Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55030965
label
Domestic Women’s Issues No.3 [Binder] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55030965
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Domestic Women’s Issues No.3 [Binder] [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Issues and Events files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55030965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42219138-20130534S-033-003-2022
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
63c61c2ccc19d339
ocrText
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
2/17/99
Divider Title:
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1999
FINAL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SCHEDULER:
MOLLY BUFORD
202/456-5315 PHONE
202/456-5340
FAX
202/244-2125 HOME
WHCA PAGER
#4452
PREV RON Washington, D.C.
11:30 am-
MEETING
11:45 am
Residence
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS:
The First Lady
Ellen Lovell
Marsha Berry
11:45 am-
MILLENNIUM MEETING
12:45 pm
Residence
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS:
The First Lady
Marsha Berry
Anne Donovan
Missy Kincaid
Ellen Lovell
Capricia Marshall
Shirley Sagawa
Melanne Verveer
CONTACT: Ellen Lovell 202/456-2411
12:50 pm-
PRIVATE MEETING
1:45 pm
Residence
CLOSED PRESS/NO WH PHOTO
1:50 pm-
MEET AND GREET
1:55 pm
Blue Room
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS:
The President
The First Lady
Secretary Robert Rubin
Representative Tammy Baldwin
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1999
PAGE 2
Senator Charles Robb
Administrator Kenneth Apfel
Sharon Bridger
2:00 pm-
SOCIAL SECURITY EVENT
3:00 pm
East Rooom
OPEN PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
The First Lady makes welcoming remarks and
introduces Administrator Kenneth Apfel.
-
Administrator Kenneth Apfel makes brief
remarks and introduces Secretary Robert
Rubin.
-
Secretary Robert Rubin makes brief remarks
and introduces Representative Tammy Baldwin.
-
Representative Tammy Baldwin makes remarks
and introduces Senator Charles Robb.
-
Senator Charles Robb makes remarks and
introduces Sharon Bridger.
-
Sharon Bridger makes remarks and introduces
the President.
-
The President makes remarks and departs.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 130 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Laura Schwartz 202/456-5655
RON
Washington, D.C.
FEBRUARY 17, 1999, WEDNESDAY
REMARKS BY MRS. HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY,
U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY ROBERT E. RUBIN,
AND KENNETH F. APFEL, COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SUBJECT: REFORMING SOCIAL SECURITY
OTHER SPEAKERS:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI),
SHARON BRIGNER (sp)
THE EAST ROOM
THE WHITE HOUSE
BODY:
MRS. CLINTON: (Applause.) Thank you, and welcome. It's a pleasure to have you
join us here in the East Room of the White House.
I am delighted to see so many young people here and very pleased that you, in
effect, are representing millions and millions of other young Americans who care
deeply about their own futures and about the future of our country. I am
delighted that we are joined by Secretary Rubin and Social Security Commissioner
Apfel. We also are joined with Janet Yellen and Jack Lew and Gene Sperling.
And in addition to Senator Robb and Congresswoman Baldwin, who you will hear
from shortly, we are pleased to be joined by Representative Steny Hoyer and
Representative Sandy Levin. I am also told that there are two state
representatives here, Representative Davidson and Representative Saxel (sp),
both from the state of Maine.
We are delighted to have elected officials, as well as national leaders, and all
of you here, to talk about one of the most critical challenges of our time,
preserving and strengthening Social Security for future generations.
You will be hearing from a young woman in a few minutes, who is here with her
husband, Sharon Brigner (sp). And I know that she will be speaking really on
behalf of so many of you and so many others.
This is an important event for the White House and for the president and the
administration. And that is why we have invited young people, who have a
particular interest in this debate that is going on in our country. In
particular, we have a group of students from the Youth Leadership Academy at the
University of Maryland, who came in with the president and the rest of us. And
they are part of the James McGregor Burns Leadership Academy that studies public
policy, and we are delighted that they could be with us.
We have also invited young leaders from across the country to join us here at
the White House or via satellite, and there are downlinks to over 40 campuses
nationwide, from Oregon to Ohio to Florida. Congressman Baldwin told me that
she is sure that some of the students that she knows at the University of
Wisconsin will be listening in and watching this proceeding, as well.
Now many, many years ago, I got my first Social Security card as a teenager.
Back then, I didn't know why I had to get this card to have my first job and be
paid. I only vaguely understood Social Security as something that my
grandparents were involved with, I thought. And I really didn't know much about
the whole system that had been created that was not only for retirement, but
served as a family security system in so many ways.
It's very important that we now take a look at this system, and that's why the
president has proposed a bold new framework to preserve Social Security for
generations to come. And although the majority of Social Security recipients
may be elderly, they are by no means the only Americans who rely on this system.
Nearly one-third of all beneficiaries are either disabled, or survivors, or
they're dependents, and almost four million are young people. So Social
Security, in a very real sense, is America's family protection program, and that
means that young or old, we do have a stake in its future.
Now, I know in my conversations with young people on campuses and in other
settings, oftentimes they say to me, "Well, you know, why is this an issue that
affects me? You know, I'm not even sure it will be there. I don't know
anything about it. I don't really see that it's part of my life right now, or
even my future." But I think that, in measure, can be answered by the fact that
anyone's life can change overnight, and Social Security is there to give people
the support they often need and can't find anywhere else to pick up the pieces
and move on.
I know of a young woman, Tyra Brown (sp) from Oklahoma, who lost her mother when
she was only 15 years old. Social Security enabled her to survive that
difficult time, and now, thankfully, she's thriving in college. Or Paul
Marshall (sp), a young husband and father from here in Washington, D.C., was
struck by a stray bullet, something he could have never predicted or thought
would happen to him, leaving him a quadripalegic. But thanks to what Paul calls
"a family program for all ages," Social Security is helping to take care of his
children and support his mother, with whom he lives in order to get the care
that he needs.
Many of our citizens are especially reliant on Social Security, particularly
women and minorities. We know that without Social Security, about half of all
American women would be living in poverty, and nearly two-thirds of all older
Hispanic Americans and African Americans would be living in poverty. Just stop
and think for a moment about being in the supermarket or at church, or anywhere
else that we see other people, and just mentally count-off for yourself every
other woman, older woman, that you see, were it not for Social Security, would
be in poverty. Women make up the majority of Social Security recipients because
we live longer, and for a quarter of America's elderly women, their monthly
check is their sole support.
Now, these are the kinds of statistics that we all need to know more about,
because we are making progress, but for women, particularly, we still have lower
lifetime earnings, we reach retirement with smaller pensions and fewer assets,
and Social Security therefore provides special benefits that help elderly women.
But as the president said in his State of the Union, we still have to be
concerned that older women are likely to be poor at twice the rate of older men.
There's a lot we have to be worrying about, studying about, and working about if
we want to preserve and strengthen Social Security well into the 21st century,
if we want to further reduce elderly poverty, if we want to take advantage of
this robust economy to strengthen our society for years to come, and if we do
not want to burden our children and our grandchildren, then the time to make
decisions is now. We also must preserve Medicare, making sure that it, too, is
at the top of the nation's agenda.
We need to hear from everyone. You know, it's easier, perhaps, to be cynical or
disengaged, but that will not help us in making the right decisions for the
future. And many young people represented here and watching this around the
country know that they want to be a part of this debate.
Now, someone who knows a lot about Social Security and the debate that we are
having in our country is the commissioner of Social Security, who is committed
to working with the president and everyone in the administration to come up with
solutions that will really stand the test of time. So please join me in
welcoming Commissioner Apfel.
(Applause.)
MR. APFEL: Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, and thank you for all your support over the
years to keep a strong Social Security system.
For more than 60 years now, Social Security has been part of the fabric of this
country. It's provided financial independence to generations upon generations
of older Americans. And as the first lady pointed out, it's also provided
support for millions and millions of younger people through disability insurance
coverage and survivors benefits when someone dies, when a parent dies.
Social Security has a remarkable record of past accomplishments. But we're here
today not so much to talk about the past, but to talk about the future. And we
do face challenges, real challenges, based mostly to demographic change in this
country. And we need to prepare for the future. The president and the vice
president have made saving Social Security a national priority. And they've
urged all Americans young and old to get involved in discussions about the
future of this vital program.
And today, Mr. President, college students all across the country are doing just
that. As part of our public education responsibilities within Social Security,
we of the Social Security Administration today are linking up the White House
right now to the college campus. Joining us today via satellite are more than a
thousand students at 43 colleges and universities in 28 states. And at these
sites students will be participating with Social Security representatives and
others in various local forums on the future of Social Security.
For example, at Temple University in Philadelphia, James Roosevelt, the grandson
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who now serves with distinction in this
administration, is joining students from four local colleges who have gathered
to talk about financing issues with Social Security. At the University of
Southern California, Congressman Xavier Beccera is joining students to talk
about the need for young people to be involved in discussions about Social
Security. At Florida International University, Aida Alvarez, the administrator
of the Small Business Administration, will be talking with students about Social
Security. At the Miami University of Ohio Professors Kathy McGrew (sp) and
Robert Appelbaum (sp) will be facilitating discussions with students. And these
are just a few examples of what's happening on campuses today.
Throughout the country today young people are focusing on the future. We owe it
to them, I believe, to make sure that Social Security will be part of that
future.
It is now my deep honor to introduce the managing trustee of the Social
Security trust funds, a member of this administration who has worked tirelessly
to ensure economic security for all Americans. You may have heard that he is a
principal on the Committee to Save the World. (Laughter.) I am just glad he's a
principal on the Committee to Save Social Security. Secretary Rubin.
(Applause.)
SEC. RUBIN: Thank you. Thank you, Ken. When Ken said he was going to introduce
me, I suggested he be effusive. (Laughter.) I didn't think he'd take the
suggestion. (Laughs.) In any event, it's a pleasure to be with you, Mr.
President, First Lady, and distinguished guests.
Let me start by saying that a remarkable transformation has taken place in this
country. As a result of the strong leadership by the president we have gone
from an era of large and growing budget deficits to an era of budget surpluses
and to what many consider to be the best economic conditions in decades. And
that has led today to an historic opportunity to position our country for
economic health in the years and decades ahead.
The surplus means the end of ongoing yearly deficits, but not the end of our
accumulated national debt. Seizing this historic opportunity, President Clinton
has put forth a plan to set aside more than $3 trillion over the next 15 years
to retire over two-thirds of the publicly held debt of the federal government.
During the 1980s and early 1990s before President Clinton took office, that debt
had quadrupled. But under the president's plan we estimate that publicly held
debt of the federal government will fall from 50 percent of the economy, which
it was at when he was elected, to about 7 percent of the economy in 2014, its
lowest level since the United States entered the First World War. The
president's plan will increase national savings and reduce the federal
government's use of our national savings, a reverse crowding-out, which in turn
should increase private investment, reduce interest rates, increase job growth,
and increase standards of living in the years and decades ahead.
Let me say one more word, if I may, before introducing the next speaker. I've
been working on economic issues in this administration for a little over six
years. And this event is a reminder of how powerfully the president has led on
difficult issues to create and to contribute so much to creating the economic
conditions that we now have, to contribute to creating this historic opportunity
to retire publicly held debt of the federal government, and contributing to
positioning this country for a healthy future in the decades ahead.
With that, I would like to introduce a new member of Congress from the state of
Wisconsin, Representative Tammy Baldwin. (Applause.)
REP. BALDWIN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Brigner
(sp). Thank you also Secretary Rubin, Commissioner Apfel, Senator Robb. It is
an honor to be here today. And I must admit if you would have told me a few
years ago that I would be a member of Congress at age 37 and be standing here
with the President of the United States at the White House, I would have said
that you were a little foolish. But I can think of no greater honor than to
participate in this historic effort to assure that Medicare and Social Security
remain solvent for generations to come.
I wanted to be here today to offer an intergenerational perspective on saving
Social Security and Medicare, to put a human face on this historic challenge.
There's a photograph that I often carry with me these days. It captures the
moment that my grandmother first held her very first great-grandchild, my cousin
Jennifer. There is a 90-year age span between my grandmother and Jennifer. But
to me, they both represent the reasons we must rise to the challenge of
protecting Social Security and Medicare.
I firmly believe that I would not be standing before you today, were it not for
Social Security and Medicare. You see, those two programs together enabled my
grandmother to live independently until she was nearly 90 years old. And as her
primary caregiver for the last several years, I know the role Social Security
plays in making ends meet. And I know the vital role that Medicare plays in
protecting her health and assuring that a medical crisis will not lead to
financial ruin.
You see, it's not just a commitment we made to our seniors; it's a commitment we
made to families. I would never turn my back on my grandmother. Who among us
would turn our backs on our parents or grandparents? And so it is just as
important to young people that we have Social Security and Medicare as it is to
our seniors, because it keeps our families strong and our communities strong.
My grandmother has witnessed and experienced and sacrificed so much in her life.
She's lived through two World Wars, a Great Depression. She's raised two
daughters and helped my mother raise me. Yet when I look at that photograph, I
realize how much my grandmother and I see the future through the eyes of that
young child, my cousin Jennifer.
If Jennifer is lucky enough to go to college, she will graduate in the year
2019. And if she leads a full work life, she's going to retire in the year
2062. I don't know what it's going to look like in 2062. None of us do. But
we can dream of what we want to leave Jennifer's generation as our legacy. My
grandmother and I do all the time. We want Jennifer to have every opportunity
possible. We want her to have the best education possible, to have secure
health care, a good job that pays a good wage. We want her to have clean air
and clean water. And we want Jennifer to know that programs like Social
Security and Medicare that protected her parents, her cousins, her aunts, her
grandparents, and her great-grandparents will still be there for her in 2062.
These are pretty basic dreams, and I dare say there are many grandmothers like
my own who are looking at us right now; who are entrusting us with the sacred
responsibility of fulfilling that legacy.
It is now my great honor to introduce a man who's been a consistent voice of
fiscal responsibility in the United States Senate. He has recognized the need
to preserve Social Security far before it was popular by being one of three
senators to sponsor bipartisan Social Security reform in May of 1995, and I am
proud to say that he is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin. (Laughter.)
Please welcome Senator Chuck Robb. (Applause.)
SEN. CHARLES ROBB (D-VA): Thank you, Tammy. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton,
Secretary Rubin, Mr. Aptel (sic); Sharon, I'll introduce you more formally in
just a minute, but thank you for that introduction. I should tell you that I
don't always mention that particular proud part of my academic heritage when I
represent another state, but that's -- (Laughter.) In any event, I am delighted
to join you and other members of Congress who are here today on this important
occasion, and I am particularly pleased that I can be the representative --
turns out I am the sole representative of the United States Senate. Of course,
that's only the current United States Senate that I am referring to in this
particular instance -- (groans from audience) -- and you never can tell what
might happen in years to come.
Let me say that first of all, when the first lady mentioned Social Security --
(laughter) -- actually, that was not supposed to be a segue, but it was anyhow.
(Laughter.) When the first lady mentioned Social Security, I -- I've got another
one, though. (Laughter.) When the first lady mentioned Social Security, I
started looking for my Social Security card, because I still have that document
and until very recently I had it in my wallet, but I realized it's becoming --
as I'm turning 60, my card is turning yellow -- (laughter) -- and I retrieved
it and put it in my permanent safe deposit box SO that I would have that
particular document. But I have had that original card.
We can't talk about Social Security, however, if we don't mention one Senate
colleague, at least, and that's Seneral -- Seneral -- that's a combination
between my military background and my current -- Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, who has announced he is going to retire. I don't think there is any
member of Congress, with all due deference to my distinguished colleagues from
Michigan and Maryland as well as Wisconsin and others that are here, that has
been more conscientious about being ahead of the curve with respect to Social
Security than Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
And he has announced he is going to retire at the end of this term, and he has
been a singular intellect in the Senate -- someone who will be missed in ways
that we can't even begin to comprehend, and all I can say to New York is I hope
that you find someone of similar intellect and stature to replace this great
forward-thinking mind in the United States Senate! (Laughter, applause.)
Now actually, Bob, I wasn't -- Bob is from New York as well, and I have great
regard for Bob Rubin -- (laughter). And at an appropriate time I suspect that
he'll be returning to his roots. Let me just say -- (laughter) -- which is Wall
Street, which means he will renounce his vow of poverty that he's been in a for
a few years!
Let me say that when you talk about Social Security, most of us remember a
survey of young people that was taken a few years ago, and it found that more
young people believed in USOs (sic) -- UFOs than believed -- another slip back
to my service days -- believed in UFOs than believed that Social Security was
going to be there for them when they needed it. And that was a real wake-up
call for those of us who had positions of public policy responsibility at this
particular time, and it ought to be.
We went through the '80s with a period of significant deficit spending. We ran
up huge deficits and increased the debt because we were doing tax cuts and we
were doing additional spending. And it wasn't until 1993 that we had a
president who had a plan, a bold plan for deficit reduction, that I regret to
say at the time didn't attract the kind of bipartisan support that a later
balanced budget plan did. But it was at that time that we made the critical
decision that deficits mattered, we were going to do something about deficits
because our continued accumulation of debt, because we weren't dealing with the
deficit problem, was what was threatening the future of most of you who are
seated in this room today.
Most of you are students -- and giving some of you the benefit of the doubt, I
recognize. (Laughter.) But in any event, as the father of three daughters, one
of whom actually lived in the White House for a short period of time -- actually
we were married 31-plus years ago on this precise spot that I happen to be
standing -- but to digress.
We have talked about the future and the fact that if the people who were going
to be subject to our lack of will and intestinal fortitude in dealing with a
very serious problem didn't stand up and be counted, that we weren't the ones
that were going to suffer.
All -- everybody who's seated on the stage today is going to be covered, and
it's there for them. But the folks who are going to suffer are the people who
are the twenty-somethings and younger today, and your children are the ones that
are going to suffer. So I have particular praise for this president for
standing up at a critical time and making a very difficult decision, and making
a decision now to save Social Security.
I liked the State of the Union message last year when the -- very early on the
president said the most important thing we can do when we finally manage to see
beyond the red ink into the black ink is to save the additional surplus. We
have been using that surplus to offset our regular spending and all the other
programs. We've been putting IOUs in that trus I know that Gene Sperling and
others here will talk about the mechanics later on. But the bottom line is we
needed to make decisions now that would save the Social Security surplus for
Social Security, and I appreciate the fact that the president has done that.
And in order to give the President of the United States a proper introduction,
I'd like to call on a New Virginian. She's actually from Texas, from whence I
managed to make a selection earlier on in my life as well. But she and her
husband Paul moved here. He is in the computer high tech software business.
The person who is going to introduce the president is a registered nurse who
lives in our neighborhood in McLean but commutes each day over to this side of
the river to work for the National Institute of Health. To introduce the
President of the United States, may I introduce Sharon Brigner (sp). (Applause.)
MS. BRIGNER (sp): Thank you, Senator Robb.
It is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon as a representative of a
generation sometimes forgotten in the Medicare and Social Security debates.
Even among ourselves we often think of Social Security and Medicare as programs
for our grandparents, and even eventually to benefit our parents. But we always
don't go down that road in our own imaginations for ourselves. That is why I am
so grateful to the president and the first lady and to the other leaders here
with us today for their dedication to the young people of this country and to
their commitment for assuring a secure future for us.
I am 26 years old and I am a registered nurse. I've been a nurse for two years
now. I work at the National Institute of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda,
Maryland where I give direct patient care in a research setting. I take care of
patients of all different ages from all over the world, from all different walks
of life who are participating in our research protocols.
In addition to influencing health care as a registered nurse, I also value the
ability to influence health care through my work in health policy at George
Mason's University Center for Health Policy.
As a nurse, my profession is dedicated to serving society's health and wellness
needs. This can be in a variety of settings, in hospitals, in community
clinics, in outpatient settings and research institutions like the one where I
practice.
One thing that my work has taught me is that we can never take our future for
granted. We never know if tomorrow will bring sickness, or even the loss of a
job, or some kind of accident that can suddenly, almost instantly, wipe out the
security that we have assumed that will always be there for us. While we can
never be sure what the future will bring, we can be prepared for it.
Those of us in my generation know that my parents, grandparents and great
grandparents worked hard to establish a system, a system that allows all
Americans to have basic income when they can no longer work, and health care for
when they are elderly or disabled. It is now our generation's responsibility to
use all of our resources, such as the Internet, and to gain knowledge about the
issues and become proactive in the fight to save Medicare and Social Security.
Social Security and Medicare are a precious legacy to my generation, and I look
to the president and to the leaders of our country to keep it strong for us. In
return, I pledge that when the leadership passes to my generation, I will do
everything in my power to make sure that our children and grandchildren benefit
from this foundation, a foundation that has been created and strengthened over
the past 50 years. And I hope that it will remain strong for them.
It is now my great pleasure and honor to introduce to you the president of the
United States, Bill Clinton.
END
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: February 18, 1999
02/16/99 TUE 19:52 FAX
1
001
'99 FEB 16 PM6:38
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1999
SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE EVENT
DATE:
February 17, 1999
TIME:
1:30-1:50pm (Pre-brief)
1:50-2:00pm (Meet and Greet)
2:00-3:00pm (Event)
LOCATION: Map Room (Pre-brief)
Blue Room (Meet& Greet)
Event (East Room)
FROM:
Gene Sperling
Mary Beth Cahill
I.
PURPOSE
To highlight how your plan to save Social Security and strengthen Medicare, while
maintaining fiscal discipline, is the best approach for America's young people.
II.
BACKGROUND
Why Your Plan Benefits Young People:
Some commentators have stated that your plan to allocate the surpluses would
redistribute more money from younger Americans to older Americans. The goal of this
event is to highlight how your plan benefits younger Americans. Rather than consuming
the surplus for today, you propose to reserve nearly 90 percent of the projected budget
surpluses -- almost $4 trillion -- over the next 15 years for the future to help meet the
long-term retirement challenge.
There are a number of reasons why this plan is good for young Americans.
First, it ensures that Social Security benefits will be there for today's young
Americans. Your proposal extends the life of the Trust Fund through 2055. By
working with Congress in a bipartisan way, we are working to extend Social Security for
75 years. For a worker who is 20 years old today, he/she will be assured of a strong and
stable benefit when he or she retires under this framework. In addition, your framework
reserves 12 percent of the projected surpluses to create new Universal Savings Accounts
(USAs) so that young people can begin saving and start building wealth to meet their
future retirement needs.
02/16/99 TUE 19:53 FAX
002
Second, by paying off the national debt, your plan lifts an enormous burden off
future generations. As you know, during the 1980's and early 1990's, the federal debt
quadrupled. As a share of GDP, the publicly held debt increased from 26 percent in 1981
to 50 percent in 1993. Today, as a result of your 1993 Economic Plan and the 1997
Balanced Budget Agreement, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 44 percent, and your proposal
would cut it by more than two thirds in dollar terms and lower it to 7.1 percent, as a share
of the economy, by 2014 its lowest level since 1917. As David Broder wrote in the
Washington Post [2/7/99], this is "the greatest gift to our children." Here's why:
It Will Help Grow The Economy For Our Children. Your framework will cut the
federal debt, thereby raising national savings. Higher national savings will mean lower
interest rates, higher private-sector investment, and thus, higher economic growth in the
future.
It Will Cut The Interest Payments Our Children Pay on the Federal Debt. When
you took office, interest payments on the federal debt were projected to eat up 27 cents of
every budget dollar in 2014. Today, interest payments on the debt take up about 13 cents
of every tax dollar. Under your proposal, interest payments would shrink to just 2 cents
on every dollar by 2014.
It Will Ensure That We Do Not Leave a Legacy of Debt to Our Children. Your
proposal would cut the debt held by the public, as a share of the economy, to 7.1 percent
in 2014. This would mean that instead of leaving a mountain of debt for our children, we
would completely eliminate the national debt by 2018.
Finally, your proposal ensures that Social Security will continue to help young
people today. By saying no to radical privatization, your plan promises that Social
Security will continue to provide both disability and survivors insurance protection to
workers and their families. For an average young family with two small children, Social
Security provides benefits which are the equivalent to a payout of $600,000 from a
disability and survivors insurance policy. By strengthening Social Security, your plan
ensures that Social Security will continue to provide our parents and grandparents with a
stable benefit - without which many would become dependent on their children for
support.
Sharon Bridgner
You will be introduced by Sharon Bridgner of McLean, Virginia. She is a 26-year old and works
as a clinical research nurse of neurology at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She formerly
served as the President of the Student Nurses Association and is a member of the American
Nurses Association. She also works part time at the George Mason University, School of Public
Policy. As a young nurse, she sees first hand every day the importance of Social Security and
Medicare to current retirees and will discuss how essential these programs are to her generation.
02/16/99 TUE 19:53 FAX
4
003
Audience
The audience will be filled with approximately 150 young people from all different groups, such
as 2030 center, Economic Security 2000, local student groups.
III. PARTICIPANTS
Pre-brief
John Podesta
Secretary Rubin
Jack Lew
Gene Sperling
Ken Apfel
Larry Stein
Meet and Greet
John Podesta
Secretary Rubin
Jack Lew
Gene Sperling
Ken Apfel
Larry Stein
Sen. Charles Robb (D-VA)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Rep. Robert Matsui (D-MD)
IV.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
-
YOU receive briefing in the Map Room.
-
YOU meet Members of Congress in Blue Room.
-
YOU accompanied by the the First Lady, Secretary Rubin, Ken Apfel,
Representative Tammy Baldwin, Senator Chuck Robb, Sharon Bridgner (real
person), and 10 youth from James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership,
University of Maryland are announced into the East Room.
-
The First lady makes brief remarks and introduces Commissioner Apfel.
-
Commissioner Apfel makes brief remarks and introduces Secretary Rubin.
-
Secretary Rubin makes brief remarks and introduces Representative Tammy
Baldwin.
02/16/99 TUE 19:54 FAX
7 00 *1
-
Representative Baldwin makes brief remarks and introduces Senator Chuck Robb.
-
Senator Chuck Robb makes brief remarks and introduces Sharon Bridgner.
-
Sharon Bridgner makes brief remarks and introduces YOU.
-
YOU make remarks
-
YOU depart.
V.
PRESS COVERAGE
Open
VI. REMARKS
To be provided by speechwriting.
