why are you always asking me 'How you doing?'" He said, "I came in on a special and I know how it is." But two people, Geraldine Ferraro [D-N.Y.] and Barbara Mikulski [D-Md.], got friendly with me and helped me and to this day we are best friends. There is something there, it's chemistry among women.

Vucanovich: Look at all of us - we're Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice, all of those things - and yet we're crazy about each other.

Heckler: You are right, the camaraderie, the friendships were so great. Bella Abzug [D-N.Y.] and I were so different. I never wanted to be in a picture with Bella because she had this big hat and I was five-foot-two and one-eighth. I disappeared. I also didn't want my district to think I was voting the way she was voting. They may not have liked it. But I loved Bella. We were the best of friends. When she said she was running for the Senate, I gave her political advice about her wardrobe during the campaign. I said "Bella, get a dress designer and wear pearls. Always wear pearls." 

When I was invited to China, she called me and said, "Oh, there are all those Republicans on this trip and now with the one vacancy left, they've invited you to fill it. If it weren't you, I'd have a press conference." And she would have! "Bella," I said, "I'll represent you when I get there." I told the Chinese that I was honored to be the first woman invited but I hoped that they would invite the other congresswomen as well. We had a second trip to China, and they invited all the women to come back and we took our children along. But if Bella had not restrained herself, I might not have been on that first trip and the second trip might never have materialized. Some of my sadness about Congress is that as wonderful, interesting, and fascinating as the people truly are, there isn't enough time for these special friendships. Your schedule is so busy. But for me, the friendships with the women were the sustaining friendships.

Molinari: When you have the sustaining friendships, you're going to be nicer, you're going to raise the level of debate on the floor, you're not going to make it personal. That is human nature.

Molinari: I'd like to start it because that's really easy. I think the biggest impact that any one of us has had is that there are little girls in first and second grade who now say they want to be president of the United States. If we do nothing else - and Lord knows together, taking myself out of the equation, the women on this stage have done amazing things for this country - but if we have done nothing but inspire a few little girls to want to take power and use it to make this world a better place, then that's a generational shift that we can be proud of.

Collins: One of the things that I'm proudest of today is the fact that when I turn on my television, I see young women on the women's NBA, playing basketball. When I see the WNBA on television and as I look at the arenas and I see them filling up more and more, it tells me that women are getting a fair shake in another area, in another sector. That makes me very proud.

Kennelly: Concerning Congress, I worry sometimes that women don't understand. I get so annoyed when people say, "Well, Congress isn't as much as fun as it used to be." Well, it's not meant to be fun. It's a sacrifice. You leave your home, you leave your family, and then you go back and forth all the time, and the schedule is pretty rough. But the point of the matter is that public policy is being made and you've got to have more women there. Now I'm at the Social Security Administration and I travel all over, but in every speech I give, I say why it's so good to run for Congress, just hoping somebody will listen. We need more women. There simply aren't enough to make big things happen, and perhaps that's why things happen so slowly. 

They haven't figured out a way for anybody to have a baby but us, and we're in and out of that workforce. As a result, when your Social Security is figured out, you get a zero for those years you stayed home with your children. But as I said earlier, you have to be in the room. By having women in the room where the decisions are being made, issues relevant to women will be brought up.

Molinari: I think there has just got to be a huge, huge cultural shift that I don't, frankly, think I'm going to see in my life time. It shouldn't be a sign of weakness if, in the middle of a work day, someone gets a call, mother or father, that the baby is sick and they have to leave. There has got to be the shifting of priorities that makes it a little easier for everybody to say, "This [family] is my primary concern."

Heckler: I have to say that of all the things I have done, I loved being a mother. Careers come and go and one can always catch up, but those precious years are very few. Now these are hard judgments [between work and family]. There isn't an automatic ratio. There's no special balance, but we have to decide what the priorities are and, again, create the context. I think we have to be more responsive as a society, reaching out to each other and helping. There's nothing to say that we can't help each other at different stages of life. And there has to be a way to do that, changing our relationships and our modes of working. Frankly, I don't know how [young career] women are going to cope unless they decide what the priorities are and unless we give them support and help.