February 17, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc021799.html
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 17, 1999
Help Site Map Text Only
Go
TALKING IT OVER
Talking It Over:
1999
President &
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
First Lady
December 15, 1999
Vice President &
December 8, 1999
Mrs. Gore
February 17, 1999
December 1, 1999
Record of
November 24, 1999
Progress
Like many Americans, I got my Social Security
card when I was a teenager and applied for my first
November 17, 1999
The Briefing
job. Then, of course, I didn't think much about what
Room
November 10, 1999
Social Security meant for me or for generations
before me. I didn't understand that my wallet-sized
November 3, 1999
Gateway to
Government
card represented a commitment that every
American could grow old with dignity.
October 27, 1999
Contacting the
October 20, 1999
White House
I also didn't understand that Social Security is not
just for the elderly -- and not just for retirement. I
October 13, 1999
White House
didn't know that nearly one-third of its beneficiaries
for Kids
are either disabled, widows, widowers or surviving
October 6, 1999
dependents. Almost 4 million are young people. In
September 29, 1999
White House
a very real sense, Social Security is a family
History
protection system.
September 22, 1999
White House
When I was a teenager, like many others, I didn't
September 15, 1999
Tours
spend much time thinking about my future, much
September 8, 1999
less about my retirement. Today, sadly, when young
people do take the time to ponder the future, they
September 1, 1999
have little faith that Social Security will even be
there for them when they retire. That's all the more
August 25, 1999
reason for them to get involved in the debate right
August 18, 1999
away.
August 11, 1999
This week, the President and I held an event here at
the White House designed to get everyone thinking
August 4, 1999
about Social Security now.
July 28, 1999
Social Security has affected the lives of people
July 21, 1999
young and old. One young man from Miami had an
incapacitating stroke in his early 30s. Social
July 14, 1999
Security was there to provide disability benefits for
July 7, 1999
his four children, enabling them to grow up healthy
and cared for. After the death of her husband, a
June 30, 1999
retired cafeteria worker from Tennessee started
receiving his benefits, allowing her to live more
June 23, 1999
comfortably. A 15-year-old girl from Oklahoma
June 16, 1999
lost her mother, and Social Security allowed this
1 of 3
9/13/2000 5:13 PM
February 17, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc021799.html
lost her mother, and Social Security allowed this
young woman to continue on to college, where she's
June 9, 1999
now a sophomore majoring in psychology.
June 2, 1999
These stories remind us that anyone's life can
May 26, 1999
change overnight and why it is so important to
include young people in the discussion. I hope that
May 19, 1999
young women in particular will pay attention.
Young women today are making such strides in the
May 12, 1999
workplace, many of them don't think they'll ever
May 5, 1999
need Social Security. But because we never know
when something catastrophic will happen, it is
April 28, 1999
especially critical for women to understand that
they have a unique stake in the future of the Social
April 21, 1999
Security system.
April 14, 1999
Women live longer than men, and although many
April 7, 1999
are moving toward pay equity, lifetime earnings for
March 31, 1999
women remain lower, causing them to reach
retirement with smaller pensions and other financial
March 24, 1999
assets. For a quarter of all older women, Social
Security is the only income they receive -- all that
March 17, 1999
stands between them and destitution. The next time
March 10, 1999
you're in the supermarket or just walking down the
street, take a look around. Without Social Security,
March 3, 1999
every other woman you see over the age of 65
would be living below the poverty line.
February 24, 1999
February 17, 1999
Clearly, it's in all our interests to preserve and
strengthen Social Security into the next century.
February 10, 1999
And if we don't want to burden our children and
grandchildren -- if we want to make sure Social
February 3, 1999
Security remains solvent well into the 21st century
January 27, 1999
-- we must make bold decisions now.
January 20, 1999
The President believes that the best way to keep the
promise of Social Security rock-solid is to avoid
January 13, 1999
drastic cuts in benefits, not to raise payroll tax rates
January 6, 1999
and not to drain resources from the system in the
name of saving it. Instead, he has proposed
committing 62 percent of the budget surplus for the
next 15 years to saving Social Security.
I am pleased that some Republican leaders have
embraced the President's framework, for this issue
is far too important to be sidetracked by partisan
politics. If we want to preserve Social Security as a
family protection system that we can count on into
the next millennium, all our voices must be heard.
Republicans and Democrats, men and women,
young and old -- all Americans must be an integral
part of the public debate.
I hope every American will get involved. I hope
you will take the time to educate yourself about
how Social Security works and what it can mean to
you. I hope you will encourage discussions at home,
2 of 3
9/13/2000 5:13 PM
February 17, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc021799.html
at work, at church and anywhere you gather.
Don't forget: Your voice matters. As we embark on
this critical national debate, make yours heard.
COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE,
INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
President and First Lady
I
Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress
|
The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government
Contacting the White House
White House for Kids
White House History
White House Tours
Help
Text Only
Privacy Statement
3 of 3
9/13/2000 5:13 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=fa334d41030d8aa06d4c949dcba16d13
Copyright 1999 States News Service
States News Service
View Related Topics
February 17, 1999, Wednesday
LENGTH: 552 words
HEADLINE: BALDWIN PROMOTES CLINTON PLAN AT WHITE HOUSE EVENT
BYLINE: By Elizabeth Hurt, States News ervice
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Rep. Tammy Baldwin took a break from her district work period Wednesday to return to
Washington to help President Clinton sell the importance of his social security plan to the
nation's young people.
Baldwin joined Clinton, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin,
Social Security Administration Commissioner Kenneth Apfel and Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., in
promoting Clinton's plan to reserve 62 percent of the projected budget surplus to save Social
Security and 15 percent to save Medicare.
The only member of the House of Representatives invited to speak at the White House event,
the freshman Madison Democrat said it was important to consider Social Security and
Medicare in an "intergenerational" way.
"It's not just a commitment we have made to seniors," Baldwin said. "It's a commitment we
have made to families It is just as important to young people as it is to seniors because it
keeps our families strong and our communities strong."
Baldwin spoke before an audience of 150 people young people from various organizations.
The event was also broadcast live to 41 college campuses, including University of Wisconsin
at Madison.
Administration officials said the event was designed to sharpen the distinctions between the
president's insistence on dealing with Social Security before trimming taxes and the
Republicans' emphasis on across-the-board tax cuts.
"There is fundamentally a very simple choice," Clinton said. "Will our first priority be spending
the budget surplus that we have worked so hard to create on a terrifically appealing tax cut in
the moment, or will our first priority be investing whatever the necessary amount of the surplus
is for at least the next 15 years to strengthen Social Security and Medicare."
Baldwin related her personal experiences as the primary caretaker for her grandmother as she
spoke of the importance of preserving Social Security and Medicare.
"I can think of no greater honor than to participate in this historic effort," Baldwin said. "I would
not be standing before you today if it were not for Social Security and Medicare."
After the event, Baldwin said there are aspects of the Clinton proposal that she is not sure
about, such as his plan to invest part of the surplus into the stock market. However, she said
she is an avid supporter of the spirit of the plan, and will look closely at the investment
proposals.
1 of 2
9/18/2000 2:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=fa334d41030d8aa06d4c949dcba16d13
"I think making a 15-year commitment of 62 percent of the overall surplus to Social Security
and 15 percent to medicare is exactly what we should be doing," Baldwin said. "The most
important thing we have to do it make this commitment now. We can't keep putting it off. That
would be very harmful to future generations because they will bear a greater burden. This has
to be our number one priority."
Although Republicans generally support Clinton's plan to devote 62 percent of the surplus to
Social Security, they believe the rest of the surplus should be transformed into across-th-board
Americans. tax cuts rather than used to save Medicare or to set up saving accounts for working
"Sixty-two percent should be set aside to save Social Security," said Republican National
Committee spokesman Tom Yu. "The rest should go back to the taxpayer. It's an overpayment
in taxes."
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: February 18, 1999
Search within these results:
Search
This will only search up to 1,000 documents, even if your original search retrieved more.
Power Search;hlead (hillary 12 clinton and social security)
About LEXIS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions I Privacy Policy I Support Identifier
Copyright © 2000 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All rights reserved.
2 of 2
9/18/2000 2:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..5=f7569318b6251cfe963b39c02ed5ef18
Copyright 1999 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
Wisconsin State Journal
February 18, 1999, Thursday, ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: Front, Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 499 words
HEADLINE: BALDWIN ON HAND TO HELP SOCIAL SECURITY; SHE PROMOTES CLINTON
PLAN AT WHITE HOUSE EVENT
BYLINE: Elizabeth Hurt States News Service
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin joined President Clinton and others Wednesday in a high-profile effort to
sell Clinton's Social Security plan to the nation's young people.
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Social Security Commissioner
Kenneth Apfel and Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., also appeared at the White House event to promote the
president's plan to reserve 62 percent of the projected budget surplus for Social Security and 15 percent
for Medicare.
Baldwin, the only House member invited to participate, spoke of the importance to consider Social
Security and Medicare in an "intergenerational" way.
"It's not just a commitment we have made to seniors," she said. "It's a commitment we have made to
families.
It is just as important to young people as it is to seniors because it keeps our families strong
and our communities strong."
The freshman Wisconsin Democrat spoke to an audience of 150 young people and to others viewing via
satellite at 41 college campuses, including UW-Madison.
Administration officials said the event was designed to sharpen the distinctions between the president's
insistence on dealing with Social Security before trimming taxes and the Republicans' emphasis on
across-the-board tax cuts.
"There is fundamentally a very simple choice," President Clinton said. "Will our first priority be
spending the budget surplus that we have worked so hard to create on a terrifically appealing tax cut in
the moment, or will our first priority be investing whatever the necessary amount of the surplus is for at
least the next 15 years to strengthen Social Security and Medicare?"
Baldwin told of her experiences as the primary caretaker for her grandmother to emphasize the
importance of preserving Social Security and Medicare.
"I can think of no greater honor than to participate in this historic effort," Baldwin said. "I would not be
standing before you today if it were not for Social Security and Medicare."
Afterward, Baldwin expressed reservations about some aspects of the Clinton proposal, such as his plan
to invest part of the surplus in the stock market. She does, however, support the spirit of the plan, she
said, and promised to look closely at the investment proposals.
"I think making a 15-year commitment of 62 percent of the overall surplus to Social Security and 15
1 of 2
9/18/2000 2:20 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..=5f7569318b6251cfe963b39c02ed5ef18
have to do is make this commitment now. We can't keep putting it off."
percent to Medicare is exactly what we should be doing," Baldwin said. "The most important thing we
Clinton and the GOP agree in principle that 62 percent of the surplus should be used to shore up Social
on cutting taxes.
Security, but no agreement has evolved on how that should be done or what emphasis should be placed
Baldwin isn't the only Wisconsin freshman to gain national exposure on the Social Security debate.
plan. Earlier this month, House Republican leaders turned to Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville to introduce a GOP
GRAPHIC: Associated Press
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., holds up a family photo as she delivers her remarks in the East
Room of the White House on Wednesday. During the event, President Clinton outlined his
administration's proposal to save Social Security.
LOAD-DATE: February 19, 1999
Search within these results:
Search
This will only search up to 1,000 documents, even if your original search retrieved more.
Power Search;hlead (hillary /2 clinton and social security)
About LEXIS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions I Privacy Policy I Support Identifier
Copyright © 2000 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All rights reserved.
2 of 2
9/18/2000 2:20 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..5=6678fa9d2eb20ace2a59cdd9c5b929f0
Copyright 1999 U-WIRE via U-Wire
University Wire
February 18, 1999
LENGTH: 508 words
HEADLINE: Clinton appeals to younger generation with forum
BYLINE: By Andrew Ganz, U-WIRE
SOURCE: DC BUREAU
DATELINE: Washington
BODY:
In an event targeted at young Americans, the president and first lady addressed the issues of Social
Security, Medicare, and the national debt to a packed house in the East Room of the White House
Wednesday.
The gathering, which was simultaneously broadcast to more than 1,000 college students on 41 campuses
in 28 states, included about 150 young people and a host of other guests.
"In my conversations with young people on college campuses across the country, they always ask' why
does Social Security affect me?" Hillary Rodham Clinton said.
people. The first lady said more than 4 million of the Social Security recipients in the United States are young
Addressing the topic of Social Security and young Americans, Sen. Chuck Robb (D-Va.) mentioned a
recent study that he said disturbed him. The survey reported that more young people believe in the
existence of UFOs than believe that Social Security will be around when they retire. "When I was
running for president seven years ago, I encountered a lot of frustration among young people who felt
their parents' generation was abandoning them," President Clinton said.
President Clinton reflected on his college days at Georgetown University, where he said he took a
particularly memorable course in Western civilization.
"The professor said the distinguishing feature of Western civilization is that of future preference,"
President Clinton said. "That each generation should be better off than the one before it."
President Clinton asked that Americans be open-minded when they look at his new plan to save Social
Security for future generations. "I know it may not be popular at first reading," President Clinton said.
"But I have earned the benefit of the doubt."
The basis of his plan is to spend 62 percent of the next 15 years budget surplus on Social Security. Its
goal is to ensure that Social Security will be extended for another 75 years.
"With this plan, Americans in college today will be covered well into their 90s," President Clinton said.
"Everyone here in your 20s should demand this Congress not walk away without a 75-year plan."
The president also stressed that the United States must pay its national debt to maintain a strong
economy in the future.
Given the honor of introducing the president was Sharon Brigner, a 26-year-old registered nurse from
McLean, Va. Brigner was president of the National Student Nurses Association while at Texas Women's
University.
1 of 2
9/18/2000 2:17 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=6678fa9d2eb20ace2a59cdd9c5b929f0
"Everyone always says how young people are so apathetic toward politics, but I just don't see it,"
Brigner said. "I think we really care about (Social Security)."
Neil Aggarwal, a freshman at the University of Maryland-College Park, was presented with an award for
the schools Public Leaders Program. He said he feels that more young people need to understand the
importance of Social Security.
"This is one of the biggest things we're going to have to worry about in the future," Aggarwal said. "We
shouldn't wait until then to do something about it."
(C) 1999 U-WIRE via U-WIRE
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: February 22, 1999
Search within these results:
Search
This will only search up to 1,000 documents, even if your original search retrieved more.
Power Search;hlead (hillary /2 clinton and social security)
About LEXIS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions I Privacy Policy I Support Identifier
Copyright © 2000 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All rights reserved.
2 of 2
9/18/2000 2:17 PM
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
3/10/99
Divider Title:
March 10, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc031099.hml
THE WHITE HOUSE
March 10, 1999
Help Site Map Text Only
Go
TALKING IT OVER
Talking It Over:
1999
President &
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
December 15, 1999
First Lady
December 8, 1999
Vice President &
Mrs. Gore
March 10, 1999
December 1, 1999
Record of
November 24, 1999
Progress
This week, America lost one of its genuine heroes.
Although I never saw Joe DiMaggio play, I have
November 17, 1999
The Briefing
always been a baseball lover and spent hours as a
November 10, 1999
Room
child watching games with my father. I grew up
hearing about DiMaggio's grace and
November 3, 1999
Gateway to
professionalism, and knowing that "The Streak" --
Government
hitting in 56 straight games in 1941 would be one
October 27, 1999
of sports' most enduring records.
Contacting the
October 20, 1999
White House
It was 10 or 11 years ago, in Charleston, W.Va.'s
October 13, 1999
White House
airport, that I had the pleasure of meeting the
for Kids
"Yankee Clipper." En route to Arkansas by way of
October 6, 1999
Washington, I was standing alone with my bags
September 29, 1999
White House
looking up at the flight board when a distinguished
History
gentleman next to me asked if I needed help. When
September 22, 1999
I looked over, there he was. I managed to say, "Yes,
White House
thank you," and he proceeded to carry my bags to
September 15, 1999
Tours
the small commuter flight that he was taking as
September 8, 1999
well. As we neared the plane, I told him that I knew
who he was and that, although I had always been a
September 1, 1999
Cubs fan, I had long ago adopted the New York
Yankees as my American League favorite. He
August 25, 1999
couldn't have been more gracious or friendly.
August 18, 1999
For generations of American boys who wanted to
August 11, 1999
grow up to be baseball players, Joe DiMaggio was a
hero and a role model. Now, girls, too, have sports
August 4, 1999
heroes to emulate -- athletes like soccer star Mia
July 28, 1999
Hamm, Women's National Basketball Association
player Lisa Leslie and Olympic skater Michele
July 21, 1999
Kwan.
July 14, 1999
When I was growing up, I could watch baseball
July 7, 1999
with my father and throw the football around the
back yard with my brothers. I even played
June 30, 1999
basketball, but it was half-court, with a two-dribble
June 23, 1999
limit. We were told a girl's heart just couldn't take
the exertion of playing full-court.
June 16, 1999
1 of 3
9/8/2000 3:34 PM
March 10, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc031099.hml
Girls, no less than boys, yearned to be active, but
June 9, 1999
they were told that sports were unladylike and
would damage their reproductive organs. Finally,
June 2, 1999
pioneers like Trudy Ederle, Babe Didrikson
May 26, 1999
Zaharias, Wilma Rudolph and Billie Jean King gave
women the courage to step onto playing fields
May 19, 1999
alongside their brothers.
May 12, 1999
Every girl who plays sports today should know the
May 5, 1999
name of Trudy Ederle, who in 1926 became the first
woman to swim the English Channel, shaving more
April 28, 1999
than two hours off the existing men's record. She
should know golfer Babe Didrikson Zaharias, who
April 21, 1999
is often called the greatest all-around athlete -- male
April 14, 1999
or female -- of the century, and track star Wilma
Rudolph, who won three gold medals at the 1960
April 7, 1999
Olympic Games.
March 31, 1999
Every young athlete should know the story of the
March 24, 1999
"Battle of the Sexes," when tennis great Billie Jean
King beat Bobby Riggs in straight sets. In Billie
March 17, 1999
Jean's own words, "It wasn't about tennis. It was
March 10, 1999
about social change." For the first time, many
women understood that it was acceptable to
March 3, 1999
compete with men -- even to beat them.
February 24, 1999
Every girl who hopes to play sports in high school
February 17, 1999
or win a college scholarship should know the name
of a different kind of hero, former Indiana Sen.
February 10, 1999
Birch Bayh, who sponsored the federal law that
leveled the playing field for female athletes. Before
February 3, 1999
Title IX was passed in 1972, colleges spent 1
January 27, 1999
percent of their athletic budgets on women's sports,
and approximately 300,000 high school girls played
January 20, 1999
on teams. Now, it's the law: Money for
scholarships, coaches, uniforms, facilities, travel
January 13, 1999
and all the other costs of running sports programs
January 6, 1999
must be distributed equitably. And more than 2
million girls play on high school teams.
Last week, Billie Jean King, WNBA guard Nikki
McCray and Olympic gold-medal gymnast
Dominique Dawes traveled with me to the Lab
School in New York City, where the girls'
basketball team is the pride of the campus. Nikki
told the students that, when she was growing up,
her male cousins didn't want her to play basketball
with them because she was a girl. Her heroes were
male players like Michael Jordan. Now, she's a hero
to young fans.
After our visit to the Lab School, three generations
of female champions gathered at the White House
to preview a new HBO film on the history of
women in athletics, a film that I wish every
American could see. Called "Dare to Compete," it
2 of 3
9/8/2000 3:34 PM
March 10, 1999
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/columns/hrc031099.hml
celebrates the women who were told that playing
sports wasn't ladylike but didn't listen. It heralds all
women who were discriminated against but just
kept standing up and speaking out - demanding
nothing less than justice and equality.
As I looked around the auditorium at the Lab
School and later the East Room of the White House,
I couldn't help but marvel at just how far women
have come. Thanks to role models like Trudy
Ederle, Wilma Rudolph and Billie Jean King - and
thanks to heroes like Joltin' Joe DiMaggio, who
helped us love sports even before we were allowed
to play - every American girl today finally dares to
compete.
COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE,
INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
President and First Lady I Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress I The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government I Contacting the White House
White House for Kids I White House History
White House Tours
Help
I
Text Only
Privacy Statement
3 of 3
9/8/2000 3:34 PM
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
3/15/99
Divider Title:
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
FINAL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WASHINGTON COURT HOTEL
LEAD ADVANCE:
DAVID NESLEN
202/338-1354 PHONE
WHCA PAGER
#4101
PRESS ADVANCE:
JOI HILTON
202/219-8213 PHONE
EXT. 155
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
LEAD ADVANCE:
MARISA LUZATTO
202/482-8324 PHONE
800/759-8888
PAGER
PIN #1640529
PRESS ADVANCE:
LEE FLORES
703/506-0325
PHONE
SCHEDULER:
MOLLY BUFORD
202/456-5315 PHONE
202/456-5340
FAX
202/244-2125 HOME
WHCA PAGER
#4452
PREV RON Washington, D.C.
10:50 am
DEPART South Portico
EN ROUTE Washington Court Hotel
[drive time: 10 minutes]
11:00 am
ARRIVE Washington Court Hotel
GREETERS:
Mac McNeill, General Manager, Washington Court
Hotel
Larry McAfee, Director, Food and Beverages,
Washington Court Hotel
Sonny Hall, International President, AFL-CIO
Transportation Trades Department
11:05 am-
GROUP PHOTO
11:25 am
Hermitage Room
Hold: Monticello Room
Phone: 202/879-2979
Fax: 202/737-2641
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
The First Lady will take a group photo with
the 24 guests.
-
Sonny Hall will present the First Lady with a
gift.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 24 guests to attend. Please
see briefing book for complete list.
11:30 am-
REMARKS TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
12:00 pm
Grand Ballroom
Washington Court Hotel
OPEN PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
On-stage announcement of the First Lady,
accompanied by the dias participants.
-
Sonny Hall, International President, AFL-CIO
Transportation Trades Department, makes
welcoming remarks and introduces the First
Lady.
-
The First Lady makes remarks and departs.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 200 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Norma Scotland 212/873-6000
12:05 pm
DEPART Washington Court Hotel
EN ROUTE The White House
[drive time: 10 minutes]
12:15 pm
ARRIVE South Portico
1:50 pm-
BRIEFING
1:55 pm
Hallway
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS:
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
PAGE 3
The First Lady
Jenny Luray
2:00 pm-
WOMEN'S MAGAZINES BRIEFING
2:15 pm
Roosevelt Room
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
Ann Lewis introduces the First Lady.
-
The First Lady makes remarks and departs.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 30 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Marsha Berry 202/456-2960
2:45 pm
DEPART South Portico
EN ROUTE National Education Association
16th and M Street, NW
[drive time: approx. 10 minutes]
2:55 pm
ARRIVE National Education Association
GREETER:
Tony Williams, National Education Association
3:00 pm-
MEET AND GREET
3:05 pm
Hallway
Hold: Fulfillment Center Conference Room
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 14 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Jenny Luray 202/456-7300
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
PAGE 4
3:00 pm-
WOMEN'S EQUALITY SUMMIT
3:40 pm
Auditorium
National Education Association
OPEN PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
Susan Bianchi-Sand, Director, National
Council of Presidents & National Committee on
Pay Equity, makes welcoming remarks and
introduces Laura Fortman.
-
Laura Fortman makes brief remarks and
introduces The First Lady.
-
The First Lady makes remarks and departs.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 500 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Jenny Luray 202/456-7300
3:45 pm
DEPART National Education Association
EN ROUTE The White House
[drive time: 10 minutes]
7:00 pm-
BRIEFING
7:15 pm
Red Room
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS:
The President
The First Lady
Ellen Lovell
Capricia Marshall
7:15 pm-
MEET AND GREET
7:25 pm
Blue Room
CLOSED PRESS/WH PHOTO
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 10 guests to attend.
CONTACT: Laura Schwartz 202/456-5655
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
PAGE 5
7:25 pm
MILLENNIUM LECTURE
9:00 pm
East Room
OPEN PRESS/WH PHOTO
FORMAT:
-
Ellen Lovell is announced onto the East Room
and briefs the audience.
-
Off-stage announcement of the President and
First Lady, accompanied by Alice Kessler-
Harris, Nancy Cott and Ruth Simmons.
-
The President makes remarks and introduces
the First Lady.
-
The First Lady makes remarks and introduces
the first video.
-
The first video is played.
-
Alice Kessler-Harris makes remarks and takes
one question from the audience.
-
Ellen Lovell introduces the second video.
-
The second video is played.
-
Nancy Cott makes remarks and takes one
question from the audience.
-
Ellen Lovell introduces the third video.
-
The third video is played.
-
Ruth Simmons makes remarks and takes one
question from the audience.
-
Ellen Lovell opens discussion with audience
and the Internet.
-
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the
President makes closing remarks and invites
the guests to the State Dining Room for a
reception.
SCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1999
PAGE 6
-
The President and First Lady ahve the option
to mingle with the guests or depart.
RON
Washington, D.C.
file
MARCH 12, 1999
Women's Magazine Editor's Roundtable entitled:
"Economic and Retirement Security: What Every Woman Should Know"
DATE:
Monday, March 15, 1999
LOCATION: Roosevelt Room
TIME:
2:00 PM- - 2:15 PM
FROM:
Marsha Berry
Mary Beth Cahill
Jenny Luray
Beverly Barnes
I.
PURPOSE
You are scheduled to meet with approximately 21 editors and writers of national
women's magazines, on Monday, March 15, 1999, in the Roosevelt Room. The
representatives of the magazines are here to attend a half-day roundtable discussion
on the future of Social Security and Medicare and their importance to women. The
combined circulation of the magazines attending our event is more than 20 million.
The editors (but not the writers) have also been invited to attend the Sixth
Millennium Evening that evening.
II.
BACKGROUND
The White House event for the magazine editors and writers will begin at 11:30 a.m.
with a luncheon in the Indian Treaty Room. They will move to the Roosevelt Room
for the briefing. The briefing will be opened by Jenny Luray who will describe the
activities of the Women's Office. Ann Lewis will then provide an overview of the
briefing and put the Administration's efforts on Social Security and Medicare into
a broader context of the women and families agenda.
The editors and writers will hear from Secretary Donna Shalala who will make
remarks on the importance of Medicare reform for women. A panel will follow,
starting with OMB Director Jack Lew on the President's Social Security and
Medicare financing plan and its strengths compared to other plans; Barbara Kennelly,
Counselor to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on the
importance of Social Security reform for women; and CEA Chair Janet Yellen, on
what Social Security reform means for all Americans and how it will affect future
generations.
1
A panel comprised of three "real women" aged 28, 45, and 83 will discuss their own
experiences with Social Security and why it is important to them (please see
attachment for more complete descriptions).
Because March is Women's History Month, we've also attached a brief piece on
Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, who was the first woman to serve in the Cabinet.
She accepted her appointment by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the condition
that he support her call for a public old-age insurance program. Under her leadership,
the Social Security Act was passed in 1935.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
21 editors and writers representing 13 national women's magazines (please see
attachments).
IV.
PRESS PLAN
"On the record" for the magazine representatives.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Please see attachment.
VI.
REMARKS
You will close the meeting, stressing the vital importance of Social Security and
Medicare to women, reiterating the Administration's efforts to reform Social Security
and Medicare for the next generation, and challenging the magazines to make their
readers aware of these critical issues. Your remarks are on-the-record. You will not
take questions after your remarks.
VII. ATTACHMENTS
Descriptions of the Three "Real Women"
Remembering Francis Perkins During Women's History Month
At-A-Glance List of Attendees and the Magazines they Represent
Detailed Background on Attendees and the Magazines they Represent
Schedule of the Event
NEC Social Security Fact Sheet, "Saving Social Security Now"
NEC Report, "Women and Retirement Security"
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Women and Medicare"
2
Descriptions of "Real Women" Participating in
Women Magazine Editors Briefing on Social Security & Medicare
March 15, 1999
"Young Woman"
Melinda Scott
Philadelphia, PA
As the deputy director of FIRST (Foundation for Individual Responsibility and Social Trust),
Melinda has helped organize events in over 28 cities for her organization. She is very articulate
and well acquainted with issues of her generation regarding pensions and savings. She has
participated in several Social Security forums throughout the region (including both the White
House Conference on Social Security and the satellite downlink on young people and Social
Security.) She is 28 years old and African-American.
"Middle-Aged Woman"
Catherine Galvin
Front Royal, VA
Catherine is the Executive Director of the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging. She is covered
by a pension plan and Social Security. She has a unique perspective on Social Security for
several reasons. First, her father died when she was 11 years old and she received survivors
benefits through her college years. Social Security played an important role in providing
financial security for her mother and siblings following her father's death. Second, she will be
highly dependent upon Social Security once she retires; the pension she will receive will be small
and Social Security will comprise the major component of her retirement benefits. Third,
because of the nature of her work, she is quite familiar with the role that Social Security plays in
the lives of older women in rural Virginia, many of whom are widowed and have low incomes.
She is 45 years old and Caucasian.
"Aged Woman"
Ruth Rosenstein
Silver Spring, MD
Ruth is a widow and receives her own retirement benefit as well as a portion of widows benefits.
Her husband died when she was only 39 years old and left her with 2 children to raise. She put
both of them through college. Her daughter and granddaughter are both teachers. She lives in
senior housing in Silver Spring and participates in service activities in her housing system. She is
an 83-year-old Caucasian.
TO:
Mrs. Clinton
FROM:
Marsha Berry
RE:
National Women's Magazines Roundtable
You are scheduled to meet with approximately 30 editors and writers of national women's
magazines, on Monday, March 15, 1999, in the Roosevelt Room. The representatives of the
magazines will be here attending a half-day roundtable discussion on the future of Social
Security and Medicare. The editors also have been invited to stay to attend the Sixth Millennium
Evening.
The program will be opened by Ann Lewis and Jennifer Luray to provide an overview of the day
and put the Administration's efforts on Social Security and Medicare into a broader context of a
women and families agenda. The editors and writers will then hear from Secretary Shalala on
Medicare reform and from OMB Director Jack Lew, CEA Chair Janet Yellen, and SSA
Counselor to the Commissioner Barbara Kennelly on Social Security Reform. They will also
hear from three women about their experiences with Medicare and Social Security. The editors
will be permitted to ask questions after each session.
You will close the meeting, stressing the vital importance of Social Security and Medicare to
women, reiterating the the Administration's efforts to reform Social Security and Medicare for
the next generation, and challenging the magazines to make their readers aware of these critical
issues. Your remarks are on-the-record. You will not take questions after your remarks.
Attached are a list of the attendees, the program for the half-day roundtable, and fact sheets
(which also will be given to the editors and writers).
List of Attendees For Roundtable Discussion on Social Security and Medicare
Child Magazine
Pamela Abrams, Editor-in-Chief
Essence
Monique Greenwood, Editor-in-Chief
Ziba Kashef, Health Editor
Family Circle
Nancy Clark, Deputy Editor
Heart and Soul
Yanick Rice Lamb, Editorial Director
Kendra Lee, Senior Editor
JANE Magazine
Christina Kelly, Deputy Editor
Ladies' Home Journal
Myrna Blyth, Editor-in-Chief
Latina
Sandra Guzman, Editor-in-Chief
Mademoiselle
Elizabeth Crow, Editor-in-Chief
Jeannie Pyun, Deputy Editor
McCall's
Sally Koslow, Editor-in-Chief
Cathy Cavender, Executive Editor (writes on health)
Mirabella
Roberta Myers, Editor-in-Chief
Ms. Magazine
Marcia Ann Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief
Barbara Findlen, Executive Editor (handles health)
Redbook
Lesley Jane Seymour, Managing Editor
Peggy Northrup, Executive Editor (writes on health)
Women's World
Stephanie Saible, Editor-in-Chief
Working Mother
Judsen Culbreth, Editor-in-Chief
Catherine Cartwright, Senior Editor
Working Woman
Bernadette Grey, Editor-in-Chief
Jill Hamburg, Associate Editor
"Economic and Retirement Security: What Women Should Know"
March 15, 1999
11:30 AM - 2:15 PM
SCHEDULE FOR THE DAY
11:15 AM - 11:30 AM
ARRIVAL of guests at the Old Executive Office Building through
the Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. entrance (near the
intersection of 17th Street, N.W.)
11:30 AM - 12:15 PM
LUNCH in the Indian Treaty Room, Room 474 in the Old
Executive Office Building (OEOB)
12:15 AM - 12:25 PM
MOVE to the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing
12:25 PM - 12:30 PM
PROGRAM BEGINS with opening remarks by:
Jennifer Luray, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director,
White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach;
Ann Lewis, Assistant to the President and Counselor
12:30 PM - 12:50 PM
PRESENTATION AND Q & A
Speaker: Donna Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services
Topic: Medicare Reform and its Impact on Women
12:50 PM - 12:55 PM
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Speaker: Barbara Kennelly, Counselor to the Commissioner, Social
Security Administation
Topic: Importance of Social Security Reform for Women
12:55 PM - 1:00 PM
Speaker: Jack Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)
Topic: The President's Social Security Plan and its Strengths
Compared to Other Plans
1:00 PM - 1:05 PM
Speaker: Janet Yellen, Chair, Council of Economic Advisors
(CEA)
Topic: What Social Security Reform Means for All Americans and
How it Will Affect Future Generations
1:05 PM - 1:40 PM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1:40 PM - 2:00 PM
Three women share their personal stories about Social Security
2:00 PM - 2:15 PM
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Topic: Overview of Social Security and Medicare Reform and How
These Issues Affect Women
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM
PROGRAM CONCLUDES AND GUESTS EXIT through the
Northwest Appointment Gate on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY NOW
AND
MEETING AMERICA'S CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21st CENTURY
In His State of the Union Address, President Clinton Put Forward His Framework To Save
Social Security Now, While Meeting America's Challenges for the 21st Century. The
President and Vice President's framework strengthens Social Security by:
Transferring 62 percent of the projected budget surpluses over the next 15 years -- more
than $2.7 trillion -- to the Social Security system.
Investing a portion of the transferred surpluses in the private sector to achieve higher
returns for Social Security -- just as any state or local government, or private pension does
-- after working with Congress to devise a mechanism to ensure that the investments are
made independently and without political interference. We will support using a broad-
based neutral approach managed by the private sector with minimum administrative costs.
Keeping Social Security solvent until 2055.
Calling for a bipartisan effort to make the hard-headed but sensible and achievable
choices needed to save Social Security until at least 2075. As part of this effort, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore believe that we must:
Reduce poverty among elderly women -- particularly widows, who have a poverty
rate nearly twice the overall poverty rate for older Americans.
Eliminate the confusing and out-dated earnings test so that we stop discouraging
work and earnings among older Americans.
After Social Security Reform Is Secured -- Consistent With the President's "Save Social
Security First" Commitment -- the President Proposes To:
Strengthen Medicare for the 21st Century. The President's framework will reserve 15
percent of the projected surpluses for Medicare, ensuring the Medicare Trust Fund is secure
for 20 years. The President believes that these new resources should be used to help achieve
broader, bipartisan reforms which should include a prescription drug benefit.
Create New Universal Savings Accounts -- USA Accounts. The President's framework
will reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses to create new Universal Savings
Accounts (USAs) SO all working Americans can build wealth to meet their retirement
needs. To help Americans save and to strengthen our current pension system, the
government will provide an equal dollar contribution for most Americans. In addition, the
government will match a portion of each additional dollar an individual puts voluntarily
into his/her USA account -- with larger matches going to lower-income workers.
Prepare America for the Challenges of the Future. The President's framework will
reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses for military readiness and pressing national
domestic priorities, such as education and research.
SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY NOW:
STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE 21st CENTURY
In His State of the Union Address, President Clinton Put Forward A Framework To
Strengthen Social Security Now. Since its creation more than 60 years ago, Social Security
has been a bedrock of retirement security for Americans. There are 76 million baby boomers
looking ahead to retirement. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today,
putting pressure on the Social Security system. After 2032, if we do nothing, the Trust Fund will
be exhausted and Social Security will have only enough resources to cover 72 cents per dollar of
promised benefits. President Clinton and Vice President Gore believe we must act now to tackle
this tough, long-term challenge. That is why they are proposing to:
Use the Budget Surplus To Save Social Security Now
"Saving Social Security First." Last year, in his State of the Union Address, President
Clinton promised to save the budget surplus until we knew how much would be needed to
save Social Security for the 21st century. This year, in his State of the Union Address,
President Clinton reiterated his pledge to save Social Security first -- committing to
reserve the budget surplus until Social Security reform is secured.
62 Percent of the Projected Budget Surpluses Will Be Used to Save Social Security.
President Clinton proposes to transfer 62 percent of the projected budget surpluses over
the next 15 years -- more than $2.7 trillion -- to Social Security.
Invest A Portion of the Surpluses To Achieve Higher Returns for Social Security
Invest Portion of Surpluses To Achieve Higher Returns, Working With Congress to
Devise A Mechanism to Ensure Independent and Non-Political Investments. We
want to work with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to craft a bipartisan
Social Security plan which invests a portion of the surplus transferred to Social Security
to achieve higher returns, and includes a mechanism to ensure that investments are made
independently and without political interference. We will support using a broad-based
neutral approach managed by the private sector with minimum administrative costs.
To achieve higher returns for Social Security, less than one-quarter of the
transferred surpluses will be invested in the stock market.
Save Social Security Until 2055 -- And Work Together To Save It Until At Least 2075
President's Framework Keeps Social Security Solvent Through 2055. By transferring
62 percent of the projected surpluses for the next 15 years to Social Security and investing a
portion of them in the market -- just like any private or state or local government pension
does -- we will ensure that Social Security is on sound footing for 55 years -- until 2055.
2
Must Work Together -- Across Party Lines -- To Make Hard-Headed, But Sensible
and Achievable Choices To Save Social Security for 75 Years. President Clinton's
goal is to save Social Security for 75 years. To do so, he believes we must work together
in a bipartisan way to make the hard-headed, but sensible and achievable choices to save
Social Security through at least 2075.
Publicly Held Debt Will Fall To Lowest As Share of GDP Since 1917
Turning Around America's Fiscal Position. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the
debt held by the public quadrupled, rising from $785 billion in 1981 to $3.2 trillion in
1993. As a share of the economy, the publicly held debt increased from 26 percent in
1981 to 50 percent in 1993. Since President Clinton took office, the publicly held debt
as a share of GDP has dropped to about 45 percent.
Debt-to-GDP Ratio Will Fall to Lowest Level Since 1917. Under the President's
framework, current projections suggest that the publicly held debt, as a share of GDP,
will fall from about 45 percent today to less than 10 percent in 2014 -- its lowest level
since 1917.
Reduce Poverty Among Elderly Women -- Particularly Widows
Poverty Rates Among Elderly Women -- Particularly Widows -- Remain High. The
poverty rate for all elderly women was 13.1 percent in 1997. For widowed women, poverty
rates are especially high: the poverty rate is 18.0 percent for widowed women -- nearly four
times the poverty rate of married women (4.6 percent) and much higher than the poverty rate
of widowed men (11.4 percent).
President's Framework Would Lower Poverty Rates Among Elderly Women --
Especially Widows. Currently, widow benefits vary from 50 to 67 percent of benefits
for a married couple when both members were alive. The official poverty thresholds
imply that a widow needs over 75 percent of a couple's income to maintain her pre-
widowhood consumption. This is a key reason why widow poverty is so much higher
than overall elderly poverty. The President is committed to reducing the loss of Social
Security income at widowhood.
Eliminate the Out-Dated and Confusing Earnings Test
President Clinton Believes We Should Eliminate The Earnings Test. President
Clinton believes that the earnings test has outlived its use. Today, it primarily serves to
confuse people, and to discourage them from working. We want to work with Members
of Congress to eliminate the earnings test as part of a comprehensive package to
strengthen Social Security for the 21st century.
3
Earnings Test Should Be Eliminated Because It Is Out-Dated And Confusing -- And
It Discourages Work and Earnings Among the Elderly. The Social Security earnings
test is a confusing relic of a past era. It discourages the elderly from working. It is
administratively complicated; administering the earnings test imposes significant
administrative burden on the Social Security Administration. Finally, eliminating the
earnings limit would have almost no effect on the long-run actuarial balance of the Social
Security system.
MEETING AMERICA'S CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21st CENTURY
After Social Security Reform Is Secured -- Consistent With the President's "Save Social
Security First" Commitment -- The President Proposes To Meet The Following Three
Challenges:
STRENGTHENING MEDICARE FOR THE 21st CENTURY
RESERVE 15 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTED SURPLUSES FOR MEDICARE,
EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND UNTIL 2020.
We Must Prepare for the Health Care Challenges of the Next Century. In its 30-year
history, Medicare has contributed to longer lives and better lives for America's elderly
and disabled. However, Medicare -- like Social Security -- will be impacted by the tidal
wave of the "Senior Boom." Its enrollment is expected to double by 2030. In addition,
Medicare -- as well as the private sector -- faces escalating health care costs. As a result,
the Medicare Trust Fund is expected to run out in 2008, if no actions are taken.
Reserving Nearly One in Six Dollars of Surplus to Help Keep Medicare Safe Until
2020. The President's framework would reserve 15 percent of the projected surpluses --
$650-$700 billion -- over the next 15 years for the Medicare Trust Fund. These funds
would be prohibited from being used for any other purpose, ensuring that the money will
go to help the health care needs of older and disabled Americans. Even in the absence of
broader reforms, the President's framework would guarantee that Medicare can continue
to provide its critical health services until 2020 -- doubling the life of the Medicare Trust
Fund and providing the strongest outlook in the last 25 years.
New Funds Should Be Used To Help Achieve Broader, Bipartisan Reform. The
President believes that the Medicare Commission and Congress should utilize these new
dedicated dollars as part of broader, bipartisan reforms. Such reforms, including the
development of a long-overdue prescription drug benefit, are essential to provide efficient
health care to the elderly and people with disabilities in the 21 st century.
4
UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (USAs)
RESERVE 11 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTED SURPLUSES TO CREATE NEW
UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (USAs) so EVERY WORKING AMERICAN CAN
BUILD WEALTH AND A NEST EGG TO MEET THEIR RETIREMENT NEEDS.
USA Accounts Will Help Americans Build Wealth for Their Retirement --
Strengthening Personal Savings and Pensions. To help supplement Social Security,
the President proposes to create USA accounts to help strengthen two legs of retirement
security: personal savings and pensions. Under the President's framework, we will
reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses over the next 15 years -- averaging about
$33 billion per year -- to create Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), so that every
working American can build wealth and a nest egg for retirement.
We Want to Work With Congress And Experts To Determine Precisely How USA
Accounts Will Be Structured So That They Are Progressive And Help Working
Americans Save for Retirement. President Clinton believes the government should
provide most Americans with a flat contribution. In addition, the government will match
a portion of each dollar an individual puts into the account -- with larger percentage
matches going to lower-income workers. However, we want to work with Members of
Congress and pension and personal savings experts, to ensure that USA accounts build on
the current private-sector pension system, are progressive, and help working Americans
save for their futures. Therefore, the exact size of the contributions, match rates, and
income limits will be determined later.
MILITARY READINESS AND
OTHER CRITICAL INVESTMENTS IN AMERICA'S FUTURE
RESERVE 11 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTED SURPLUSES FOR MILITARY
READINESS AND PRESSING NATIONAL DOMESTIC PRIORITIES, SUCH AS
EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
Ensuring That America's Military Continues to be Ready for the Challenges of the
21st Century. Early in January, President Clinton proposed a bold, new strategy to
ensure that America's military continues to be fully prepared to protect our national
interests as the world's most powerful fighting force. President Clinton believes this
approach will provide the resources to meet his proposed detailed blueprint for military
readiness.
Ensuring We Meet Other Critical Investments In America's Future. In addition to
military readiness, the setting aside of 11 percent of the projected surpluses -- nearly $500
billion -- will allow America to meet its other critical investment needs, such as education
and research.
5
WOMEN
AND
RETIREMENT SECURITY
PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON SOCIAL SECURITY
OCTOBER 27, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
:
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3-4
I. Basic Facts on Women and Retirement
5-6
II. Social Security and Women
7-11
III. Challenges for the Current System
12-14
IV. Women and Pensions
15-16
V. Conclusion
17
Endnotes
18-19
Women and Retirement Security
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Women Have Lower Income in Retirement than Men - And Thus Higher Poverty.
In 1997, median income for elderly unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated,
and never married) was $11,161, compared with $14,769 for elderly unmarried men and
$29,278 for elderly married couples. Thus, the poverty rate for elderly women was
higher than that of men: in 1997, the poverty rate of elderly women was 13.1 percent,
compared to 7.0 percent among men. Among unmarried elderly women, the poverty rate
was significantly higher -- about 19 percent
Social Security Is Particularly Important to Women. Elderly unmarried women --
including widows - get 51 percent of their total income from Social Security. Unmarried
elderly men get 39 percent, while elderly married couples get 36 percent of their income
from Social Security. For 25 percent of unmarried women, Social Security is their-only
source of income, compared to 9 percent of married couples and 20 percent of unmarried
meno Without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty rate among women would
have been 52.2 percent and among widows would have been 60.6 percent.
Women Face Greater Economic Challenges in Retirement. First, women tend to live
longer: a woman who is 65 years old today can expect to live to 85, while a 65 year old
man can expect to live to 81. Second, women have lower lifetime earnings than men do.
And third, women reach retirement with smaller pensions and other assets than men do.
-
The Gurrent Social Security System Has a Number of Features That Help Women
Meet These Challenges.
1.
Social Security provides an inflation-protected benefit that lasts as long as you live.
Since women tend to live longer than men, they are in greater danger of outliving
their other sources of retirement income; but it is impossible to outlive one's Social
Security benefit.
2.
The progressive benefit formula provides a higher replacement rate for workers with
lower earnings. For the median female retiree, Social Security replaces 54 percent of
average lifetime earnings, compared with 41 percent for the median male.
3.
Social Security provides extra benefits to spouses with low lifetime earnings. The
Social Security spousal benefit helps many women, even if they did not work at all
outside the home.
4.
Social Security provides benefits to elderly widows; 74 percent of elderly widows
receive benefits based on the earnings of their deceased spouse.
5.
Social Security provides benefits to spouses of any age who care for children under
16 if the worker (other spouse) is retired, becomes disabled, or dies; women
represent 98 percent of recipients receiving benefits as spouses with a child in their
care.
Women and Retirement Security
3
Social Security Will Continue to Be Important for Women in the Future. As the
labor force participation rates of women continue to rise, women in the future will reach
retirement with much more substantial earnings histories than in the past. Therefore, the
percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own earnings history is
expected to rise from 37 percent today to 60 percent in 2060. However, this means that
40 percent of women will continue to receive benefits based on their husband's earnings.
Poverty Rates Among Unmarried Elderly Women - Especially Widows Who Make
up 45 Percent of All Elderly Women - Are High. Divorced women are a growing
share of the elderly population, and their poverty rate is higher than the overall elderly
poverty rate. And finally, poverty rates among elderly minority groups are unacceptably
high.
Among Current Retirees, Women Have Much Less Pension Coverage Than-Men.
Only 30 percent of all women aged 65 or older were receiving a pension in 1994 (either
worker or survivor benefits), compared to 48 percent of men.
Pensions Received by Women Are Worth Less than Those Received by Men.
Among new private sector pension annuity recipients in 1993-94, the median annual
benefit for women was $4,800, or only half of the median benefit of $9,600 received by
men. And among women approaching retirement, pension wealth is much smaller: for
example, single women had average pension wealth that was 34 percent of the single
men's average.
Among Workers, Women's Pension Coverage Depends on Work Status. Overall,
fewer women workers have pensions through work, 40 percent of women compared to 44
percent of men. However, women in full-time jobs are equally likely to have pension
coverage as men; in 1997, 50 percent of women in full-time jobs had pensions compared
to 49 percent of men. It is important to note, though, that women are much more likely to
work part-time or be out of the labor force than men.
Women and Retirement Security
4
WOMEN AND RETIREMENT SECURITY
Over the course of this year, the Administration, Congress, and other interested parties
have engaged Americans in a national debate about ways to strengthen Social Security for the
21 st Century. President Clinton and Vice President Gore attended three bipartisan Social
Security forums convened by the AARP and the Concord Coalition, and the President and Vice
President hosted a conference on private retirement savings in July. One issue that has arisen
repeatedly throughout this process is the relationship between Social Security and women's
retirement security. The purpose of this report is to inform the national debate by presenting
some of the key facts and issues about women and their-Social Security benefits and pensions.
I. BASIC FACTS ON WOMEN AND RETIREMENT
Women Have Lower Income in Retirement than Men Do. In 1997, median income
for elderly unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated, or never married) was
$11,161, compared with $14,769 for elderly unmarried men and $29,278 for elderly
married couples.¹
Poverty Rates Among Elderly Women Are Higher Than Rates Among Men. The
poverty rate among Americans age 65 and over has fallen from 35.2 percent in 1959 to
10.5 percent today. The poverty rate for all elderly women was 13.1 percent in 1997,
compared to a 7.0 percent rate for all elderly men.² And for unmarried elderly women,
the poverty rate is even higher - around 19 percent.
POVERTY RATES OF THE FEMALE POPULATION 65 AND OVER
BY MARITAL STATUS, 1997³
All Elderly
Women
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Never Married
13.1%
4.6%
22.2%
18.0%
20.0%
Nearly 60 Percent of Elderly Women Are Unmarried. The poverty rate among
unmarried women is particularly important because 59 percent of elderly women are
either widowed (45 percent), divorced (7 percent), separated (2 percent), or never married
(5 percent). In contrast, only 27 percent of elderly men are unmarried.4
Social Security Is Particularly Important to Women. Elderly unmarried women --
including widows - get 51 percent of their total income from Social Security.
Unmarried elderly men get 39 percent, while elderly married couples get 36 percent of
their income from Social Security.⁵
Women and Retirement Security
5
SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PERSONS 65 AND OVER, 1996
(PERCENT OF TOTAL INCOME)
Social
Income
Security
Pensions
from Assets
Earnings
Other
Unmarried
51%
15%
; 20%
10%
4%
women
:
Unmarried
39
22
16
19
4
men
Married
36
20
18
25
1
couples
All elderly
40
18
18
20
4
Social Security Is Particularly Important
For Elderly Women
Percentage of Income from Social Security
60%
51%
50%
39%
40%
36%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Married Couples
Unmarried Men
Unmarried Women
Source: Social Security Administration
Women and Retirement Security
6
II. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WOMEN
Most Social Security Recipients Are Women. Women represent 60 percent of all
elderly Social Security recipients (women are 18.9 million of the 31.7 million aged
beneficiaries).
Women Make Up Nearly Three Quarters - 72 Percent - of the Increasing Number
of Americans Over 85 Years Old. Because women live longer, on average, than men,
women make up 72 percent of all beneficiaries age 85 and above.⁶
Most Social Security Beneficiaries Are Women
Among Oldest Beneficiaries Women Are An Even Larger Share
Women As A Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries
90
80
70
60
50
40
62
65
70
75
80
85
90
95+
Age
Source: Social Security Administration.
For Many Elderly Women, Social Security Is Their Only Source of Income. For 25
percent of unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated, never married), Social
Security is their only source of income. Social Security is the only source of income for
9 percent of married couples and 20 percent of unmarried men.⁷
Excluding Social Security Benefits, the Poverty Rate among Elderly Women Would
Be More Than 50 Percent. In 1997, the poverty rate among elderly women was 13.1
percent. Without Social Security benefits it would have been 52.2 percent. For elderly
widows the poverty rate was 18.0 percent; without Social Security benefits it would have
been 60.6 percent. (For elderly men the rate is 7.0 percent, without Social Security it
would be 40.7 percent.)⁸
Women and Retirement Security
7
Without Social Security, More than Half
of Elderly Women Would Be in Poverty
Poverty Rate (for 1997)
60.0%
52.2%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
13.1%
10.0%
0.0%
With Social Security
Without Social Security
Source: Social Security Administration
Why Women Face Greater Economic Challenges in Retirement
Women Live Longer than Men. A woman who is 65 years old today can expect to live
to 85, while a 65 year old man can expect to live to 81.9. This gap is expected to persist
into the future. Because women live longer, they depend on Social Security for more
years, and become increasingly dependent on Social Security with age. Unmarried women
between 65 and 74 years old get 43 percent of their income from Social Security, while
unmarried women 75 and older get 55 percent of their income from Social Security.
EXPECTED TOTAL LIFETIME FOR PERSONS AGE 65
Year Turning Age 65
Male
Female
1940
77.0
78.7
1998
81.2
84.8
2030
82.7
86.1
Women Have Lower Lifetime Earnings than Men. Women have lower lifetime
earnings than men do for three reasons:
Women Who Work Are More Likely to Work Part-time. In the third quarter
of 1998, 25.8 percent of female workers worked part-time, compared with 10.6
percent of male workers. Women represented 67.5% of all part-time workers.¹ 10
Full-time Female Workers Earn Less than Full-time Male Workers. The
median earnings of full-time year-round women workers in 1997 was $24,973,
compared to $33,674 for men -- that means that the median woman earns 74
percent of the median man's earnings.¹¹
Women and Retirement Security
8
Women Take More Years Out of the Labor Force than Men Do. Women are
more likely to take time out of the labor force for child raising or other care giving
responsibilities. Of workers retiring in 1996, the median woman had worked 27
years over her lifetime, while the median man had worked 39 years. 12
Women Reach Retirement with Smaller Pensions and Other Assets than Men Do.
Only 30 percent of women aged 65 or older were receiving their own pensions in 1994
(either as a retired worker or a survivor), compared with 48 percent of men. Section IV
describes issues related to women and pensions in more detail.
How the Current Social Security System Helps Women Meet Retirement Challenges
The current Social Security system has a number of features that are particularly important to
women.
Social Security Provides an Inflation-Protected Benefit That Lasts as Long as You
Live. Although women receive lower average Social Security benefits than men do,
women tend to live longer than men and to receive benefits for more years. In addition,
because women live longer, they are in greater danger of outliving their other sources of
retirement income; but it is impossible to outlive one's Social Security benefit.
Furthermore, the cost of living protection in Social Security is more valuable the longer a
person lives; therefore, this feature of the program is particularly valuable to women.
The Progressive Benefit Formula Provides a Higher Replacement Rate for Workers
with Lower Earnings. Since women tend to have lower earnings than men, they receive
worker benefits that are a higher fraction of their lifetime earnings. For the median
female retiree, Social Security replaces 54 percent of average lifetime earnings, compared
with 41 percent for the median male. 13
Social Security Provides Extra Benefits to Spouses with Low Lifetime Earnings.
Women are more likely than men to take time out of the labor force for child rearing, and,
on average, have lower earnings when they work than men do. This means that the
Social Security benefit they are entitled to -- based on their own earnings history -- can be
small. But Social Security provides a spousal benefit that helps many women, even if
they did not work at all outside the home. A spouse receives a benefit equal to the larger
of the benefit she is entitled to based on her own earnings or one-half of the benefit
received by her husband. Currently, 63 percent of female Social Security beneficiar
age 65 and over receive benefits based on their husband's earnings record. (Only 1.2
percent of male Social Security beneficiaries receive benefits based on their wife's
earnings record). The result is women receive more than they would based only on their
own earnings histories. While the average full benefit a women is entitled to based on her
own earnings record is only 62 percent of that of men, the average benefit received by
women is 75 percent of that of men.¹⁴
Women and Retirement Security
9
Social Security Provides Benefits for Widows. Social Security pays an elderly widow
a benefit equal to either the benefit she receives as a worker or the benefit of her deceased
spouse, whichever is higher. Nearly three quarters -- 74 percent -- of elderly widows
receive benefits based on the earnings of their deceased spouse.
Social Security Provides Benefits to Spouses with Young Children. Social Security
provides benefits to spouses of any age who care for children under 16 if the worker
(other spouse) is retired, becomes disabled, or dies; women represent 98 percent of
recipients receiving benefits as spouses with a child in their care.
Nearly One-Third of Social Security Beneficiaries Are Either Disabled or
Survivors (or Their Dependents). Nearly one-third of Social Security's 44
million beneficiaries are either disabled or survivors (or their dependents). This
includes 3.8 million children who receive benefits, with 1.9 million as survivors
of deceased parents, 1.4 million as children of disabled workers, and 0.4 million
as children of retired workers. Disability insurance (in case an individual
becomes disabled and can't work) and survivors' insurance are each separately
equivalent, for the average young family with two children, to an insurance policy
of about $300,000.
Social Security Is More Than A Retirement Program
Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries By Program
Retirement Program
70.0%
Survivors Program
16.0%
Disability Program
14.0%
Women and Retirement Security
10
Will Social Security Continue to Be as Important for Women in the Future?
As younger cohorts of women reach retirement, more and more female beneficiaries will receive
benefits based upon their own earnings records. Nonetheless, the average benefit received by
women is expected to remain below that of men, and a significant share of women will continue
to receive benefits based on their spouse's earnings record.
Labor Force Participation Rates among Women Have Risen Dramatically. In the
future, women will reach retirement with much more substantial earnings histories than in
the past. (Male labor force participation has been falling due largely to earlier
retirement).
Labor Force Participation Rates
1950-2075
Labor Force Participation Rate
100
80
Men
60
Women
40
20
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075
Source: Social Security Administration. Data are age adjusted.
More Women Will Receive Benefits Based Solely On Their Own Earnings History.
The percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own earnings history is
expected to rise from 37 percent today to 60 percent in 2060. However, this means that 40
percent of women will continue to receive benefits based on their husband's earnings.¹⁵
Average Benefits Based On Own Earnings Record Will Rise Relative to Men. The
average full monthly benefit for retired female workers based on their own earnings record,
which is currently 62 percent of the average for men, will rise to 67 percent in 2050.¹⁶
Projections Indicate That Women Will Continue to Live Longer than Men. The
difference in life expectancy at age 65 between men and women will fall only slightly
under Social Security Administration projections from a gap of 3.6 years today to 3.4
years in 2030. Thus, in the future, women will continue to depend on Social Security for
more years than men will.¹⁷
Women and Retirement Security
11
III. CHALLENGES FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM
Poverty Rates Remain High Among Elderly Women
Poverty Rates Among the Elderly Have Fallen Dramatically, Due Largely to Social
Security. The poverty rate among Americans age.65 and over has fallen from 35.2
percent in 1959 to 15.2 percent in 1979 and 10.5 percent today. This compares with an
overall poverty rate of 13.3 percent.
Poverty Rates among Widowed, Divorced, and Never Married Women Remain
High. The poverty rate for all elderly women was 13.1 percent in 1997, compared to a
7.0 percent rate for all elderly men. For both divorced and widowed women, poverty
rates are significantly higher than men: the poverty rate is 22.2 percent for divorced
women and 15.0 percent for divorced men and the poverty rate is 18.0 percent for
widowed women and 11.4 percent for widowed men. Married couples had a poverty rate
of only 4.6 percent.
Poverty Rates Are High
Among Unmarried Elderly Women
1997
Poverty Rate
30.0%
25.0%
22.2%
20.0%
20.0%
18.0%
15.0%
13.1%
10.0%
5.0%
4.6%
0.0%
All Elderty Women
Divorced Women
Never Married Women
Married Women
Widowed Women
Source: Social Security Administration, Based on Data from the Census Bureau.
Widows Make Up A Large Fraction of Elderly Women. Of women 65 and over, 45
percent of women are widowed, 43 percent are married, 7 percent are divorced, and 5
percent are never married. This means that the high poverty rate among widows and
other unmarried women affects a large share of elderly women.
There Are Also a Substantial Number of Relatively Young Widows, Though the
Number Is Falling. Of 60-year old women, 13 percent are widows. This percentage
rises to more than one-quarter of women aged 65 to 67. Because husbands in low-income
families tend to die at younger ages than husbands in higher-income families, these early
widows are often poor.
Women and Retirement Security
12
Divorced Women Are a Growing Share of the Elderly Population. In 1997, 7.1
percent of elderly women were divorced -- this compares with only 2.2 percent in 1969.
Among women approaching retirement (55-64 years old), 14.4 percent were divorced in
1997. Since divorced women have higher poverty rates than other women, this trend
could lead to higher poverty rates for women in the future.
Poverty Rates Are Higher among Elderly Blacks and Hispanics. The poverty rate for
black women aged 65 or above is 28.9 percent, compared with 28.1 percent for Hispanic
women, and 11.7 percent for white women. The poverty rate for black men aged 65 or
above is 22.2 percent, compared with 23.6 percent for Hispanic men, and 6.0 percent for
white men.
Poverty Rates Are Particularly High
Among Elderly Minority Groups
1997
Poverty Rate
35.0%
Men
30.0%
Women
28.9%
28:1%
25.0%
23.6%
22.2%
20.0%
15.0%
11.7%
10.0%
6.0%
5.0%
0.0%
White
Black
Hispanic
Source: Bureau of the Census
Women and Retirement Security
13
Reasons Why Poverty Rates Are Higher Among Widows than Among Married Women¹⁸
Declines in Social Security Benefits at Widowhood. Widow benefits vary from 50 to
67 percent of benefits for a married couple. The official poverty thresholds imply that a
widow needs 79 percent of a couple's income to maintain her pre-widowhood
consumption level. Thus, women who are in couples just above the poverty line, can fall
below the line when they become widowed. Empirical studies suggest that this factor can
explain as much as half of the excess in poverty among widows.
Pre-Widowhood Differences in Economic Status. Poorer husbands typically do not
live as long as richer husbands. Therefore, at a given age, women who are widowed are
more likely to have been poor throughout their lives than are the women whose husbands
have not yet died. Empirical studies conclude that this fact explains around one third of
the difference in poverty rates between married women.and widows.¹⁹
Declines in Pension Income at Widowhood. Research using data from the 1970s
implies that roughly 15 percent of the gap in poverty between widows and married
women can be explained by the loss of the husband's pension income. However, these
data predate the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 which wás designed to encourage the
choice of a pension with survivorship rights.
Declines in Income from Other Assets at Widowhood. Some assets may be
bequeathed to people other than the widow or used for medical or other expenses when
the widow's spouse dies. Empirical evidence suggests that the decline in other asset
income is responsible for about 10 percent of the difference in poverty rates between
widowed and married women.
Issues Concerning Benefits for Spouses who Work in the Home and Benefits Based on Paid
Employment
Spousal Benefit Ensures Adequate Retirement Income. A woman is eligible to
receive a Social Security benefit that is 50 percent of her husband's benefit while her
husband is alive, and a benefit that is 100 percent of her husband's benefit after he dies.
These benefits reward women for work done in the home and ensure that all Americans
have an adequate retirement income, even those with little paid employment. However,
some people argue that spouse benefits are unfair because women with many years of
paid employment can end up with benefits that are no larger than stay-at-home moms,
and others point out that two families with identical total earnings can end up with
different Social Security benefits depending on the division of the earnings between the
two spouses.
Women and Retirement Security
14
IV. WOMEN AND PENSIONS
Social Security provides a key foundation for retirement security. Pensions and individual
savings provide important resources as well. For elderly married couples, these other sources of
income account for 64 percent of total income. For elderly unmarried females, these other
sources account for 49 percent of total income.
Among Current Retirees, Women Have Much Less Pension Coverage Than Men
Women Are Less Likely To Have A Pension. Only 30 percent of all women aged 65 or
older were receiving a pension in 1994 (either worker or survivor benefits), compared to
48 percent of men.²⁰
Lower Pension Coverage Among Private-Sector Workers. Only 31 percent of women
aged 65 or older (and 55 percent of men) who had worked in the private sector reported
pension benefits, compared to 66 percent (and 75 percent of men) of public sector
retirees.²¹
Pensions Received by Women Are Worth Less than Those Received by Men.
Among new private sector pension annuity recipients in 1993-94, the median annual
benefit for women was $4,800, or only half of the median benefit of $9,600 received by
men. The median pre-retirement wage replacement rate of annuity benefits was 20
percent for women, compared to 30 percent for men. Among lump sum pension
recipients in 1993-94 who were age 40 and over, the median lump sum distribution was
$5,000 for women and $14,475 for men.²²
Among Women Approaching Retirement, Pension Wealth Is Much Smaller. Single
women had average pension wealth that was 34 percent of the single men's average.
Among married people, the gender gap was even larger, with the women's average being
only 25 percent of men's. These estimates include both private and public sector workers
with and without pensions.²
401(k) Plan Take-up Rates
Women Are Less Likely To Take Up 401(k) Option When Offered. Among private
wage and salary workers offered a 401(k) plan in 1993, the overall participation rate was
62 percent for women and 70 percent for men.²⁴
Lower Take Up Is Largely Explained By Lower Earnings. The take-up rate is highly
correlated with earnings. For example, while only 39 percent of workers earning less
than $15,000 per year participate in a 401(k) plan when offered, 90 percent of workers
earning $75,000 or more do so. Because men, on average, earn more than women, their
overall take-up rates in 401 plans are higher. However, when wages are held constant
the take-up rate for women is generally equal to or greater than that of men. Among
workers earning less than $15,000 in 1993 the take-up rate was 41 percent for women
compared to 35 percent for men. For workers earning from $30,000 to $40,000 the take-
up rate was 75 percent for women and 72 percent for men.²⁵
Women and Retirement Security
15
Among Workers, Women's Pension Coverage Depends on Work Status2⁶
Overall, Fewer Women Have Pensions Through Work. For all female workers -- both
full time and part time -- 27 million (40 percent) had a pension plan through work in
1997. For all male workers, 34 million (44 percent) had an employment based pension.
In Full-time Jobs, Women Are Equally Likely To Have Pension Coverage. Twenty
five years ago, pension coverage for women in full-time jobs was only 70 percent of the
rate for men. Today, the coverage rates are nearlydentical. In 1997, 50 percent of
women in full-time jobs had pension coverage, compared with 49 percent of men.
Coverage Is Significantly Lower for Part-time Workers. Coverage is significantly
lower for women who work part time. In 1997, 15 percent of women working part time
were covered by pensions versus 50 percent working full time.
Women Are More Likely to Work Part-time or Be Out of the Labor Force than
Men. In 1997, 75 percent of men were in the labor force, versus 60 percent of women.
In addition, over one fourth of working women were part-time, compared with one tenth
of men.
Women Who Work Part time Are Less Likely To Work For Firms With Pension
Plans. In 1997, of the 48 million women workers employed full time, 30 million (63
percent) worked for a firm with a plan. Among the 20 million women employed part
time in 1997, only 7 million (36 percent) worked for a firm sponsoring a pension plan.
Women Who Work Part time Are Less Likely to Participate in Pension Plans.
Among women employed by firms sponsoring pension plans, those employed on a part-
time basis are far less likely to participate in the plan, primarily because plans often
exclude employees working less than 1,000 hours per year. Of the 30 million full-time
women workers in 1997 employed with firms with plans, 24 million (80 percent)
participated in the plan. Of the 7 million part-time women workers employed by firms
with plans, only 3 million (41 percent) participated in the plan.
Vesting Rate is Higher for Women Who Work Full time. For women participating in
a pension plan the vesting rate is higher for those who work full time, particularly for
those with less than five years of service. In 1993, 64 percent of women with less than
five years of service who were employed full time in private sector jobs reported that they
were vested, compared to 56 percent of women employed part time. A total of 325,000
women with less than five-years of pension service in a part-time job reported that they
were not vested.²⁷
Women Have Smaller Non-Pension Wealth as Well.
Median Net Worth Is Lower for Women. In 1993, the median female householder
aged 65 or older had $9,560 in financial net worth (not including equity in own home).
In comparison, the median male householder had $12,927, and the median married
couple had $44,410.²
Women and Retirement Security
16
V. CONCLUSION
As discussions of Social Security reform continue, it will be important to study the
impacts of comprehensive reform proposals on women. The design of reforms must take into
account, not only the current characteristics of elderly women, but also the changes in their
needs that are likely to come about in the 21st century as more women with long work
histories reach retirement. In addition, reforms should consider the entire range of sources of
retirement income available to women and how Social Sécurity can best fit into the overall
retirement security package.
Women and Retirement Security
17
ENDNOTES
1.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
2.
Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States: 1997, September 1998.
3.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
4.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
5.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
6.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, October 1998.
7.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
8.
These calculations make the assumption that other income would not change if Social Security
were not available.
9.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary.
10.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, October 1998.
11.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
12.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, October 1998.
13.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary.
14.
The average benefit based on women's own earnings is the average for only those women claiming
benefits as retired workers. Thus, it does not include the 37.5 percent of aged female beneficiaries
who receive benefits as wives or widows only. Including these additional beneficiaries with full
"worker" benefits of zero in the average would reduce the average full benefit for women as a share
of the average full benefit for men to 39 percent.
15.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary.
16.
The average benefit for retired female workers based on their own earnings records is calculated
using only those women claiming benefits asretired workers. In the future, increased labor market
experience will be divided between increased years of work for women who already have been
receiving retired worker benefits, and additional women becoming eligible for worker benefits. As
more women claim benefits as retired workers, many of the additional women will have earnings
below the average for women already claiming as retired workers. This expansion of the population
used in calculating the average explains in part why the average is forecast to rise only from 62 to
67 percent of the average for men even as cohorts of women retire with much greater labor market
experience.
17.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary.
Women and Retirement Security
18
18.
The subsequent estimates are based on integrating evidence from a number of studies, including the
following: Hurd, Michael D. (1990). "Research on the Elderly: Economic Status, Retirement, and
Consumption Savings," Journal of Economic Literature, XXVIII(2): 565-637. Holden, Karen
(forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed Social Security
System," In National Academy of Social Insurance, Framing the Social Security Debate: Values,
Politics, and Economics, Brookings Institute. Holden, Karen C., Richard V. Burkhauser, and Daniel
A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The Dynamics of Poverty," The
Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
19.
Holden, Karen (forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed
Social Security System," In National Academy of Social Insurance, Framing the Social Security
Debate: Values, Politics, and Economics, Brookings Institution. Holden, Karen C., Richard V.
Burkhauser, and Daniel A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The
Dynamics of Poverty," The Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
20.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
21.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
22.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
23.
Gustman, Alan, Olivia Mitchell, Andrew Samwick, and Tom Steinmeier. Forthcoming. "Pension
and Social Security Wealth in the Health and Retirement Study." Wealth, Work, and Health:
Innovations in Measurement in the Social Sciences, editors, James P. Smith and Robert Willis. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
24.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
25.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
26.
Unless otherwise noted, data in this section are from the Department of Labor, Current Population
Survey, March 1998.
27.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
28.
Bureau of the Census, Asset Ownership of Households: 1993, August 1995.
Women and Retirement Security
19
THE HENRY J.
KAISER
FAMILY
THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
UNDATION
THE KAISER MEDICARE POLICY PROJECT
Women and Medicare
October 1998
Introduction
Health and Functional Status
Medicare is a health insurance program for older
Chronic illness increases with age and can limit the
women and men, but women comprise most of the
ability of older people to function independently. Nine
beneficiaries. In fact, elderly women aged 65 and over
out of ten women ages 65 and over report one or more
outnumber elderly men 3 to 2. More than half (58%) of
chronic conditions and almost three out of four have two
elderly beneficiaries are women and 71 percent of
or more conditions. Among women aged 85 and over, 97
beneficiaries aged 85 and older are women (Figure 1).
percent have one or more conditions and 90 percent
There are currently 20 million elderly women on
report two or more conditions. The prevalence of specific
Medicare and another 2 million women who are covered
chronic conditions among elderly women is high. In
by Medicare because they receive Social Security
1996, 61 percent report they had arthritis, 55 percent
disability benefits.
had hypertension, and 37 percent had heart conditions.
More than one out of five women ages 85 years and
over have Alzheimer's disease.
Figure 1. Age and Gender of the
As women get older, they report higher rates of
Medicare Population,
functional limitations. While a third (34%) of women
18.4 million 12 million 4.2 million
ages 65-74 report functional limitations, 82 percent of
women ages 85+ report being limited in their functioning.
Almost 2 out of 5 (39%) women aged 85+ report
Female
needing assistance in 3 or more activities of daily living
3
Males
(ADLs), such as eating, transferring from bed to a chair,
46%
39%
and bathing. To live independently, people also need to
29%
be able to carry out complex tasks requiring higher
levels of cognitive functioning to live independently.
Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+
These more complex "instrumental activities of daily
living" (IADLs) include preparing meals, handling money,
Source: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 1996.
taking medications, and using the telephone. One out of
5 elderly women beneficiaries report needing assistance
in IADLs.
Demographics
Women live an average of 6 years longer than men
and at age 65, the life expectancy for women is 3.3
Figure 2. Medicare Beneficiaries With
years longer than for men. Most women marry older
Incomes Under $10,000, 1996
men, who die at younger ages. Thus, older women are
3 times more likely to be widowed than men, and 4 out
55%
of 5 women in the 85+ age group are widowed. Men
are 5 times more likely to be married than women in the
Age
27%
30%
85+ age group. Because more women ages 65 and
65-84
over are widowed, they are more than twice as likely
16%
than men to live alone or in a long-term care facility. In
85+
the 85+ age group, more than two-fifths (43%) of women
live alone, and more than one quarter (28%) live in a
Men
Women
long-term care facility.
Source: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 1996.
Women ages 65 and older are twice as likely as
older men to live within 125% of the poverty line (less
than $10,000 annually)-30 percent of women
compared with 16 percent of men had incomes of less
than $10,000 in 1996 (Figure 2). Among the 85+
Medicare beneficiaries, 55 percent of women compared
to 27 percent of men had incomes of less than $10,000.
WASHINGTON OFFICE: 1450 G STREET. N.W., SUITE 250 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 347-5270 FAX (202) 347-5274
051
FAV
16501
854
1800
252 P02/03 MAR 12 '99 10:46
7MO
Medical Care Use and Costs
Figure 3. Benefit Payments per
Use of health services increases with age, and the
Female Beneficiary by Income,
elderly consume health services in amounts
$6,271
disproportionate to their numbers. In 1994, women ages
$5,143
65 and over comprised 7 percent of the
$3,871
$3,576
noninstitutionalized population, but they had 13 percent
of the physician visits, 17 percent of the short-stay
hospital discharges, and 21 percent of the hospital days.
Because older women are more likely than older
Under
men to be living in poverty, they are more likely to face
$10,000
$15,000-
$25,000+
financial barriers to health care. The elderly poor, who
$10,000
$15,000
$25,000
are disproportionately women, spend a greater
Source: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 1996.
proportion of their income on health compared with
wealthier beneficiaries. For example, elderly
Elderly women have a disproportionate need for long-
households that had incomes less than $10,000 in 1994
term care services and are disproportionate users of
spent about 25 percent of their income on medical care
these services. In 1996, 1.5 million elderly women (73%
whereas elderly households that had incomes of over
of total residents) resided in a long-term care facility
$54,000 spent an average of only 4 percent of their
(skilled nursing home, intermediate care facility,
income on their health care.
retirement home, and institutions for the mentally
retarded). Women made up two-thirds (67%) of home
Medicare payments on behalf of elderly beneficiaries
health care users and over half (55%) of hospice
amounted to $168.8 billion in 1996, or $4,875 per elderly
patients.
person. Benefit payments for elderly women amounted
s $97.4 billion (58% of the total), or $4,838 on average
For the many millions of elderly Americans who
per elderly woman. But Medicare spent greater amounts
require help with everyday activities, family and friends
for women with lower incomes because they are more
are the first line of support. Caregiving adds an
likely to be in poor health, have greater medical need
additional unpaid burden to elderly women: 3 out of 4
and utilize more medical services. Medicare payments
informal caregivers are women. The average age of
per beneficiary for those with incomes under $10,000
caregivers is 57 years, but 25 percent are between the
amounted to $6,271 in 1996 compared to $3,576 for
ages 65 and 74, and 10 percent are 75 years and over.
those with incomes of $25,000 or more (Figure 3).
Three out of four elderly disabled persons rely
exclusively on these informal unpaid caregivers.
Medicare also spends significantly more, on
average, for elderly beneficiaries with functional
Future Issues
limitations, primarily women, than for other elderly
beneficiaries. Medicare spending generally rises with
Medicare costs have increased rapidly in recent
the degree of functional limitation.
years. The National Bipartisan Commission on the
Future of Medicare, appointed by Congress, is
Long term care
examining many options to restrain Medicare costs,
including reducing benefits, raising the Medicare
Long-term care refers to a broad array of in-home,
eligibility age, increasing co-payments and premiums,
community, and institutional services for people who
and moving toward the use of a voucher system. These
need assistance with basic tasks of life because of a
proposals may place a greater financial burden on
chronic condition. Medicare does not cover most long-
elderly women, many of whom live in poverty and suffer
term care services used by its beneficiaries, although its
from one or more chronic conditions requiring long-term
skilled nursing facility (SNF) and home health benefits
care services. In searching for solutions, the financial,
cover some long-term care for some beneficiaries.
health, and long-term care needs of women on Medicare
warrant close attention.
This fact sheet was prepared by Dorothy Rice and Martha Michel at the Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San
Francisco for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and OWL: the Voice of Midlife and Older Women.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundution is a non-profit independent national health care philanthropy and is not associated with Kniser Permanente or
252 P03/03 MAR 12 '99 10:46
7MO
TALKING POINTS FOR FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
WOMEN'S MAGAZINE EDITORS BRIEFING
ROOSEVELT ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE
March 15, 1999
I'm delighted that all of you have joined us for this important discussion of the
Administration's plans for strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and of why these
issues are particularly important to women. I'm especially grateful that Melinda Scott,
Catherine Galvin, and Ruth Rosenstein were able to be with us to share their personal
perspectives on these critical issues.
Many of you will be with us later tonight for the Millennium Lecture -- as we celebrate
and examine the changes in women's lives in this century and look ahead to the next to
the challenges of the next millennium. That theme is fitting to this discussion because the
creation of Social Security and Medicare played such enormous roles in women's lives in
this century. And, the decisions we are going to make about these programs will have a
profound impact on women in the future.
We can perhaps best understand the importance of our action now by considering a time
when Social Security and Medicare did not exist. When older Americans lived in fear of
becoming ill. When growing old meant growing poor. When the terrible tragedy of
losing a husband meant a life in poverty. Social Security and Medicare changed all that.
Over the past few hours, you've heard from top Administration officials about why Social
Security and Medicare are vital and particularly so for women. Let me just reinforce a
few points:
(1)
Social Security. Social security is our nation's solemn pledge that Americans can grow
old with dignity. But it is much more than a retirement system. Nearly one-third of its
beneficiaries are either disabled or survivors -- or their dependents. And millions of
young people benefit, as well. We never know when something catastrophic will happen,
but today Social Security is always there. Social security -- in a very real sense -- is
America's family protection system.
(2)
Social Security and Women. Women have a particular stake in saving Social Security for
future generations. Women represent the majority of aged recipients. And, without it,
half of all women over 65 would be living in poverty. As women, we also rely on Social
Security because of our unique life patterns: we live longer than men and, though we are
making progress, we reach retirement with smaller pensions and other financial assets.
The President's call to save Social Security as a rock-solid guarantee is therefore
particularly important to women.
(3)
Medicare and Women. Women have a special stake in keeping Medicare secure well into
the future. We make up more than half of all beneficiaries -- and more than 70 percent of
those 85 years and older. Medicare also provides important preventive benefits --
including guaranteed mammograms -- that have improved the health of millions of
women. Preserving Medicare must be at the top of our agenda -- retirement security and
health security must go hand in hand.
(4)
"USA" Accounts (Universal Savings Accounts). The President has proposed a tax break
for working families to help them to build nest eggs for their retirement. Because women
are less likely to have employer-provided pensions and because we reach retirement with
smaller pensions and other assets, this proposed opportunity to help Americans build
wealth is particularly important for women.
I believe that we are at a critical juncture to ensure that the gains we've made for women
and children are protected and strengthened in the years to come. The decisions we make
now will demonstrate who we want to be as a nation, and what we want to stand for as we
enter the new millennium. We stand at a time of unprecedented prosperity -- when fiscal
discipline and a robust economy have replaced budget deficits with budget surpluses.
The President and I believe that this prosperity gives us a unique and important
responsibility to act on these challenges.
Women's magazines play a critical role in women's lives because they are an enormously
important and credible source of information for women. Women trust your magazines
because you bring them valuable information about their lives and you do it in a personal
way -- without the political jargon and rhetorical language that comes out of Washington.
And, when you bring your readers information about the stake they and their families
have in debates about national policy, women become involved.
Women's voices must be heard in the coming debate about Social Security and Medicare.
I hope these briefings have been valuable -- I urge you to keep in touch with us as this
debate continues. Women need to understand the profound ways in which the decisions
we make now will affect their lives. And, as we've learned time and again, magazines
can do this uniquely. When your magazines have joined in partnership to inform and
explain, we have witnessed impressive results -- such as your role in promoting the
Medicare mammography benefit.
I look forward to working together in the months ahead on these critical issues. And, I
look forward to seeing many of you tonight at the Millennium lecture. Thank you for
your commitment to improving the lives of American women.
Women's Equality Summit at the
National Education Association
Remarks by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Washington, D.C.
March 15, 1999
Thank you so much. I am delighted to be here in front of all of you. As I look around this
room I see so much energy and commitment and leadership, and it is a very exciting sight to
behold. I want to thank Laura not just for that introduction, but for the work she does every day
on behalf of issues that affect women and men, that affect people who deserve to have their voices
heard to make sure that how they live and the needs of their lives are taken into account in our
political system. And what Laura and her organization have done over the last 20 or so years now
is to help give lòw-income women the tools they need to become their own best advocates. That
is really our goal here -- to see how we can continue to work together to empower women to make
decisions that are best for them and their lives.
And there are many people who we have to thank in this gathering: Susan Bianchi-Sand, I
want to thank you for your hard work and your leadership; Ellie Smeal and Pat Reuss, for their
tireless work in organizing this Women's Equality Summit. And we are grateful to the NEA, Bob
Chase, and the entire leadership for letting us meet in this beautiful auditorium.
It is very fitting that we would be gathered here at the end of this century that has seen so
many changes in women's lives. I'm just marveled when I think back about what women's lives
were like at the beginning of this century. We couldn't vote. We were likely to die in childbirth
or earlier from an infectious disease or some other kind of ailment. We were not permitted to
hold many professional positions or jobs that were available to men. We were not given the full
range of educational opportunities that we now take for granted.
Although the laws were slowly changing, they had not changed enough. So women were,
in many respects, living in the worst of both worlds when it came to work because the women
who did work outside the home worked very, very hard. There is a great myth about women only
having begun working recently, and until that African American women who (inaudible).
There are many changes that we can all be grateful for, and we can thank those who came
before us. I was privileged to speak in Seneca Falls for the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of
Sentiments. And when you think about the work that those women did -- knowing that they
probably would not see the fruits in their lifetime, that they were advocating for such radical
changes: the right to vote, to inherit property, to be able to be the custodian of one's children in
the event of divorce the things that we now can look back and thank them for.
1
But they were doing it not for themselves, but for the next generation and generations of
women and men to come. Because these issues that we are talking about -- which we will be
addressing in this next year and particularly in this Congress -- which have brought us together in
this gathering today, they do have a disproportionate effect on women. But I want to make it very
clear that these are human issues. And I say that because there is a recent trend in political
commentary claiming that talking about child care or after-school care or the impoverishment of
women on Social Security -- that addressing those issues somehow leads to the feminization of
politics. Now I'm not against that, but I think it is fairer to say that we are attempting to bring
about the humanization of politics.
Now you will hear from three women in a minute who have a lot of expertise and who will
address specifically some of the issues that I'm going to just touch on. And they are three women
whom I admire and call my friends: Secretary of Health and Human Services -- the longest
serving secretary -- Secretary Shalala; and of course, those who follow what happens in
Washington, we know also a crimebuster. The Secretary of Labor who has done a superb job in
bringing to the table issues that affect pay equity and workers' rights and safety and occupational
health -- a woman who served a great position in recent Democratic administrations, but
particularly in the White House during the first term of the President and then as the Secretary of
Labor, Alexis Herman. And Barbara Kennelly -- I don't know if there is anyone here who is
lucky enough to be represented in Connecticut by Congresswoman Kennelly, but for our first
contingent, I'm sure it's represented here. But Barbara Kennelly served for years on the Ways
and Means Committee, and while there she was a very strong advocate for fairness in government
programs, particularly Social Security. And I'm delighted that she has been asked and that she
has accepted the very important position in these times to be counselor to the Social Security
Administration. So we're delighted to have her expertise here today.
I believe that some of you participated in the 1997 Women's Economic Leadership
Summit in the White House, and today those of you who were there and those of you who have
come to this meeting are building on the blueprint that many of you laid out at that important
gathering. And the participants that are here represented by the National Council of Women's
Organizations have a special responsibility because you are really standing in for congresswomen
who couldn't be here -- certainly women whom you may know, whom you work with, who are in
organizations that are part of your advocacy network -- but you're also standing in for women
who will never know your name, will never know the name of your organization, will probably
not know much about the debate that's going on here because they are struggling vitally to keep
body and soul together. You know, they're getting up, getting kids off to school, getting to clock
in on time, getting to the office on time, trying to figure out what happens when their child care
arrangements fall apart, struggling to be paid equitably for the work that they do. They are there
on the job, building America and taking care of the next generation of Americans, but they are not
fully participating in the political process and they therefore -- as we always have in America --
are going to rely on people who understand them, empathize with them, and can represent them as
you do so well. So this is an important gathering for those who are here, but it may even be more
important for those who are not here, because many of the issues that we are talking about here
2
today are ones that hold special meaning for people who are really struggling, who are trying to
make sure that they have their shot at the American dream in the years to come. And the
decisions that are made in Washington will, in very large measure, impact on how well they are
able to do.
You know, sometimes I am a little bit taken aback and even bewildered when I hear
people talking about politics as though it were the problem of somebody else, somewhere -- when
we know that it is grassroots activism, it is citizen participation, it is the voices of all of us that
have to rise in a crescendo of chorus to be heard by people who make decisions, that really has
always made America move forward. If politically elected leaders were left to themselves, we
wouldn't have suffrage, we wouldn't have a lot of the changes that happened at the end of this last
century and the beginning of this next. Those were not ideas that flowed from the very closely
held power of elected office; those were ideas that came from the grassroots by people just like us.
And it is because of that that it is critical that we once again re-energize the women of America
and the men to understand what it will take to move into this next century with the kind of
confidence and energy that we should have. Because just think about the relative handful of
women and their male allies, at the end of the last century, who made so many of the reforms
possible that we have come to take for granted.
I recently read the galleys of a new biography of the early years of Jane Addams. She
forged a new pattern, along with other women who were like-minded, who fought and struggled
and advocated for legislation that would get children out of factories, give women a decent shot at
a 40-hour week, not a 60- or a 70-hour week. They cleaned up the slums of Chicago or New York
or a lot of our other cities where immigrants were just herded in and tried to be kept in their
places. So there was a lot of work -- important work -- that was led by, that was given voice by
women at the end of this last century.
I think we have just the kind of opportunity to do that again now. Because look at the
situation we're in. We have a lot of blessings to be grateful for right now in our country. I'm
very pleased that we have the kind of economic recovery that has made it possible to create many
new jobs. I am pleased at how we are beginning to see the fruits of those economic changes really
spread into the lives of people who are left out or marginalized. I'm delighted by what I hear
about the expansion of health care to children that was passed through the balanced budget. I
rejoice in the declining of crime throughout our country because we adopted new strategies and
people work together at the community level. So we have a lot to be grateful for, but that is not
just a time to rest on our laurels, that is a time to say, "Well, what do we do with those blessings?
How do we make sure that they are truly, really, once and for all embedded in the bedrock of our
society, and then made clear that they are available to everyone?"
Well, there are some particular issues that we have to be addressing right now, and we
finally have the tools and the resources -- if we can summon the political will -- to address. Now
what are some of those issues? Well, clearly, the debate about the Social Security system is going
to be one that will have profound effects on how we live into the next century. Social Security
3
was, first and foremost, not a legislative program, not an economic decision; it was a statement of
values. How will we treat people as they age? How will we take care of them in their later years?
What kind of society will we be if we turn our backs on our mothers and fathers and our
grandmothers and our grandfathers?
So we took that value statement and put into effect a program. The Social Security
program is our nation's solemn pledge that Americans can and will grow older with dignity. It's a
commitment that our parents and our grandparents have been able to rely upon. But it is not just a
retirement program, and this is a particular point that I wish to stress today -- almost one-third of
the beneficiaries of the Social Security system are not retirees, but they are severely disabled
workers, they're children, survivors of workers who've died in an untimely manner, including
millions and millions of young people.
So in a very real sense that statement of values should be expanded beyond what we
usually say -- namely, that it is a pledge to our older citizens -- to really be seen as a pledge that
there will be a family protection system to guard against what a wonderful man some of you may
have known and worked with, Arthur Fleming, used to say, "to guard against the hazards and
vicissitudes of life." And whenever I would hear Arthur say that in his inimitable manner as he
stood on the front lines of social justice for 90 plus years before his death a few years ago, I used
to think about how, as you're younger, you don't think about hazards and vicissitudes often; as
you get older you think more about hazards and vicissitudes. And there are so many young
people who have been protected by and who could benefit in the event of a tragedy or catastrophe,
that may not even know that.
One of the messages that I would like to see us get out through our grassroots efforts is
that this Social Security system, this family protection system, is just as important to someone in
their 20s as someone in their 80s. There are many of you, as I look out, who are more in the
category of 20s than 80s, and you and your friends may not know what the Social Security system
means to you. I've heard many stories about young people who have suffered serious accidents,
or the death of a parent, who have been able to go onto college, been able to have a decent
standard of living because of the Social Security system. Just today I met a woman from Silver
Spring, Maryland. Ruth is a widow whose husband died when she was only 39 years old --
something she certainly never expected leaving her with two small children to raise. She now
receives her own retirement benefits as well as a portion of widow's benefits. She's been able to
send both of her children through college.
I met a young man, just 31, who had a debilitating stroke -- something he never could have
dreamed of. And thanks to Social Security, he was able to piece together enough resources to
keep his family in their home and to keep living as they had lived pretty much before the stroke.
Now I would imagine that there are many such stories in this room, and those stories
should be told. Because it is really by stories that we identify more and learn more about what it
is that we are trying to save or promote or protect. Just saying Social Security may not ring a bell;
4
talking about an elderly relative or a young friend who has had a disaster, by whom we can then
make Social Security seem alive, is a much clearer way to make the point.
There is another way which Social Security is a family protection, and that is that were it
not for Social Security, half of all American women over 65 would be poor. Now think about
that. And what I've tried to do is -- as I travel around or even sometimes as I look out the window
of the car I'm in -- I look at women and I think to myself every time I see a woman over 65, and
then another one, that one of those two, were it not for Social Security, would be impoverished.
That's a stunning statistic. And it means -- as I know it would mean in your life -- that were it not
for Social Security, many of us would be supporting our parents. We would take them in, we
would do what we needed to do to try to provide the resources they required to stay above
poverty, to live as comfortably as we could afford. And that would cause a lot of difficult
decisions in our lives, wouldn't it? There would be many families who would have to choose
between supporting a parent -- an elderly parent -- and sending a child to college.
It becomes even more pronounced if we add Medicare into that equation, because most
families already try to do everything we can emotionally and financially to support an older
relative in whatever way is necessary. And particularly when it comes to health care we would
certainly do all we could to make sure that a mother or a father or a grandparent had the health
care that was needed. And that would mean an economic responsibility and an economic burden
that we would feel required to shoulder.
So in a very real sense, Medicare and Social Security say to our older people: We're going
to help you remain independent, and by helping to support you because of what you've done for
our country -- the families you've raised, the jobs you've held, the incomes that you've
contributed to the United States, the wars you've fought -- we're going to help, as a nation, to
support you. And by doing so, we're going to free up the resources that might otherwise have to
come directly to you from your family, so that they can do what you did -- raise the next
generation, send their children to college, hold down the jobs that enable them to move forward.
So this is in a very real way, a totally interdependent system. And it needs to be seen in
that way, because once it is seen in that way, then the debate about Social Security is not some
abstract discussion that affects older people, the debate about Medicare is not somebody else's
health care needs; it is how we all take care of each other and how we each fulfill our obligations
to both the younger and the older generation.
And when the President proposed in the State of the Union that he wanted to set aside a
large portion of the budget surplus to preserve and strengthen Social Security well into the 21st
century, it was a way of saying, "Let's take this money that we have been able to save because of
budget decisions -- tough budget decisions that were made earlier in this Administration -- and
let's use it to start solving a problem that if we solve now, will be easier and less expensive to
address, and if we wait, will become more difficult and more costly to address." That 62 percent
figure that the President said would be necessary to take from the surplus and use for Social
5
Security would go a long way towards strengthening the system.
With respect to Medicare, he proposed 15 percent of the surplus to help expand and extend
the life of Medicare. And that too is a way of saying to older Americans, "We want to ensure that
your health needs are met." Because, after all, if we are able to expand and extend Medicare, we
will be providing health care to older Americans who are the most expensive people in the system
-- which is just a natural cause of aging -- but for whom the provision of Medicare is getting
increasingly more cost-effective. Thanks to HHS under Donna Shalala's leadership, we are
beginning to really see tremendous progress in getting the fraud and the abuse and the waste out
of the Medicare system. But we already have a very low administrative cost in Medicare. So a
dollar in Medicare actually goes further in providing real services to patients than a dollar in
private insurance where money has to go to overhead, profit, and things like that. So Medicare --
if it is handled correctly -- can be there well into the future for all of us.
Now that is not the place to stop, however -- although that will be probably the most
contentious and difficult of the debates we face as we close out this century. But I see it is a
continuum of the work that Jane Adams and others started a hundred years ago to get to that point
where Social Security remains safe and secure, and where Medicare is there for all of us as we
reach our older years.
But one of the ways we could make life easier for women and families right now is to do
more to close the pay gap between men and women. The AFL-CIO just released a report that
highlights the critical importance of equal pay, and makes clear that we all pay a high price when
equal pay is denied. According to the study, an average working family loses more than $4,000 a
year because of the wage gap between men and women. Now that not only hurts women, it hurts
single mothers, it hurts working couples, it hurts families, and it hurts our nation's economy. And
then, in this interdependent web that we are all part of whether we admit it or not, it hurts our
Social Security payments. Because if we don't get paid what we're entitled to be paid, then when
we retire, our Social Security payment is less than it should be. So all of this is connected with
the very fundamental goal of providing economic security to working people and retired people.
The study also found that over half of the two-earner and single mother households across
the country now living in poverty would be lifted out of poverty if equal pay policies were
enacted and enforced at the state level. Now that is a stunning statistic. Again, let's just put a
mental picture in our heads. I have stood at factory gates with people coming to work at five
o'clock in the morning with little babies and pick-up trucks that had to be then driven
somewhere -- until they could be taken to day care or school. I've been in lots of offices where
young women and older women are working very, very hard, and I've seen a lot of people who
are working hard -- 40 hours a week -- and still below the poverty line. Now that is something
that should be unacceptable in America. Everybody who works full time should have a wage that
is above the poverty line, and we could get closer to that goal if we enforced equal pay. Now that
is just a simple question of fairness and equity with great economic consequences.
6
Now there is another piece of this economic security pie, and that is what do we do to
make sure that women and men who are raising families have the supports they need so that
they're able to do the best job they can at home and at work?
Now just a few weeks ago, I was in Brooklyn at a YMCA where I had a fascinating and
moving roundtable with six women. There was a single mom there who has really worked her
way up in the corporation where she is employed. She now makes $30,000 a year -- she gets no
child support from the father of her child -- so that is the income that she is using to raise her son
and support herself. Now after she pays taxes and rent and utilities and food and all the things we
have to pay for, she has no money left to afford child care because she makes too much money to
qualify for subsidized care. I see lots of heads nodding. And that is the case of literally millions
of women around our country. And so this woman is in a state of constant anxiety as she tries to
juggle where to put her son and make sure that her child care arrangements don't fall apart,
because she can't afford to lose this job that she has worked so hard to achieve.
Now we need to do better and do more in this country to make sure that every working
parent has access to good quality, affordable child care. And I'm pleased that tomorrow there will
be the introduction of some pieces of legislation. I believe Representative Ellen Tauscher of
California and Representative Ben Cardin of Maryland will be introducing important child care
legislation and holding the first child care hearing. Now I hope that these initiatives signal that
we are going to get some action on this issue.
We're also fighting to dramatically increase after-school programs so that working
families don't have to worry about where their children are in the hours between 3 and 6 p.m.,
when so many problems arise with kids -- the times when more crimes are committed and more
other kinds of difficulties occur.
We're also committed to expanding and extending the Family and Medical Leave Act so
that more working families can take time to care for their sick child or aging parent -- and still
keep their jobs.
Now this is just part of a broad agenda for working men and women, and for working
families, so that we can begin to make good on the promises that the end of this century hold out
to us. I am so pleased that I could be standing here in 1999 before this audience of advocates and
people who understand what's happening in the lives of Americans, and talking about what we
have to be grateful for. But I hope that in the next couple of years we could have a similar
meeting where we talk about what we've achieved on the rest of this agenda, so that we will be
able to look back and say we have made good on the promise of Social Security and Medicare; we
finally have a system of affordable, quality child care and after-school care; we have paid
attention to our public schools; we have given our public schools and their teachers the support,
the dignity, and the respect they deserve to have to do the most important job.
Now it is never easy, and this is an ambitious agenda. But I am very confident we can
7
achieve these goals. I'm also very sure it will be difficult. But as I look back on this century and
I think about the achievements that have really moved us forward as women, as Americans, as
human beings, I know that it takes concerted effort. I know that it takes a lot of people making
their contributions.
As I read this Jane Addams' biography, I encountered the names of women whom I have
not heard of before, women who are critical to doing things like the first garbage inspection tour
of a ward in Chicago to force the political leadership to clean the garbage up out of the alleyways
and off the street corners; and there was a women who got into a cart every day and she went
around and took notes about where the garbage was. Well, that led to changes in how garbage
was collected. It led to public health changes about how we understood what spread disease and
what hygiene meant. And so I saw the names of people that may not ever have their own
biographies written about them, but who were part of a movement that made a difference in our
lives.
Now we're having at the White House a series of Millennium lectures and events under
the theme of "Honor the Past -- Imagine the Future." Well, yes, we can and should honor the
past. We should especially honor those women and men who were on the forefront of change,
often at great cost to themselves. Think of the names that they were called, think of the isolation
that they suffered, think of the fingers that were pointed at them because they stood up for
women's suffrage or they were the first to try to get a job that others had held before and only
men were permitted. Think of all those people and, yes, let us honor the past. But we also have
an equal and, I would argue, an even greater obligation to imagine a future where the work of the
past and the work of the present combine to create changes that will truly set the stage for the kind
of country and world we want to inherit in and live in. Each of you is playing a role in that, and I
am grateful and thankful that you are standing in the shoes of those who have come before. And
who knows? In a hundred years someone may be standing here, or probably in a virtual room
somewhere, talking about some of you and also talking about all of you -- some by name -- but all
because you have made a decision to help set us on the right course for the future.
Thank you all for having me.
8
March 12, 1999
WOMEN'S EQUALITY SUMMIT
DATE:
Monday, March 15, 1999
LOCATION: NEA Auditorium
TIME:
3:00 p.m.
FROM:
Jenny Luray, Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director, Women's Initiatives and Outreach
I.
PURPOSE
You are scheduled to speak on women's economic issues at the Women's Equality Summit in
the National Education Association Auditorium on Monday, March 15, 1999. The audience will
consist of approximately 500 women activists gathered from around the nation for the Women's
Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day (March 15-16) sponsored by the National
Council of Women's Organizations.
II.
BACKGROUND
The Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day is sponsored by the National
Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO), which is chaired by Susan Bianchi-Sand,
Executive Director, National Committee on Pay Equity. The co-chairs of the Summit are Ellie
Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation, and Pat Reuss, Senior Policy Analyst, NOW
Legal Defense Fund. The Summit is bringing together grassroots activists who are members of
NCWO organizations on March 15 and 16, 1999. They will attend briefings on the six key issues
identified for the Congressional Action Day and launch a public education and organizing
campaign on Social Security reform and its impact on women. The key issues include:
Protecting Social Security and ending disadvantages to women in Social Security;
Securing affordable, quality child care as a national priority for all who need it;
Improving access to health care by increasing funding for family planning and requiring
private insurance coverage for contraceptives;
Supporting the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by the Senate and measures to oppose gender
Apartheid in Afghanistan;
Supporting Fair Pay legislation;
Ending hate violence against all citizens, supporting the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
After your remarks, the activists will hear from other members of the Administration (see
Sequence of Events). Before your remarks and after this part of the program, the activists will
attend issue briefings on these priority issues conducted by the NCWO.
1
The next day, the group will join members of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues who
will outline their proposals for women and families for the 106th Congress during a morning
press conference. The activists will also lobby their members of Congress. Following the
Summit, the goal is for the participants to return home to educate their communities and local
organizations about the six priorities.
In April, 1997, the White House Women's Office and the Center for Policy Alternatives co-
sponsored the Women's Economic Leadership Summit. You and the President joined leaders
from over 20 states representing business, labor, state and local governments, grassroots
organizations and foundations to develop a women-led economic agenda. This blueprint for
action entitled "America's Economic Agenda" contains recommendations on economic self-
sufficiency and family and work policy which we have acted on since the conference, and are
also the focus of this Women's Equality Summit. In your remarks, you will be highlighting the
linkage between the two events and the Administration's relevant accomplishments.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
500 women leaders from across the country representing 110 organizations will be in the
audience.
Program participants include: You; the Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala; Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman; Counselor to the Commissioner of Social
Security Barbara Kennelly; Susan Bianchi-Sand; Ellie Smeal. You will be introduced by Laura
Fortman, a grassroots activist who is the Director of the Maine Women's Lobby and the
Women's Development Institute. Laura focuses on getting low-income women involved in
public policy, and was instrumental in the passage of "Parents as Scholars," a state aid program
that helps welfare recipients complete college.
IV.
PRESS PLAN
Open.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Possible meet and greet with NCWO steering committee members;
Susan Bianchi-Sand makes remarks and introduces Maine activist Laura Fortman;
Laura Fortman makes remarks and introduces you;
You make remarks and depart;
Susan Bianchi-Sand introduces Secretary Herman;
Secretary Herman makes remarks on fair pay and introduces Secretary Shalala;
Secretary Shalala makes remarks on Medicare and child care and introduces Barbara Kennelly;
Barbara Kennelly makes remarks on social security and introduces Ellie Smeal;
Ellie Smeal makes concluding remarks.
2
VI. REMARKS
To be provided by speechwriters.
Schedule for the Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day
March 15 and 16, 1999
MONDAY, March 15
1:00 to 1:30 Registration begins: National Education Association,
1201 16th Street, NW
1:30 to 2:00
Opening session with remarks by:
Susan Bianchi-Sand, Executive Director National Committee on
Pay Equity and Chair of NCWO
Ellie Smeal, President The Feminist Majority and Co-Chair of
Women's Equality Summit
Pat Reuss, Senior Policy Analyst, NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund & Co-Chair of Women's Equality Summit
2:00 to 3:00 Issue briefings ON THE SIX ISSUES:
The following issues have been selected by the National Council of
Women's Organizations as priorities for the Women's Equality
Summit:
Protecting Social Security and ending disadvantages to women
in Social Security
Securing affordable, quality child care as a national priority for all who need it
Improving access to health care by increasing funding for family planning and
requiring private insurance coverage for contraceptives
Supporting the ratification of the United Nation's Convention for the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
by the Senate and measures to oppose gender apartheid in Afghanistan
Supporting Fair Pay legislation
Ending hate violence against all citizens, supporting the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act
3:00 to 4:15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton makes remarks on women's economic
empowerment and Social Security reform. She will be joined by
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, Secretary of
the Department of Labor, Alexis Herman and Barbara Kennelly,
Counsel to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
4:15 to 4:30
Break
4:30 to 5:30
Issue briefings
5:45 to 6:45
Screening of the Lifetime TV film on Child Care prepared for April premiere.
Comments by:
Kathryn Rodgers, Executive Director of NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund and NCWO Steering Committee member
Meredith Wagner, Senior VP for Public Affairs, Lifetime TV
6:45 to 8:00
Reception hosted by Lifetime TV
TUESDAY, March 16
7:45 to 9:00
Breakfast in the Senate Caucus Room, Russell 325,
located at Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE. Congresswomen
and Senators are invited to attend.
9:00 to 6:00
Capitol Hill Congressional visits.
Summit participants will discuss the six issues with their Representatives and
Senators on Tuesday. Following the Summit, participants will return home to
educate their communities and the nation about these issues. Briefing
information for those who could not attend Monday sessions will be
available throughout the day at 122 Maryland Avenue NE, between
the U.S. Senate offices and the Supreme Court.' Hill Visit report
forms can be turned in at this location.
6:00 to 8:00
Reception with Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine.
Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
STEERING COMMITTEE
Susan Bianchi-Sand, Chair, National Council of Women's Organizations
Executive Director
NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON PAY EQUITY
1126 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Suite 411
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 331-7343
Fax: (202) 331-7406
Sandy Bernard, J.D., President
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
1111 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (716) 924-3562
Fax: (716) 924-1661
DC Office: (202) 785-7725
Fax: (202) 872-1425
Gail Shaffer, CEQ
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN/USA
2012 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 293-1100
Fax: (202) 861-0298
Martha Burk, Ph.D., President
CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY
1735 s Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 797-0606
Fax: (202) 265-6245
Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D., President and Director
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
1400 20th Street, NW
Suite #104
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 785-5100
Fax: (202) 833-4362
Jane E. Smith, Ed.D., President
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN INC.
633 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 737-0120
Fax: (202) 383-9182
Sarah Harder, Co-Chair
NATIONAL WOMEN'S CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Women's Studies Department
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54701
Phone: (715) 836-5717
Fax: (715) 836-5019
Kathryn Rodgers, Esq., Executive Director
NOW, LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 925-6635
Fax: (212) 226-1066
Prema Mathai-Davis, Ed.D., CEO
YWCA OF THE U.S.A.
Empire State Bldg.
350 5th Avenue
Suite 301
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 273-7800
Fax: (212) 465-2280
cop disk\s:steercom.doc
revised 3/99
Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day
National Council of Women's Organizations
Member Organizations
*Participating Organizations
*9 to 5: National Association of Working Women
*African-American Women's Clergy Association
* Alexandria Commission for Women
* American Association of University Women
* American Medical Women's Association
American Nurses Association
* American Physical Therapy Association
* American Women in Radio & TV
* Association for Women in Science
Betty Friedan
Black Women United for Action
Black Women's Agenda
Business and Professional Women of the USA
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for the Advancement of Public Policy
Center for the Early Childcare Work Force
Center for Policy Alternatives
Center for Women Policy Studies
Child Care Action Campaign
Choice USA
* Church Women United
*
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Cornell University/Institute for Women & Work
Dialogue on Diversity Inc.
Economists' Policy Group on Women's Issues
ERA Summit
Federally Employed Women
Feminist Majority
Financial Women International
* General Federation of Women's Clubs
Girls Incorporated
*HADASSAH
Institute for Health & Aging/University of California
*Institute for Women's Policy Research
International Black Women's Wages for Housework Campaign
International Wages for Housework Campaign
Jewish Women International
*Jewish Women's Coalition
League of Women Voters
MANA, A National Latina Organization
*Ms. Foundation for Women
*McAuley Institute/Women & Housing Task Force
*Na' Amat USA
*National Abortion Federation
*National Alliance for Caregiving
National Association for Female Executives
*National Association of Commissions for Women
*National Center on Women and Aging
*National Committee on Pay Equity
*National Council of Jewish Women
*National Council of Negro Women
National Council of Women of the U.S.
National Hispana Leadership Institute
*National Hook-up of Black Women, Inc.
National Museum of Women's History, Inc.
*National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Political Congress of Black Women
*National Woman's Party
*National Women's Conference
National Women's Hall of Fame
National Women's Health Network
National Women's Health Resource Center
National Women's History Project
*National Women's Law Center
National Women's Political Caucus
*NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education
*NCA Union Retirees
NETWORK
New Ways to Work
*NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
*Older Women's League
Organization of Chinese-American Women
Pamela Moffat
*Planned Parenthood Federation of America
*Public Leadership Education Network
*Radcliffe Public Policy Institute
*Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Soroptimist International of the Americas
The National Association of Women Business Owners
The National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc.
The White House Project
* The Woman Activist Fund, Inc.
U.S. Committee for UNIFEM
*Washington Feminist Faxnet
*Washington Women's Television Network
'Wider Opportunities for Women
Woman's National Democratic Club
Women Employed
Women Executives in State Government
* Women Leaders Online
Women of the West Museum
Women Work!
Women's Action Alliance, Inc.
* 'Women's Action for New Directions
*Women's Business Development Center
'Women's Campaign Fund
Women's Center for Ethics in Action
Women's Division, United Methodist Church
n
Women's EDGE
Women's Environmental & Developmental Organization
Women's Foreign Policy Group
* Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's International Public Health Network
*Women's Policy, Inc.
*Women's Research and Education Institute
*YWCA of the USA
THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES EQUAL PAY
INITIATIVE AND URGES PASSAGE OF PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
In his weekly radio address, the President will announce a new $14 million Equal Pay Initiative in his
Fiscal Year 2000 budget and urge prompt passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Initiative
includes $10 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to increase
compliance with equal pay laws by providing training to EEOC employees to identify and respond
to wage discrimination, increasing technical assistance to businesses on how to meet legal
requirements, and launching an equal pay public service announcement campaign to inform employers
and employees alike of their rights and responsibilities. The Initiative also includes $4 million for the
Department of Labor, primarily for a program to assist contractors in recruiting and retaining
qualified women in non-traditional occupations. The President also will call on Congress again to
pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen wage discrimination laws and provide for
additional research, training, and public education efforts on this important subject.
Equal Pay Initiative
The President's FY2000 budget includes funding for a $14 million equal pay initiative for the EEOC
and the DOL's Office of Federal Contractor Compliance (OFCCP):
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The President's FY2000 budget includes $10 million for the EEOC to:
triple the number of EEOC enforcement staff who receive training in identifying and
responding to wage discrimination;
provide, for the first time ever, training and technical assistance to employers (about 3,000
in total) on how to comply with equal pay requirements; and
develop public service announcements to educate employees and employers on their rights
and responsibilities under equal pay laws.
The Department of Labor
The President's FY 2000 budget includes $4 million for the Labor Department's OFCCP to:
help women obtain and retain employment in non-traditional jobs by identifying and
disseminating model employer practices and assisting contractors to finding qualified women
employees, including through the new nationwide network of One-Stop Career Centers
established by last year's Workforce Investment Act; and
increase outreach, education, and technical assistance to federal contractors on equal pay
issues, by providing legal guidelines and industry best practices.
Paycheck Fairness Act
The President again will urge Congress to pass legislation called the "The Paycheck Fairness Act,"
introduced by Senator Daschle and Congressman DeLauro, to strengthen laws prohibiting wage
discrimination. The highlights of this legislation include:
Increased Penalties for the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The legislation would provide full
compensatory and punitive damages as remedies for equal pay violations, in addition to the
liquidated damages and back pay awards currently available under the EPA. This proposal
would put gender-based wage discrimination on equal footing with wage discrimination based
on race or ethnicity, for which uncapped compensatory and punitive damages are already
available.
Non-retaliation provision. The bill would prohibit employers from punishing employees for
sharing salary information with their co-workers. Many employers are currently free to take
action against employees who share wage information. Without the ability to learn about wage
disparities, it is difficult for employees to evaluate whether there is wage discrimination.
Training. Research, and Pay Equity Award. The bill would provide for increased training for
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission employees to identify and respond to wage
discrimination claims; research on discrimination in the payment of wages; and the
establishment of an award to recognize and promote the achievements of employers in
eliminating pay disparities.
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:
PROMOTING A FAMILIES AGENDA THAT HELPS PARENTS MEET THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES AT HOME AND AT WORK
The President's FY 2000 budget includes a package of initiatives that will help parents
struggling to meet their responsibilities to their jobs and, even more important, to their
families. This Families Agenda includes important new investments to strengthen child care,
increase before- and after-school opportunities, address growing long-term care needs, and
expand access to family and medical leave.
Expanding the Child Care Block Grant to Create Better, Safer and More Affordable Child
Care:
Providing Child Care Subsidies to More than One Million Additional Children: The
President will propose to expand the Child Care and Development Block Grant to help
working families struggling to afford child care. This block grant is the primary federal
subsidy program to pay for child care, enabling low-income parents to work. Funds are
distributed by formula to the states to operate direct child care subsidy programs, as well
as to improve the quality and availability of care. Today, however, millions of families
who are eligible for assistance with their child care costs do not receive any help. In FY
1997, states provided child care assistance to only 1.25 million of the 10 million low-
income children eligible for assistance. The President's budget will increase funding for
child care subsidies by $7.5 billion over five years, enabling the program to serve an
additional 1.15 million children by FY 2004.
Promoting Early Learning: The President will propose to increase the block grant to
provide challenge grants to communities (distributed by states) to improve early learning
and the quality and safety of child care for children ages zero to five. Research shows
that children's experiences in the earliest years are critical to their development and
ability to reach school ready to learn. The President's budget will provide $3 billion over
five years to help get children ready to learn.
Improving Child Care Quality: Last year, Congress fully funded the President's request
to increase investment in improving child care by providing States with additional
resources for quality enhancement efforts such as performing inspections of child care
facilities, providing resource and referral services for parents, assisting providers with
training and scholarships, and creating networks for family day care providers. The
President's FY 2000 budget will provide $173 million for this initiative.
Giving Greater Tax Relief for Child Care to Three Million Working Families. The Child
and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides tax relief to taxpayers who pay for the care of a child
under 13 or a disabled dependent or spouse in order to work. The credit is equal to a percentage
of the taxpayer's employment-related expenditures for child or dependent care, with the amount
of the credit depending on the taxpayer's income. The President proposed to increase the credit
for families earning under $60,000, providing an additional average tax cut of $354 for these
families and eliminating income tax liability for almost all families with incomes below 200% of
poverty ($35,000 for a family of four) that claim the maximum allowable child care expenses.
The President's budget will include $5 billion over five years to expand the Child and Dependent
Care Tax Credit for nearly three million working families paying for child care.
Providing Tax Relief to Parents Who Stay at Home. The President believes that we should
support parents in whatever choice they make for the care of their children. He, therefore,
proposed to enable parents who stay at home with children under one to take advantage of the
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by claiming assumed child care expenses of $500. The
President's budget will provide an average tax credit of $ 178, at a cost of $1.3 billion over five
years, which will benefit 1.7 million parents.
Creating New Child Care Tax Incentives for Businesses. The President proposed to create a
new tax credit to businesses that provide child care services for their employees, by building or
expanding child care facilities, operating existing facilities, training child care workers, or
providing child care resources and referral services. The credit covers 25% of qualified costs,
but may not exceed $150,000 per year. The President's budget will include approximately $500
million over five years for these tax credits.
Expanding After-School Opportunities. The President proposed to triple funding for the 21st
Century Learning Center Program, which supports the creation and expansion of after-school and
summer school programs throughout the country. Experts agree that school-age children who are
unsupervised during the hours after school are far more likely to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco,
commit crimes, receive poor grades, and drop out of school than those who are involved in
supervised, constructive activities. The program increases the supply of after-school care in a
cost-effective manner, primarily by funding programs that use public school facilities and
existing resources. In awarding these new funds, the Education Department will give priority to
school districts that are ending social promotion by requiring that students meet academic
standards in order to move to the next grade. The President's budget will include $600 million in
FY 2000 to help roughly 1.1 million children each year participate in after-school and summer
school programs.
Addressing Growing Long-Term Care Needs. The President Clinton has proposed an
historic new initiative to support elderly and disabled Americans with long-term care needs
and the millions of families caring for them. Today, millions of Americans voluntarily
provide unpaid, informal long-term care to disabled family members and friends. Nearly 40
percent of all informal caregiving to aging Americans is provided by their children. The aging
of Americans will only increase the need for quality long-term care options -- by 2030, the
number of elderly Americans will have doubled, so that one in five Americans will be elderly.
To address this growing need for support, the President's budget invests $6.2 billion over five
years, including $5.5 billion to provide a $1,000 tax credit to compensate for the cost of long-
term care services, and $625 million to provide respite, home care services, and information
and referral assistance to the roughly 250,000 families caring for elderly relatives who are
chronically ill or disabled.
Expanding Head Start and Early Head Start. The President proposed to continue expansion
of Head Start, our nation's premier early childhood development program, which provides early,
continuous and comprehensive child development and family support services, preparing low-
income children for a lifetime of learning and development. The President's budget will invest an
additional $607 million in FY 2000 to reach an additional 42,000 children with Head Start and
Early Head Start services, enabling the program to serve 877,000 low-income children. The
President is committed to reaching his goal of enrolling one million children in Head Start by
2002, and doubling the number of infants and toddlers in Early Head Start.
FMLA Expansion. The President proposed to extend the benefits of the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) -- the first piece of legislation that the President signed into law -- to ten
million more American workers. Today, workers are eligible for up to 12 weeks of FMLA-
protected leave to care for a newborn or adopted child, to attend to their own serious health
needs, or to care for a seriously ill parent, child or spouse -- if they work at a business with 50 or
more employees. By covering workers in businesses with 25 or more workers, 10 million more
American workers will be covered by the FMLA. The President also called for expanding the
law to allow FMLA-eligible workers to take up to 24 hours of additional leave each year to meet
specified family obligations, including routine doctors appointments and parent-teacher
conferences. Leave could be taken to: (1) participate in school activities, such as parent-teacher
conferences; (2) accompany one's child to routine dental or medical appointments; and (3)
accompany an elderly relative to routine medical appointments or other professional services.
Prohibiting Discrimination Against Parents. The President proposed new federal legislation
to protect parents from discrimination in the workplace. Building on state law in Alaska,
Michigan, New Jersey and others, this legislation would protect workers from unfair assumptions
about their commitment to their job that can affect hiring, advancement and other employment
decisions. While this law would clearly not prohibit employers from making hiring and
promotion decisions on the basis of job performance, it would ensure that workers are not
unfairly discriminated against simply because they are parents.
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..5=80563f1d7231769001382355addce36
Content and Programming Copyright 1999 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Transcription Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., which takes sole responsibility
for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of
this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be
printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe
upon Fox News Network, Inc.'s and Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.'s copyrights or other
proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
FOX NEWS NETWORK
SHOW: FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME (18:12 ET)
March 15, 1999, Monday
Transcript # 031502cb.254
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 2147 words
HEADLINE: Interview with Pat Buchanan
GUESTS: Rita Cosby; Pat Buchanan
BYLINE: Brit Hume
BODY:
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
UPDATED.
HUME: The political suspense surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to build, and she's doing
nothing to dampen it. Here's correspondent Rita Cosby.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RITA COSBY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (VOICE-OVER): After staying out of the public
limelight for the past two weeks, First Lady Hillary Clinton received loud applause when she delivered
what sounded like a political stump speech at a women's equality summit.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: We are attempting to bring about the humanization of politics, where
women's voices have an equal say.
COSBY: Mrs. Clinton is targeting women's groups as she seriously considers running for the New York
Senate seat. She spoke to the Women's Leadership Forum two weeks ago in New York City.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It gives me just a great boost to see all of you here, and supporting
causes and concerns that we share.
COSBY: Her issues are their issues, child care, education, fair pay to women, and shoring up Social
Security. That's why many women's leaders are embracing her as a viable political candidate.
ELEANOR SMEAL, FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION: She's been long active in the struggle
for women's equality as well as the struggle for more rights for -- and more benefits for children.
scandals. to the First Lady tell FOX NEWS she is purposely distancing herself from the president and his
1 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=80563f1d7231769001382355addce366
CRAIG CRAWFORD, HOTLINE EDITOR: Hillary Clinton has put more distance between herself and
Bill Clinton than Al Gore has, and she's married to him.
COSBY: Last week, FOX NEWS reported that the First Lady was distancing herself for personal
reasons as well, that the Clintons had a big fight while on vacation in Utah over the president's conduct
with women. The White House again brushed aside questions about the First Lady's intentions.
LOCKHART: I think I'll deal with real questions here and not speculation, rumor, and gossip.
them tell FOX NEWS that at first, the Clintons were livid at our report about their marital spat, and the
First Lady's sense of estrangement toward in Mrs. Clinton's quest to develop her credibility among
women voters.
In Washington, Rita Cosby, FOX NEWS.
HUME: And meanwhile, the man many think may run against Hillary Clinton for Senate, New York's
Mayor Rudy Giuliani, weighed in on that controversial heavyweight bout between Lennox Lewis and
Evander Holyfield including Giuliani, thought Lewis dominated Holyfield throughout the 12- round
fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDOLPH GIULIANI (R), NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I don't have much doubt that something
really fraudulent happened here. This didn't happen by accident. You didn't watch that fight and come to
the conclusion that the person who lost it, won it, by accident.
HUME: And Giuliani said that matter must be investigated.
And coming up next, a conversation with presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, right here. Stay tuned.
<18:16>
(BEGIN ONSCREEN)
While a student at Gonzaga High School in Washington, D.C., Pat Buchanan had a part-time job with
which vice president?
Answer coming up
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN ONSCREEN)
While a student at Gonzaga High School in Washington, D.C., Pat Buchanan had a part-time job with
which vice president?
Buchanan was a caddy for then-Vice President Richard Nixon at Bethesda's Burning Tree Club. He later
worked for Nixon as a speechwriter.
HUME: He is the Peck's bad boy of Republican politics. Many in the GOP love to read his stuff and love
to hear him talk, but they're sometimes afraid of just what he'll say. And when he runs for president, as
he's doing now and has done twice before, they don't think he'll win the nomination, but they worry
about what he may do to the candidate who does.
He is, of course, Pat Buchanan, and he joins me now. Hi, Pat, welcome.
2 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=80563f1d7231769001382355addce366
PAT BUCHANAN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to see you again.
HUME: Now, if you're going to get this nomination this time, you're going to have to get around George
W. Bush. How are you going to do that?
BUCHANAN: Well, we got around 10 out of the 11 candidates last time, including three senators and a
governor of California. Clearly, Governor he's popular, the party wants to rally around someone early.
Quite frankly, if Governor Bush comes out and does very well as a candidate, and he's positioned in the
party and does extremely well, he's going to be very, very tough to beat, no doubt about it.
HUME: Well, would will you worry that if he ultimately wins and you rough him up, that he'll be
damaged goods?
BUCHANAN: I'm not going to rough him up personally. I didn't do that to Senator Dole. I wasn't the
one that roughed him up. Chris, I think -- I mean -- Chris! What am I talking about? Brit, what's going to
happen, I think, is that basically there are two sets of candidates. There's the party favorites, and
Governor Bush is ahead in that field, and Liddy Dole's in there, and I think McCain's in there, Lamar's in
there.
And there are the social conservatives and conservatives. And I think it's like the National League and
the American League pennant, and we're going to have winner in both segments, and then it's going to
be head to head.
Last time it was Buchanan and Dole, and we almost beat Bob Dole, and he started out a lot further ahead
of me than Governor Bush is right now.
HUME: Now
BUCHANAN: And Senator Dole's a lot more experienced.
HUME: you say he's -- what you say suggests that you kind of don't think that he's really a true-blue
conservative.
BUCHANAN: Well, I think that look, my issues, Brit, are foreign policy, where I'm a
noninterventionist. I'm not an isolationist, but I that puts America first. I think we've got to shut down
illegal immigration cold, and go back on legal immigration. And I believe we've got to restore our
national sovereignty.
My sense is that Governor Bush is an internationalist like his dad. He's an open borders fellow. He wants
to work with the U.N., new world order. And if that's the case, we have a classic contest, and I think my
issues are sharper. I've got more people believing in them than ever did. We won on fast track, that's
never been done in 50 years. Now we won by 60 votes.
I think my issues in time
HUME: (INAUDIBLE) AFL-CIO.
BUCHANAN: Well, the AFL-CIO, but in the Republican Party we almost doubled our vote since
NAFTA. We got 70 Republicans there. Look what happens on this steel vote coming up tomorrow or the
next day, to save steel, stand up for America.
We're winning on this. We got the hearts and minds of the country. And Republicans are coming to
realize, if we want to get back the their concerns, because that's the swing vote that cost us two elections
and can decide the next one as my strongest constituency.
HUME: Do you not feel, though, that it -- that in this kind of prosperity, that economic nationalism,
3 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..5=80563f1d723176900138235addce366
even though you've gained in some quarters, will, with the broad cross-section of the electorate,
ultimately not I mean, you get to a general election, and you're sticking up for the people who consider
themselves the ones who've been wounded by this economy, do you really think there's enough of them
to elect a president on those issues?
BUCHANAN: According to "The Wall Street Journal," the majority of Americans think the trade deals
we've passed in recent years have hurt American workers on net. That's why we can win on fast track.
We got the people with us. The establishment of both parties and the media, and the academic
community, no economist ever lost his job because of imports. They're all against us, but we are winning
at the grassroots, and we're now winning in the House.
And I really think, Brit, we're going to win this battle. Watch that steel vote.
HUME: I want to hear your take on how it is that Bill Clinton has been able to defy gravity, I think, in
the eyes of most people who've watched what's happened in this past year, and before, and remains with
such a stunningly high - at least job approval rate after these disclosures, and how - what is your why
is that?
BUCHANAN: His approval rating is due to the fact that it's basically -- the country is doing very well.
This economy's doing extraordinarily well, the folks I point out are doing badly are doing badly, they're
not a majority. He remains high and he survived because I think there is outrage fatigue. All of us, when
we first heard this, were sickened and shocked. Sam Donaldson said, "He's cooked in a week."
And what happens is, it goes on for a year, and Clinton is very good at this, he lets the thing go on and
drags it out. And after awhile, people get fed up with it. I'm fed up with doing it every night on
"CROSSFIRE." You want to say, Get it out of here, get it over with. And the American people said,
Look, we know what we got, the guy is a bum
HUME: And yet and yet
BUCHANAN: and we don't want him removed.
HUME: And yet when Monica Lewinsky's time came to be heard on national television, an average of
47 million people sat through that, and 70 million tuned in at some time or another.
BUCHANAN: Look, we dropped we
HUME: I mean, how can they really - how can you think they really
BUCHANAN: They look -- they looked
HUME: They seem like they can't enough of it.
BUCHANAN: Well, listen, we did "CROSSFIRE," and you get the greatest ratings you've ever seen.
Try doing NATO expansion. You know, (INAUDIBLE), you're down there with the asterisk.
HUME: That was my next question, (INAUDIBLE) NATO. No, that was that one that was not.
BUCHANAN: But, you know, it I it look, people decided he's awful, he's terrible (ph). I think at
bottom they decided, you know, really way down deep, it is about a stupid asinine act of sexual
clownishness in the Oval Office, and that quite doesn't quite do it for most people. I think they've got
down (INAUDIBLE).
HUME: Does it do it for you?
BUCHANAN: Sure, what does it for me, frankly, is not so much the appalling behavior, but, you know,
sitting right up there looking in the camera and lying to the American people consistently, lying to
4 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear..5=80563f1d7231769001382355addce366
everybody. You know, when I went to Camp David in August of 1974, and we found that tape, I told --
we told the press, said, Look, you cannot lead a country when you've misled them directly, when you
look them in the eye
HUME: You're talking about in the Nixon years.
BUCHANAN: I'm talking about Nixon's resignation. So I think as a matter of honor, Clinton should
have resigned. But he wasn't going to do that.
HUME: Now, let me ask you on China. You've called for Sandy Berger to quit. Do you really believe
down deep that this is as serious as you say? After all, these are events that did happen during the '80s.
BUCHANAN: Well, listen
HUME: And, I mean, really, is it fair to say, based on a sluggish response to something that happened,
you know, 10, 12 years ago.
BUCHANAN: Well, look, it's not -- again, it's not that the espionage took place, it's the reaction to it of
the Clintonites. And I'll tell you, my view is, the China issue brings together all of Buchanan's issues,
from trade to putting commerce above country, profit before the nation.
And I think this China issue overall in the coming year, with the Chinese putting those missiles opposite
Taiwan, they're building for a confrontation, Brit, with the United States over Taiwan. And this time,
they're not going to back down.
Look at what they're doing. This is the issue, I think, that is a real hook that could take down the
Clinton-Gore administration. It's an overall thing
HUME: What should the policy be?
BUCHANAN: The policy should be to admit -- Look, the policy of engagement failed. It was worth
trying. Nobody wants a cold war with China. Nobody wants war with China. It failed.
These people continue to persecute Christians, they give us the back of their hand, they target 200
missiles on Taiwan, building to a force of 650. They're targeting intercontinental missiles on us. And
they conduct mock firings at U.S. troops in Korea and Okinawa.
WTO, no more World Bank loans
HUME: World Trade Organization, no to their admission.
BUCHANAN: No to their admission
HUME: Got about 15 seconds.
China. You won't sell -- and if you sell a T-shirt in here, it's going to come with the same tariff on it you
put on our goods. They will get that message in a second.
HUME: All right, Patrick Buchanan, glad to have you. Thanks for coming. Hope you'll come again.
BUCHANAN: Thank you.
Got to take a break here to do the news, but we'll be back. Stay tuned.
<18:27>
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
5 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
LEXIS®-NEXIS®
http://www.nexis.com/research/sear.5=80563f1d7231769001382355addce366
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: MAY 12, 1999
Search within these results:
Search
This will only search up to 1,000 documents, even if your original search retrieved more.
Power Search;hlead (hillary /2 clinton and women)
About LEXIS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions I Privacy Policy I Support Identifier
Copyright © 2000 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All rights reserved.
6 of 6
9/19/2000 12:23 PM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 15, 1999
MILLENNIUM EVENING AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WOMEN AS CITIZENS: VITAL VOICES THROUGH THE CENTURY
The East Room
7:35 P.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good evening, and please be seated. Those who are here with us in
the East Room in the White House, to everyone who is watching on television or on the Internet,
we welcome you here as well.
In 1900, near the end of a lifetime of fighting for women's rights, Susan B. Anthony
described her bold vision for the future: The woman of the 20th century will be the peer of man.
In education, in art and science, in literature, in the home, the church, the state, everywhere she
will be his acknowledged equal. The 20th century will see man and woman working together to
make the world better for their having lived. All hail to the 20th century.
Well, Susan B. Anthony's words were prophetic, for in many ways her dreams have been
realized. Yet, early in this century the full participation in civic life that women now take for
granted was still out of reach. Women were constrained in their rights to own property, testify in
court, or file a lawsuit. No woman served on a jury, and by law a woman's husband was assumed
to be the guardian of her children. And a woman's wages, for which she often worked long and
horrible hours, belonged to her husband.
He, in turn, was legally obliged to support her. In many states, a married woman could
not even open a bank account. And even what a woman wore was restricted.
Now, there are many people who look back at that time and thing, my goodness, how
could it have ever been. But we know that change occurred, although change was slow and took
the work of many women and men. And certainly we also know that women did not have the
most fundamental right of citizenship -- namely, the right to vote. My own mother was born
before women could vote.
So I'm pleased to join the President in welcoming all of you to the White House for this
Millennium Evening. With our distinguished panelists, we will "honor the past and imagine the
future" by listening to the "vital voices of women." We will reflect together on the dramatic
changes in the lives of women and all citizens in the 20th century.
Just think of the ideas, the inventions, the social movements that have so dramatically
altered our society. Now, many of those movements and ideas we can trace to our own founding,
our founding documents: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And we can then follow those
ideas as they move toward Seneca Falls, where 150 years ago, women struggled to articulate
what their rights should be.
From women's struggle to gain the right to vote to gaining the access that we needed in
the halls of academia, to pursuing the jobs and business opportunities we were qualified for, to
competing on the field of sports, we have seen many breathtaking changes. We've also been
helped in our struggle by technological advances like vacuum cleaners and cell phones. We've
made strides that, certainly, Susan B. Anthony could never have imagined.
Now, there are clearly far too many topics to cover in only 90 minutes tonight, so we've
chosen to concentrate on one of the defining stories of our time: the way women have entered
the circle of our democracy and moved America closer to our greatest ideal, that we are all
created equal.
Standing here, looking at this audience tonight, I could call the names of nearly all of you
who are here that I recognize, women and men who have made a contribution to where we stand
here on the brink of a new century, who have struggled over the years to expand the
opportunities and enlarge our democratic freedoms. Many of you have mobilized voters; you
have worked for electoral change; you've championed issues, you've been advocates. At
International Vital Voices conferences I've met other women who have struggled around the
globe to bring those same rights and freedoms to the people of their countries.
Whether we know the names of the women who have done these acts because they stand in
history, or we see them in the television or the newspaper coverage, we know that for everyone
whose name we know there are countless women who are engaged every day in the ordinary, but
remarkable, acts of citizenship.
And we will hear from our panelists tonight what it means to be so involved, and how
important it is that we continue to build our democracy and keep our freedoms and our rights
alive. I'm always moved when I hear the stories of these women. And I think tonight as we
honor the National Women's History Month each of us probably has our own stories that we
could tell.
This Sixth Millennium Evening at the White House is part of an ongoing series to
recognize the words and ideas, the science and scholarship, the innovation and creativity that
have shaped our recent history. These evenings are just part of our larger initiative that the
White House Millennium Council directs to encourage all Americans to mark this millennium in
meaningful and lasting ways, to think themselves about how to honor the past and imagine the
future.
I certainly want to thank the scholars who have gathered with us today. And I want to just
highlight a few names of some of the people who are with us: Betty Friedan, Ellie Smeal, Carol
Gilligan, Karen Nussbaum, Governor Ann Richards, former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, Lt.
General Claudia Kennedy, Dr. Rita Caldwell. As I said, I could go on and on.
And part of what you so represent for all of us are the very concrete steps that women have
taken, and will continue to take. The President's Commission on the Celebration of Women in
American History, led by Ann Lewis and Beth Newberger, will be issuing a report that has really
tried to summarize many of the advancements that we recognize today. The members of the
Commission, I believe, are here, and I just would like to ask them to stand, so that we can thank
them for their work in giving us this report. (Applause.)
I also want to express my appreciation to everyone who has helped make this evening
possible, especially our co-sponsor, the National Endowment for the Humanities, led by its chair,
Bill Farris, and NEH's sponsors, the Howard Gilman Foundation and Sun Microsystems,
especially John Leahy, who are responsible for the technology that will enable us to reach
millions of people around the world via satellite and the Internet.
I also thank Pioneer New Media Technologies for providing the high-definition TV
screens in this room. And I also want to thank the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian for
the displays in the Grand Foyer.
Now, we are privileged to have with us this evening three remarkable women scholars
whose powerful voices have not only tell the story of who we are as Americans, but who we
hope to be as we enter this new millennium. Together, they will help us explore three
interconnected themes: women as volunteers and reformers; women's struggle for equal rights;
and the practice of citizenship.
Our first speaker, Professor Alice Kessler-Harris, is one of the nation's foremost labor
historians and a pioneer in establishing women's studies nationwide. Yet her extraordinary
career almost ended before it began. In graduate school she was offered a prestigious fellowship,
but when the largely male faculty learned she was pregnant, they revoked the grant.
Now, this is not the Dark Ages we are talking about. Alice's pregnancy, they argued,
reflected a lack of seriousness about her pursuit of history. (Laughter.) Now, I think we can all
agree, including those nameless faculty members that her seriousness is no longer in question.
Today she is a visiting professor at Columbia University, where she holds a joint
appointment in the Institute for Research on Women and Gender and in the history department.
She also holds a professorship of history at Rutgers University where she directed the Women's
Study program from 1990 to 1995. For almost 10 years, she gave working men and women the
chance to earn a college degree by teaching courses at the union headquarters of the UAW's
District 65 in New York, a program she
founded with her husband, Bert Silverman.
Tonight, she will talk to us about the vital civic roles that women have played as
volunteers and reformers throughout our history. This is a particularly important subject,
because without women volunteers and reformers, none of what we celebrate today would have
happened in such a timely manner.
I'm also pleased that our second panelist, Professor Nancy Cott, interrupted her warm
sabbatical at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California,
to join us at the White House tonight. She is the Stanley Woodward Professor of History and
American Studies at Yale University, where she has taught since 1975. She has written widely
on women's history, editing the 20-volume History
of Women in the United States, and contributing to historical documentaries, including the film
entitled, "One Woman, One Vote."
Like Alice Kessler-Harris, Nancy Cott and, no doubt, many of the women here tonight,
had to struggle to have her work recognized. Early in her career, when she was discussing the
publication of one of her books, she was stunned by one publisher's decision not to publish her
work. The reason? Interest in women's history and women's issues had peaked.
Well, tonight she will speak to us about one of the enduring stories of our time, which has
not yet peaked here or anywhere in the world -- namely, the struggle for equal rights.
Our final panelist, Ruth Simmons, embodies the spirit of citizenship and the power of
education to set our dreams and our spirits free. The daughter of sharecroppers, she was one of
11 children born and raised in a small, East Texas town. She credits the resilient spirit of her
mother for teaching her more about life than any course she took.
Today, Dr. Simmons is President of Smith College. Recognized as a truly gifted
administrator, she served for three years as Vice Provost at Princeton, where she wrote a widely
discussed report on race relations on that campus. The recipient of numerous prizes and
fellowships, Dr. Simmons was awarded the Centennial Medal from Harvard in 1997.
Throughout her life and by her own example, she has propelled many young men and women
toward lifetimes of achievement. And tonight, Dr. Simmons will
share with us her thoughts about the practice of citizenship.
I want to take just a moment to explain how the rest of this evening will work. A video
will introduce each theme, and after each presentation by our scholars, a question will be directed
to that particular speaker. After our final panelist, Dr. Simmons, completes her remarks and
responds to the question put to her, the President will start off the discussion here, and with those
of you on the Internet, moderated by our White House Millennium Council Director, Ellen
Lovell.
Now, let us look at the first theme, "Women as Volunteers and Reformers." (Applause.)
(A video is shown.)
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, my fellow panelists and
distinguished guests: I'm delighted to be here this evening to talk about the many ways that
women, through their active participation as citizens, have shaped American democracy.
Ever since Americans rebelled against the British monarch to found their own republic and
to become citizens instead of subjects, we've envisioned citizenship as a process that involved
participation in the community as well as the nation. For many, casting a ballot and engaging in
formal political processes have been the measure of citizenship. By these gauges, virtually all
women and many men were excluded fromcitizenship in the 19th century and for much of the
20th as well.
With little access to formal politics, women searched for other avenues through which they
could exercise the call to active participation in their society. Over the centuries, women from all
walks of life have so successfully responded that they have expanded the idea of citizenship,
broadening and deepening it by developing innovative and informal modes of participation that
aimed to enhance the well-being of all those around them and to influence political decisions as
well.
Their activities provide a model for thinking about citizenship in democracy in the next
century. Even after they won the national ballot in 1920, women continued to expand the idea of
citizenship. Let me give you just three ways that this has happened. First, women's traditional
assignment to home and family has provided a model for service to the larger society. Pioneer
feminists, like Charlotte Perkins Gilman, believed that love and duty to the home and to
motherhood sanctioned, even required, maternal activities in the public realm. As mothers of the
world, active female citizens extended their households to clean up corrupt political machines
and ensure that every mother could provide for her family.
In the early part of this century, neighborhood women who couldn't afford to feed their
families led bread riots and meat boycotts. Around the same time, millions of women organized
into hundreds of chapters of the general federation of women's clubs and the National
Association of Colored Women. These clubs campaigned against child labor to protect other
people's children from the devastating effects of work begun too soon.
Sparked by the vision of the courageous anti-lynching crusader, Ida B. Wells Barnett,
African American women fought to protect their sons and brothers from racial hatred. The ideals
of home and motherhood extend from the early part of the century into the 1960s and, indeed,
into the present. In 1961, thousands of ordinary housewives and mothers joined in a one-day
women's strike for peace that called for an end to the arms race, not the human race.
Their feelings echoed those of striking women textile workers in Lawrence,
Massachusetts, who, half a century earlier, had tried to send their children to safety, only to be
shot down by the bullets of National Guardsmen. Those women, too, had called for bread and
roses.
Because women were excluded from most channels of corporate and political power, they
developed some special imaginative strategies for exercising citizenship. Being outside formal
politics freed women to create alliances across borders of class, race and nation. It freed them as
well to imagine a citizenship with more humane dimensions.
Their activities ranged from the YWCA, the Young Women's Christian Association, which
in the early 20th century became one of the very few organizations to experiment with black and
white leadership coalitions. They include Rose Schneiderman, an immigrant cap maker whose
only schooling was in the workplace, who joined with college graduates to create the National
Women's Trade Union League.
They stretched across the world. Eleanor Roosevelt, whose education in issues of social
justice came from some of the same settlement workers and union members, also learned about
the women's peace movement from them. When she designed the United Nations Human Rights
Convention in 1948, she followed in the footsteps of Jane Addams and Lillian Wald, who had
traveled to Zurich after World War I to persuade the world's leaders to renounce war.
Finally, millions of women have organized anonymously in their communities to build
social institutions. In every community, women from all walks of life built and staffed libraries,
orphanages, day nurseries, medical clinics, schools and church programs. Sometimes in black
communities, where political structures excluded men as well as women, women's church groups
provided the bulwarks of racial self-reliance and developed the organizational skills that moved
individuals to promote community change. These skills were used in the 1950s by women who
had not yet achieved national prominence -- women like Ella Baker, Daisy Bates and Septima
Clark, who joined hundreds of lesser known women in launching the massive protests of the civil
rights movement.
Community efforts have also led women to recognize the limits of volunteer activity and
to demand governmental improvements in sanitation, transportation, housing, safety and street
lights. For example, Chicana in the Mexican American West forged local organizations around
such women's issues as neighborhood safety, education and health care. Many of these have now
become the province of governments. That's in large measure because women reached out from
their communities to demand formal support for their volunteer efforts.
In the past generation, the legal status of American women has been transformed and their
economic opportunities vastly expanded. Together, these changes have opened possibilities for
increasing women's formal political influence. It's a welcome and an overdue step.
But women's history suggests that exclusion from formal citizenship encouraged women to
extend citizenship rights and to broaden their meaning. We might then wonder how, now that
women are moving towards full, formal inclusion, we will avoid the passivity among ordinary
citizens that women have done so much to fend off. That makes this an important moment to
reflect on some of the ways that women's history can motivate and inspire greater participation in
the political process and thereby strengthen democracy in the United States and extend the
boundaries of social justice for all of us.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. LOVELL: Speaking of organizing, I see Evie Dubrow in the room, and she spent
over 60 years in the labor movement, including over 40 years with the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. And Evie, I know you have a question for Alice Kessler-Harris.
MS. DUBROW: I do, but before I start, may I just take a minute to say that my sister was
one of the youngest suffragists in this country, and that she went to jail picketing the White
House. (Laughter and applause.) Where she and a number of other suffragists went on a hunger
strike. And when they came out, Alice Paul gave each of them a little prison door as a souvenir
for their work on the right to vote. So I'm
delighted to be here tonight, and my question is an interesting one, I think. How do coalitions of
women across race and class lines really work?
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: It's a difficult question. And as you know, most of us
can think of more failures than we can successes when we try to think of the ways that women
have worked across those lines. But just as gender -- well, just as ethnicity and race sometimes
are called forward as elements of solidarity, when people try to face the important issues in their
lives -- the moral issues, the economic issues that really matter to them -- so I think women, as
well as men, sometimes call upon gender solidarity when they want to face those issues. For
example, men who are told to go to war often call upon manliness and that kind of generosity to
support their patriotic feelings.
Well, I think it's been that way with women around issues that they really cared about.
For example, anti-lynching crusades, which are sparked and led by African American women,
nevertheless led them to organize and call upon white women to join them as sisters in the
campaigns against lynching that took place in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s in the
United States. The Women's Trade Union League, which you, I know, are familiar with, crosses
class lines when middle-class women join with poorer and working women to organize for issues
of social justice, around the conditions under which working women work.
And your own union, the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, which has now
been amalgamated into UNITE, of course, was a pioneer in creating solidarity across racial and
class lines -- sorry, across racial lines -- in the interests of organizing working people. In the
1930s, it pioneered strategies which involved social events and occasions where black and white
men and women -- but mostly women -- could get together in music classes, on the dance floors
of local ballrooms, at basketball games, and so on -- creating a kind of solidarity that then served
them well when they were on the picket line later.
And now, what we're going to do is see images of women's fights for rights. And then
Nancy Cott will speak to you. (Applause.)
(A video is shown.)
PROFESSOR COTT: President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, my honored copanelists and
esteemed guests, it's an honor and thrill to be here tonight to talk to you about women's political
history and their struggle for rights.
Americans don't know a great deal about this history. If they know anything, they usually
know that we didn't have the vote at first and then achieved it; and possibly they know that the
first organized public demand for women to vote was a meeting at Seneca Falls, New York, in
1848 -- especially since the 150th anniversary of that was just celebrated. And I can hope that
most people know that the amendment that did remove the sex disqualification from voting as
the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, and that it was passed in this century, in 1920.
But we need to know more than these firsts in order to honor the past. We tend to make a
big fuss about firsts, but in women's history as in many things, a first breakthrough does not
mean smooth sailing and, in fact, in the campaign for the vote, successive generations had to
continue to campaign, reinvent the struggle and face failure after failure before they succeeded.
In fact, it was half the nation's history in 1920, half the nation's history since the Declaration of
Independence, women had been trying to remove the sex disqualification from the ballot when
they did succeed.
And the year 1920 is then rightly seen as the great divide between women's non-voting
history and their voting history. But it is too simple to say that no women voted before that and
all women voted after it. There were states that granted the women to vote, some quite early --
Colorado in 1893, for instance, California in 1911, New York in 1917 -- and it is too simple to
say that all women voted after 1920 because women were prevented from exercising the right to
vote by race, by poverty, by unstable residence.
The most dramatic example is African American women in the South, who, like the men
of their race, were kept from exercising the ballot by state disqualifications such as poll taxes,
literacy tests and other forms of voter qualification that were administered unequally to black and
white.
Today we tend to assume that voting is a right, even an attribute, of citizenship. But this
was not always so. This example makes a very important point, that the rights -- the content and
qualities of citizenship in our rights is not a fixed quantity, is not a fixed content. New groups
who come into the polity see rights and needs anew, and press for new definitions.
In this century, in the early part of this century, more women than ever before -- more
kinds of women than ever before thought the ballot was a right that they needed to exercise. In
the 19th century, in fact, the vast majority of women did not think they needed the ballot. But in
the early 20th century, wage-earning women such as some of those who have been mentioned
such as, for instance, the very feisty Leonora O'Reilly -- wanted labor legislation to be passed.
They realized women wouldn't get this without the vote.
Black women leaders, such as Mary Church Tyrell or Hallie Brown, wanted to fight
against lynching, as Alice mentioned; wanted to fight against the disenfranchisement of their
race. They needed the ballot to do so. There were middle-class women who were very
concerned with the state of the cities and social reform. There were women who wanted to enter
professions, like law or medicine, and found sex discrimination dogging their paths. And all
these groups of women realized that they had no political clout without the ballot, so they joined
the suffrage movement.
And at that time, hundreds of thousands of women devoted their lives to the campaign.
Women like Ms. Dubrow's sister, used new flamboyant techniques to alert the public to this
need. Some literally devoted their lives. A very beautiful, highly educated and accomplished
Vassar graduate named Inez Mulholland, who was known for riding a white horse to lead a grand
suffrage parade on the day of Woodrow Wilson's inaugural in this city, totally upstaging the
inauguration -- (laughter) devoted herself so exhaustingly to her speaking tour that she died on
the tour, because she totally neglected her health, and
at barely age 30 ended her life.
Now, once women were enfranchised the ballot certainly provided a gateway, but not all
the rights that women wanted or needed. And, of course, it's not only the formal grant of rights
that matters, it is the ability to exercise those rights as the prevention of black people in the South
from voting showed. But another issue was women and holding political office. Women were
not barred by sex from holding political office by this time, but could a political aspirant get a
major party to nominate her -- that was the barrier.
Also, state laws at the time, in the time in the 1920s were strewn with discrimination. For
instance, a waitress could not work at night in most states when the tips were largest. A married
woman could not take out a loan in her own name. Only about half the states put women on
juries, and the other half resisted, some for decades.
These many discriminations added up to a lesser legal status, really a lesser enactment of
citizenship for women. And there was a small group of women who thought there was a way to
address this. They wanted to add another amendment to the Constitution, and they called it the
Equal Rights Amendment. If you think this was a feature only of the political landscape of the
1970s, you have to rethink that, because the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced into
Congress in 1923, and it was introduced every decade after that. It almost passed the Houses of
Congress during World War II. It did pass, of course in 1972, never to be ratified.
Now, the reason that that amendment never has been ratified are complex. I think one
could boil them down to the point that equal to many people means exactly the same, and they
are wary about granting women exactly the same rights as men when they feel women are
different from men.
This actually reminds me of the 1970s slogan, "Women who want to be equal to men lack
imagination." (Laughter.) But the larger truth is that women are the same as men, and are
different from men. And the question is, can something as abstract as rights encompass and
address that paradox?
The women's movement more recently, in the '60s and '70s and '80s, leapt into that
question be trying to re-envision rights, and catapulting many new concepts of rights onto the
political stage reproductive rights; rights to the control of one's own body; equal pay for
comparable worth; welfare rights; the right to be free of sexual harassment on the job; the right to
maternity leave; the right to equal educational and athletic facilities. All of these new claims
extended the horizon of rights and of imaginable rights, and women's invention of them changed
the whole political landscape.
Continuing this redefinition, as we look forward to the next hundred years or the next
millennium, let us try to think of more inclusive versions of rights that will be advantageous to
all Americans. I think knowing more about the past of women as citizens can help us imagine
this more generous future.
Women in this past century, the 20th century, have been struggling to define and to attain
rights that will allow us to be equal and different, too. And groups not defined by gender often
see that as their task as well. It's a task that is still ahead of us as a society. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. LOVELL: Thanks, Nancy. I'd like to call on a fighter for rights, Senator Birch Bayh,
leader of the Title IX legislation giving young women equal access to physical education, and
sponsor of the ERA amendment not in 1923, in 1973.
Senator Bayh. (Applause.)
SENATOR BAYH: It's always a privilege for me to be here with so many of you who
we've worked together. And Evie, you started with a personal observation. Permit me to do the
same. Some people may say, how does a fellow from the heartland, right off the farm in
conservative Indiana, get involved in equal rights for women. Well, I was blessed by having two
wonderful women in my life, one who is no longer with me and one who is still tolerating me
(laughter) who gave me a magnificent Ph.D. in the importance of women's rights. (Laughter.)
And I must say that is a continuing learning process.
We all know that women's inclusion as full citizens has had a profound impact on our
country. Could you help us understand a little more specifically how women voters use their
franchise as a class where there are different patterns that distinguished how women voted from
how the majority of men voted that really led our society in a better direction, if you please.
PROFESSOR COTT: Thank you. I'll try to address that. Certainly, when women first got
the vote, commentators were very interested in whether they would vote differently. One of the
prime reasons it was claimed that women needed the vote was because they were an interest
group who differed from men as a
group in their needs.
As a result, when women didn't vote entirely differently from men in the '20s which
would have, in fact, been very difficult, given that we had a two-party system at that time --
when women didn't vote dramatically differently from men, they were declared to vote exactly
the same as men, i.e., exactly the same as their husbands. And very quickly after women were
first enfranchised, the notion that there was what we today call a "gender gap" was quashed, and
the notion that women would form a voting bloc more or less dissipated.
It was also true at that time that women's turnout was lower than men's, that this has
happened with several groups of new voters, that it takes a while for a newly-enfranchised group
to exercise the franchise, so that the turnout of women was lower than among men in the 1920s;
then continued to grow until they
were about at parity in the 1950s.
We're hampered as historians from knowing just how differently women might have voted
from men in the past in that the polls were not kept by sex -- it was only in a very few places --
Illinois was interested in this -- before the era of exit polls. This information just isn't gatherable.
And it's really a very recent phenomenon, that really since the 1980s that the concept of a gender
gap has appeared.
It has been looked for since then and, therefore, it has been found. The percentage
differences between women's votes and men's votes on parties, on candidates, rather than on
issues, has been tracked very avidly since the mid-'80s. And percentage point differentials from
three to eight percent that in the 1920s were absolutely dismissed as meaningless because they
expected all women to vote differently from all men, have now become significant.
So I would suggest that patterns of actual voting, given that we don't have a multiparty
system in our nation -- if we had seven or eight parties, one might see more difference. But in a
two-party system the range is going to be small and it will mainly be trackable on issues. And
since it's very rare for
candidates to run on single issues, the differences between women and men as voters get spread
out through the system and show up in very small percentage differences -- which may be as
much attributable to women's or men's race or region or education or age as their gender, in fact.
Now, we're going to see more images, which will be about the practice of citizenship, and
that will precede Dr. Ruth Simmons's comments on that topic. (Applause.)
(A video is shown.)
DR. SIMMONS: President Clinton; Mrs. Clinton; Nancy and Alice: It's so moving to be
here tonight, honoring the extraordinary advances of women in this century.
You know, as a college president, I have the privilege each year of welcoming a large
number of young women to my campus who, in the course of four years, must confront where
they stand in relationship to history; what they will make of their world; and how they will
maximize their own capabilities in the service of their families and their communities. And then,
four years later, I'll have the joy of seeing them off, as they enter the work world, hopefully,
advance to higher learning or otherwise take on adult roles.
After studying what others have accomplished down through history, and after
apprenticing for so many years, they finally get to choose their own path. And that one phrase, I
think, captures the really dramatic change in women's lives in the United States over the course
of this century. Today, thanks to Title IX, the civil rights movement, the women's movement,
women are able to choose their path.
Young women understand that, they revel in it, and most often, they claim that privilege
with considerable pride. This is a difference wrought by the courageous reformers who insisted
on the right of women to be fully enfranchised as citizens, with the duty of choice and the right
of happiness.
Women of the next century will be molders of their future and proprietors of their fate.
Provided that society continues to protect that freedom, women will have that most
extraordinary, precious thing -- ownership of themselves.
We know that history can record and interpret only a small portion of the many compelling
stories that have influenced the phenomenal changes that we've seen. One of the most
encouraging trends of recent times has been what seems to be a greater inclusion of unheralded
lives and different voices, through oral histories, unconventional and ahistorical sources, and
first-hand accounts, with all the problematical aspects of those accounts. Past struggles for
justice are rich in these stories of lesser, lesser actors, who have helped to shape our civic culture
and transform society, without themselves qualifying for history's hall of fame.
As one who is inspired by countless lesser heroes of the women's rights and civil rights
movements, I rather like to remind people on such occasions as this, that it's also acceptable --
desirable even -- to be inspired by the common folk. It's important to acknowledge the often
invisible efforts that are the backbone of all struggles for justice. For such small examples, too,
can inspire in the young civic engagement at the highest and most socially transforming levels.
Those who live the rather routine life of involved citizens are our quotidian heroes. They are our
models for daily life.
My grandmother, Emma Campbell, grew up in the South during Reconstruction.
Although she was a smart, enterprising woman, the legacy of slavery gave her no rights,
essentially, few protections under the law. And, yet, when her husband died she had to farm and
rear her children. Though poor, she engaged in community and church life in her small town.
Her daughter, my mom, Fannie, was born in 1906. She married a laborer and a
sharecropper. And for much of her life as a domestic worker she was consigned to brutal,
unprotected labor at meager wages. After a century -- almost a century after the birth of her
mother, she remained in legal, social and economic servitude, bounded by the system that had
denied her mother equal rights.
So enduring was the legacy of racial and gender discrimination in the country of her birth,
but emulating her courageous mother, she persevered. And finally, because of her efforts and the
critical mass of reformers pushing for elimination of the laws that held her to limited education,
low wages and an economically-deprived life, her children and Emma's grandchildren were
finally able to see the light of freedom and experience greater life choices.
There is earnestness and valor to be found in the simplest acts of civic engagement, and
especially, I think, the civic engagement of poor people. Like Emma and like Fannie, Oceola
McCarty was unnoticed until she surprised the world with her bequest of scholarship funds to the
University of Southern Mississippi. Well, the world now knows of her lifetime of saving and
self-denial. But her entire life before this act of
generosity could be examined for what it offers us about the spirit of concern and commitment
that ought to underpin our social relations and civic attitude. Indeed, with women just beginning
to come into their own as philanthropists, Oceola's gift is especially important in inspiring
women of means to do better than the small gifts that have proved typical of women's
philanthropy.
Imagine: If women could found and endow colleges like Spelman and Smith in the last
century, an act that contributed greatly to the reforms of this century, just imagine what women's
philanthropy will mean to the century ahead, with women controlling 60 percent of the country's
wealth. Women's philanthropy, surely, will be one of the most decisive dimensions of women's
activism in the new century.
Young people today -- they don't often know it or say it -- but they've really benefitted
enormously from the endeavors of all those who worked so hard for women's rights, both on the
front line and behind it; whether visible or not; whether recognized or not. Together, these
reformers have prepared the leaders of today by inculcating a will to change the status quo, and
they have prepared the leaders of tomorrow by proving that wrongs can be made right. They've
given our young people the best gift they could have, and that is the ownership of their future.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. LOVELL: I'm going to call on another college president, Dr. Jeanetta Cole,
anthropologist and former president of Spelman College.
DR. COLE: I do have a question for the sister president of one of our nation's women's
colleges. Sister president, there have been many victories, but many challenges remain for all
women. For women of color weneed to give particular focus on our inequalities. What do you
think we can do to more effectively address the ongoing inequalities experienced by women of
color?
DR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Jeanetta. It's wonderful to see you. Well, I've been quite
moved -- and I know you have, too -- by the telling of these stories from the last century and this,
when women, reformers, worked very hard to achieve rights for women of color. That's one of
the most moving aspects of the women's movement, frankly. Spelman, itself, was founded of
course by white women from Massachusetts who went down with a fervor of freedom to Atlanta
to work with Reverend Quarles to found a college for black women.
I think more than anything it's to continue to say to would be reformers that it's not enough
for women to achieve equal rights. It's not enough for women to achieve equal rights for women
who are white. We must not leave anybody behind. And with the pay differential today, with
the differential in access to many different aspects of society, I think we have to continue to press
for equality for women of color.
I'm especially concerned that we emphasize education. I don't like to raise an unpleasant
topic, but I must say I'm very concerned about the attack on affirmative action, because --
(applause) -- let me say that I don't think for a moment that affirmative action is a panacea or that
it's perfect, but I do think that it provided opportunities for women to come into their own. And I
just don't want people of color and women of color to be left out of that.
So now that we see women achieving so much, white women particularly, I want to see
them reach back and embrace women of color, and say, come on and go with us. That's the most
important thing we can do to carry that message home. Thank you. (Applause.)
DR. SIMMONS: Mr. President, you've listened to us patiently and I know that you have
some remarks to make and that you might even have some questions to ask. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. First of all, let me welcome all of you here tonight and
thank our participants. I will be very brief, because the only thing that frustrates me about these
Millennial Evenings is that you will be amazed -- we will get literally thousands of questions that
will start coming in on the Internet and lots of frustrated people out there. So I don't want to take
a lot of time.
I would like to say again -- I think I speak for all of us -- when Hillary had the idea to do these
evenings, I thought they sounded interesting -- or at least maybe most of them would be
interesting. (Laughter.) They have all turned out to be fascinating and, each in their own way,
better than the ones before. And I think this is a great gift she has given our country for the
millennium and I thank her for it. (Applause.)
The remarks generated scores of questions in my mind and one fact I want to say. If you
ever want an example of whether or not the gender gap exists, you are looking at it. (Laughter.)
Because I would not be here if it did not exist. (Applause.) Or if it did not exist in the right way
I would have had bigger margins, depending on how you look at it. (Laughter.)
One of the things I wish that somebody would comment on before we get through --
although, it's not my question -- is, if women learn different ways of doing things through the
century of struggle, how would this Congress be different if the party divisions were exactly the
same, but 55 percent of the members were women? That would be interesting. I don't know the
answer to that, but feel free to comment if anyone wants to. (Laughter.)
I want to ask Professor Kessler-Harris to answer a question that has concerned me quite a
great deal, just from remembering the patterns of life with my working grandmother and my
working mother. Now that we have opened more opportunities
for women in the workplace, but they still are spending, I think, even in two-parent households,
more than half of the time spent raising children, and we've even opened more opportunities for
women in the political workplace, and more are being opened all
the time, I would like to have you comment on what you think the potential is for voluntary
citizens' groups of women to still produce both social movements and specific legislative
changes. That is, will voluntary groups still have the same impact? And
if so, how are we going to continue to encourage that?
Because I think that that's really the unique story of the whole 20th century, all those
parades and everything we saw in the films. Will more women in the workplace, still having to
raise the kids -- and in the political workplace, which may make women think they're represented
in more ordinary ways -- lead to a reduction or an increase in these voluntary associations? And
what are some specific examples where we might see voluntary movements produce social
movements and legislative change?
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: Well, that's another lecture I could give you all --
(laughter) -- but thanks for the question. I think there are two ways of answering that question,
and the first is to say that the entry of women into the workplace, entry which, of course, I, like
most of this room welcome, nevertheless poses enormous challenges, not only to what women
can continue to do at home, but to what women can continue to do in their communities. And I
think that those challenges have to be met on a series of levels that are not individually based.
I think we have to meet those challenges by providing opportunities for men as well as for
women, but for people totake care of both their homes and their workplaces. And I would
suggest that some ways of doing that are to think about issues, for example, of working time --
you know, perhaps it's time to start thinking about reducing the working week from 40 hours to
35 hours a week. Perhaps it's time to take seriously flex-time for many different kinds of
workers so that people can both work and take care of their homes and their communities.
It may be time to think about a broader concept, like thinking about Social Security as not
only a benefit that we get at the end of our lives, but a benefit that we can get during our lives,
drawing rights on Social Security -- so that we can take a
year or two off here or there to take care of our families and our children. Those are some of the
ways I think that we could think about the legislation that would provide opportunities.
And just to segue from that into your first question, I think it would not be unusual to
imagine that such legislation could be pushed for and pioneered by the kinds of women who
pushed for and pioneered early labor standards legislation.
My favorite example, for example, of the kinds of legislative consequences that happen
when groups of volunteers committed to producing social change get together probably rotates
around the state-based branches of the national consumers league, which for decades -- two, three
decades -- organized to try to get minimum wage legislation for women, maximum hour
legislation for women because they thought they couldn't get it for all workers, tried to get child
labor legislation. And of course, we know that in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, their
efforts came to fruition.
So there are examples. In other words, the kinds of examples that I suggest might actually
answer your question. Let's think as a community about the kinds of opportunities we can
develop, actually do a precedence in the past with groups of
women who could imagine legislation to create broader social justice, and then actually discover
that it was implemented first on state levels and then on the broader national levels.
MS. LOVELL: Thank you. We are going to take our first question from the Internet.
And, Mrs. Clinton, it's for you. MRS. CLINTON: This is from Brock Hopein Ft. Wayne,
Indiana, and the question is: We all know that sports competition among children provides
friendship and team skills for the future. As the First Lady, what have you done to further this
for women?
This must be a question for me because of my well-known sports abilities. (Laughter.)
You know, I one time was being interviewed on a radio show back in 1992, and this young
interviewer was looking at his notes that he had gotten from somewhere, and he said, well, we
see here that you were a diving champion in your young years. And I said, no I wasn't. And he
said, well, yes, it says right here you were a diving champion. (Laughter.) And I had long since
given up arguing. Anyone who knows so much more about my life than I do -- (laughter) -- so
this must be from the same crib sheet.
You know, I think, though, that it's a serious question because we've learned a lot in the
last several years about some of the socializing that goes on among young children and what
creates opportunities for both young men and women to see
themselves as competitive and to understand what they might do physically and what kind of
mental challenges they can confront, and sports certainly does that.
Just last week, here at the White House, in this room, we screened an HBO special about
women in sports, called "Dare to Compete." And I really recommend that to anyone, because it's
a wonderful story about how women gradually have broken down the barriers that stood in the
way for those who did have athletic abilities to pursue those abilities.
And thanks to things like Title IX, which transformed the world of women's sports, so
many more young girls in high school and college are now able to enjoy sports and enjoy the
benefits that come from being part of a team, and pushing oneself. And we, of course, now have
even professional athleteswho earn their living in the world of sports.
And so I've tried to promote that through the President's Council on Physical Fitness,
through events that we've held here at the White House. But I think it's something all of us
should do more to encourage, so that any young girl who's interested and has abilities can take
advantage of the opportunities that are now available that really weren't when many of us in this
room were young women in school growing up, and didn't have that chance. (Applause.)
Q
Thank you, Mrs. Clinton.
MS. LOVELL: I'm going to recognize Deborah Tannen, a
linguist and Georgetown University professor.
THE PRESIDENT: She's coming.
PROFESSOR TANNEN: Thank you. I guess for either of you, I'm interested in the
evolution of language and how that reflects our times, and the evolution of the times. It seems
that there has been a gradual change in the language that women
reformers have used to describe their struggles. So whereas at one time we heard about the fight
for women's rights that was going to focus on women's liberation. I wonder if you observe any
current trends here in the '90s, what is the language that
you're hearing that women are using to describe their struggles today?
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: I think I'd probably describe it as the language of
human rights; that is, I think we've now which is not a new language for women, women have
used that language at least since World War I, but it's become
increasingly the language of the women's movement, I think. And it reflects not nearly the sense
that the liberation of women or the achievement of women's rights will advance women to a
better place in society, but the sense that in so advancing women all of society will benefit.
And I think it also reflects the fact that we are increasingly conscious of a kind of global
dimension to both our own experiences and how those experiences are affected by an in-turn
effect -- those of women as well as men in the rest of the world.
So I'd say that human rights is probably the new way in which advocates for women's
rights are now imagining that they can influence the world around them. That's really, I think,
what we all imagine we're fighting for.
PROFESSOR COTT: I would just add something. It seems to me in terms of parlance,
that often the term "women's issues" is used when people want to talk about things like this, and
there's a certain vagueness to that terminology. and I think
there is reason for that, that many people feel women's rights, formal rights, have been achieved,
or even that women's freedoms, liberation have been achieved. Yet, there's still something out
there.
There still are all the questions of masculinity and femininity, of what the relations
between the sexes really are in public, in private, why there are differences, some of which seem
unwanted. And I think women's issues expresses that the same way that in the last century the
general term "the woman question" similarly gestured that a whole realm of unresolved and
clearly not easy questions that remain there. and while I agree with Alice that international
human rights is a context in which formal searches for rights are more likely to be conducted,
that there's a whole other realm of questions that require a more vague sort of rubric.
DR. SIMMONS: I would definitely say that among the young students that I see, that
there is almost an evasion of language, in a sense, a shying away from using those conventional
terms to express what they are doing, what they are all about. It's intriguing, actually, to see
where they're going to come down in the end, because they're going to have to call it something -
- (laughter) -- and I don't know what that will be. But a kind of antipathy for labels of any kind,
really.
-
MRS. CLINTON: But I think there's something else at work here that you probably could
explain, as a linguist. Partof the reason that women shy away from any labels is because the
labels have been attacked and devalued. It is rare to find a
woman who will admit that she's a feminist. And there's nothing wrong with that. If you look at
it in the dictionary, you know, feminist is someone who believes in the equality of legal
economic and social rights between men and women -- and not that women are the same as or
better than, but that under legal and economic systems they deserve to have the same rights as
men.But that word has taken such a beating from those who have different conceptions or
agendas that there is a backing off.
And I was interested in seeing a recent article in a newspaper talking about the
feminization of politics. And that began to creep into the political parlance back in the '96
election, when many of the initiatives that the President and the administration took -- whether it
was on child care or talking about issues that are kitchen-table kinds of issues, were all of a
sudden derided as being insignificant and leading, therefore,
to the feminization of politics.
And I'm not sure that that was intended as a compliment by the people who were using it,
but I think it was really missing the point, because part of what the women's-rights-as-human-
rights agenda is meaning to do is to lead to the humanization of politics, to take the legitimate
interests of women and men as they attempt to shape their own lives, and give it some life in the
political process.
You know, shortly after I said that phrase at the speech in Beijing, I was on a Voice of
America show where a man called in from Iran. And he said to me, just what did you mean
saying that women's rights are human rights? And I said, well, shut your eyes and think of your
rights under any legal system that you function in, and those should be the same rights that
women have.
But it seemed like such a shocking concept that the language is attacked -- not the
underlying concept so much as the language -- as a first effort to try to diminish or marginalize
these remaining issues that are difficult to talk about, to put into language that people can agree
upon. And that's part of the great effort, it seems to me, that we're going to face in the next years,
is to give voice to this human rights agenda in ways that really do resonate in average people's
lives, and withstand political opposition, which will surely come. (Applause.)
MS. LOVELL: And since Professor Tannen is an expert about language, I should say that
she may be a linguist, but she's also an expert in linguistics. And we have another question from
the Internet.
MRS. CLINTON: This is a question from Laura Montaith (phonetic) of St. Martin in
Canada, and it's for Professor Simmons: What would you suggest as a means for involving men
in the education of boys about the importance of women in our society? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Good question.
DR. SIMMONS: Well, I love that question and I'm very happy to have it. Because I think
that it's a very important issue for us. As the mother of a son, who has come along with his peers
and who -- I can't believe it -- as strongly as I feel about these issues, somehow I missed the boat
with him because he didn't quite get it. (Laughter.)
So I think it's very important in the home for fathers to take their sons by the hand and to
lead them into this wonderful light where people are equal and there doesn't have to be
supremacy of one gender over another or one race or ethnic group over another. And it can be
lovingly taught from the time a child is very young in the home. That's one of the best ways to
do it.
For those men who are taking the time to mentor young boys who don't have fathers in the
home, one of the things that they can do, in addition to taking them to athletic events and
showing them how boys can be boys, they can also talk to them
about women's rights and girls and how smart girls can be and how girls aspire to do the same
kinds of things as boys.
So I think it's in the home, I think it's in the schools, obviously, I think it's by mentors who
are involved in young boys' lives.
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to say one thing that I have learned from a lifetime of
sort of listening to the way people talk and relate. And this goes to Deborah's, the previous
question, too -- I think if you will really study the Americans
and how they vote, you will see that sometimes they vote based on income; sometimes they vote
based on racial experience; sometimes they vote on philosophy. But a lot of the gender gap is a
cultural gap, it's almost about the way we relate to one another
and define winning and losing in our own lives.
And I think in order for men to ever get through this, one of the things that men are raised
to believe is that fulfillment and success is defined in terms of winning and
control; whereas people who -- women, historically, have had more nurturing roles. They have
to raise their children. So you don't think - maybe you have to control your child for a while,
but sooner or later you - but winning is defined not just as winning against someone else, but it's
doing something in the context of your family, in the context of your child-rearing.
And I think a lot of subconscious patterns that men are raised with make it almost
impossible for them to really get there on this issue. And I think that for a father to raise a son to
believe that there is a way to win in life and find fulfillment in a shared victory and shared
decision-making and not always victory over someone else and continued control over someone
else, I think it's something that takes some doing.
But it's something that doesn't come naturally to men once we've been socialized. And I
think that's an important part of this -- that until we can change it, it will never be just like it
should be.
MS. LOVELL: I want to go to one of the students in our audience, Kristin Gayman
(phonetic), who is here with her teacher, Gloria Cobbs (phonetic) from the School Without
Walls.
Q My question is addressed to Dr. Simmons. It is evident that women have overcome
many obstacles throughout the 19th and 20th century -- obstacles faced women of today's society
and how can women prepare for this struggle for equal rights?
DR. SIMMONS: So many of the obstacles that young women face today are both similar
and quite dissimilar to what we actually experience. I think one of the things that young women
your age, and a little bit older, want to do is to move into those areas that are still frontiers for us.
And we have, for example, at my college, been thinking about women in careers that have
not particularly been hospitable to women -- science and engineering, for example. Women are
still trying to get their foot in the door in so many areas, and
I think that's one of the things to think about. Being educated at the high school level in all
dimensions. Stay in your math courses; stay in your science courses -- all the way through high
school. Because if you do that, you'll have the opportunity to choose, at the college level, to do
anything that you want. Poetry is wonderful. Literature is wonderful. Social sciences are very
strong. Environmental science is wonderful. But you also want to be able to choose other
careers as well. We're surrounded by technology this evening, and it's wonderful. But so many
young women are not learning technology in the way that boys are, or young men are. So it's
important,
especially, not to be shut out of that dimension. Those are just a few things that I would suggest.
MS. LOVELL: This question is from Gary Daley (phonetic) -- also in Terre Haute. There
must be a group or people in Terre Haute watching this. And this is for Professor Cott: How has
the term "feminism" been defined in this century, and is it a term, in your view, which has value
politically, inspirationally, and philosophically, for the next century?
PROFESSOR COTT: Well, this fellow's right on your very eloquent remarks, which I
second very heartily.
The term "feminism" in fact, is a word of this century. It was not used by Elizabeth Cady
Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. It was first used in about the 19-teens by young women who
wanted to grasp rights beyond the formal political rights. They wanted the rights to be as free as
men in the economic arena and the arena of personal life, as well as in political life.
And it was also a term adopted by the pioneers of the ERA in the 1920s. So that this is not
the first time thatfeminism has, as a term, has been battered. Because when it stood for equal
rights at a time when equal rights was seen as posed against certain special privileges or certain
special protections that women had in the law earlier in this century, it was also a term that was
demeaned as narrow or just undesirable.
And I think it really was not until the 1970s and in the height of the public movement of
women of various sorts -- in the '70s the term was embraced again, and since then there has been,
as you were suggesting, Mrs. Clinton, a real devolution. I
sometimes worry that my students today think feminism means either hating men or not shaving
your legs, or both. (Laughter.)
And I try to tell them that it means -- roughly, the dictionary definition -- that women
ought to have the same rights or have the same opportunities as men, and however, I think that
the terminology, as much as I, myself, am in favor of the term
feminism, I actually think that it can have inspirational characteristics, but that what we ought to
work toward is a proliferation of more words that will express women's political,
social, economic struggle, the ways in which they share needs and wants for justice with men;
and that the words for women's political actions and civic action have been very limited, even in
our century, and we need to discover and discuss other terms
and put them into use to express really the great variety of activities that women have
undertaken.
MRS. CLINTON: Still, I hope we don't run from feminism
PROFESSOR COTT: No, I don't want to abandon it, I think we ought to supplement it.
DR. SIMMONS: One thing that strikes me, though, Nancy, is that the further we get
towards achieving some of the content of what we normally include under feminism, the more
young people seem to back away from using the word itself. So the more
opportunities they actually have in the work force, the more possibilities they have for political
engagement and so on, the more they're willing to say, no, no, I'm not a feminist. And it's an odd
sort of juxtaposition that the more young women get,
the less they understand either the history of feminism and its achievements or what the term can
mean for them.
PROFESSOR COTT: Although, I think this is not unique to feminism, it's part of the
promise of America, in fact, that so many groups who have been historically subordinated or
repressed in one way or another, when they come into a fuller
life, they tend to want to forget the past rather than remember the past, which may have been a
painful past. So it isn't unique, I think, to young women to feel that way about this.
MS. LOVELL: We can -- Marsha Semmel, I found you. The Director of the Museum of
the West and, I think, women in your state could vote 23 years before the 19th Amendment?
Q
Yes, and actually that's my question, is about remembering the past, as we move into
the future. And I also wanted to say that we're privileged to be one of the satellite
downlink sites, so we have a whole group on the front range of
the Rocky Mountains who are able to share this, and thank you for
allowing us to share this.
My question is for Nancy Cott, and it's: why did it take so long for women to get the
national ballot after states like Colorado granted women the right to vote in the 19th
century?
PROFESSOR COTT: Yes. And I should mention Wyoming, which granted women the
right to vote in 1869. So that really deserves the first credit.
Well, there are several levels of reasons, and I'll try to be brief. And I think the reasons
were somewhat different in the 19th century than they were in the early 20th. But the very
deepest-based, in terms of political understanding of citizenship in this country, and in the whole
western political tradition, the fully active citizen was not only conceptualized as a male person,
but as a man who was head of a household, and whose vote represented not only himself but his
dependents, his wife and his minor children. But it was his household that deserved
representation through his vote, so that, at the deep structure level of political understanding, for
women to vote would have meant removing a man's reason for voting, would have removed the
important part of his dependents, whom he was representing.
And this had a more social representation in the strong feeling through the 1800s and much
of the early 1900s that it just wasn't suitable for women to vote, that women had different
concerns. The way they expressed their political influence was to be different, through the
household.
And there were many, many women who were not in favor of the ballot, on the basis of
thinking that women exercised their civic responsibilities better without the ballot by influencing
their husbands, sons, brothers, nephews and by acting as volunteers along some of the lines that
Alice was describing.
By the early 20th century the concept of the vote itself changed, becoming both more of an
individualized exercise and more of a way that groups in the polity could express their group
interest -- groups like working class industrial laborers, or groups such as people who wanted to
expand land rights in the west or certain new immigrant groups. The whole scene of voting was
different in the early 20th century. And women suffragettes made a strong plea for their interests
as women needing to be represented and that was what began to carry them into success in
various states.
They were then opposed by specific interest groups like liquor interests, who thought that
women were all enfranchised; certainly, prohibition would be national. And both of those things
did happen, although in a different sequence. So I'm not sure their analysis was entirely right.
And then there were certain industrialists -- a lot of the Southern states were rock-ribbed against
women's suffrage, not so much on issues of
race -- although, that was certainly very important -- but because there was a huge, burgeoning
textile industry in the South and Southern -- influential Southerners -- many of them thought that
if women were enfranchised the kinds of conditions in Southern industries would be changed by
women reformers and they didn't want those women reformers to have the power of the vote.
So the constitutional amendment went through without any of the southern states voting
for it, ratifying it.
MRS. CLINTON: This is from Lela Turner from Lineham, Delaware. Professor Kessler-
Harris, what are the vital voices you hear when listening to the sound of the new women's
movement? Who are today's leaders?
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: Well, present company excepted, of course,
(laughter) -- I think probably today's leaders are some of those anonymous voices that we have
not yet heard from. My guess would be that some of today's leaders are
still young people, grappling with the problems that still remain from an incomplete women's
movement and from some of the tremendous tensions that have resulted from the transformation
of households and work in the past decade or so.
I think some of today's leaders are women who are just now entering the grass-roots of
political organization, political strategies. That is, women who have been inspired, perhaps, by
people like Mrs. Clinton, and by other political leaders as well
to think about how they, too, can contribute along formal, as well as informal lines.
My guess is we don't know who the next generation of leaders are. And we know who
some of the people who have led us this far are, but we've yet to discover the people who are
already moving us forward into the future.
MS. LOVELL: Well, I'd like to recognize one of our Vital Voices, Judith Lichtman,
President of the National Partnership for Women and Families. And you have a question, I
know.
Q
I was once again thrilled to hear the President's question involved the real struggle for
balancing work and family responsibilities, because as the authors of the Family and Medical
Leave and as the first law that President Clinton signed, enacted into law, we have a special bond
and great respect for his commitment.
It was Mrs. Clinton who chided me ever so gently a couple of years ago not to think
anymore or speak anymore with respect to language of juggling family and work responsibilities,
because she reminded me that for many women it's a struggle.
Women are struggling to balance work and family responsibilities.
And so I thought both about the question of how do we raise boys and men to be involved
in family responsibilities and then Professor Cott's quick comment about juries and women being
excluded from juries really, I know, until quite the mid-'70s, and wondered if that's the reason?
Was it stereotypic notions about women's work, responsibilities within the family and the home
that kept us from participating in public life, i.e, juries, until the '70s, in many states?
PROFESSOR COTT: Well, yes, to put it most simply. There were many, many
arguments brought against women as jurist, some of which were about feminine
characterizations that women were irrational -- simple things of this sort. (Laughter.) But in fact
where the fight lasted the longest was on differential jury requirements -- that is, that all men
would be required to serve, but women only when they chose to. And that, of course, meant that
women exempted themselves from juries, as most people,
being lazy by nature, would.
However, the question was why was this so, why could a woman, say, just by being female
she could choose to exempt herself. And the argument was, well, women are needed at home to
cook the dinners, to take care of the children. In fact, I mean,
we've dealt with this for decades now. But many things, differences in the law, particularly, that
appear as privileges to women can also be seen as lesser obligations which, therefore, mean a
kind of lesser capacity as citizens.
And there is language even in a Supreme Court decision of 1961 which allowed a state
statute of that sort to stand, which basic language in the discussion at the Supreme Court in
which said, well, who will cook the dinners if women are off at
jury service?
This is in a period when a very high proportion of women were already in the labor force.
But it was really due to the transformative work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and women in the
1970s who worked so hard on so many transformative sex
discrimination cases that the jury difference statutes were overruled by the Supreme Court, which
said in '75 that men and women had to serve on the same terms.
As much as we can differ honestly as reasonable people on the question of whether equal
rights mean the same rights, I think that we do want to say that women and men have the same
obligations as citizens, and one of those very basic obligations
and basic to our system of democracy is jury service.
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: Could I come in on that, just for a second, to say that
-- of course, one of the things that prevented women from participating in public life, or
prevented them until the 70s, was that notion of discrimination, and what it was -- it used to be
said that discrimination against women was benign discrimination.
And under the guise of protecting women against all kinds of things -- against working, as
Nancy mentioned, as waitresses at night; under the guise of protecting them in their future
motherhood; under the guise of protecting their families and households -- it was said that this
kind of legislation that prevented women from doing certain things -- serving on juries, working
at certain jobs, and so on -- was good discrimination, not bad discrimination.
And that argument was made by both men and women through the 1960s, until finally, in
the early 1970s, it was sort of confronted plainly, and we began to see -- it was a matter, sort of
the perception of men and women, as well as changes in the law, that we began to understand
that such discrimination could not be seen as benign, and that it was as destructive as any other
form of discrimination.
MRS. CLINTON: Of course, many of those arguments were raised again to defeat the
ERA, and that is a very recent history. You know the debates that were held in the 1970s over
that.
This next question is from Marie Theresa Penwillio (phonetic) from Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and it's for me, but it really is for everybody: As a first-year student at Harvard
University, it's often somewhat difficult for me to understand the struggle which so many women
went through to give me the opportunities that I oftentimes take for granted. Yet, it seems to my
generation as if the struggle is over. Yet, we know that
there is still a heavily unbalanced power distribution in government and top executive positions.
Do you foresee an end to this inequity?
MRS. CLINTON: I will just start, and I hope everyone will contribute. You know, the
very fact that this question could come from a young woman who says that she's a student at
Harvard as opposed to a student at Radcliffe makes a very telling statement, because certainly
when I was her age, Harvard was not open to young women.
So within her lifetime, or my lifetime, anyway, there have been a lot of changes, and I do
hope that young women are least aware of the history. I mean, it's very important for them to be
looking forward, but I think they do so at their peril if they don't have some understanding of the
past and the struggles of their own mothers, as well as people whose lives they might read about
in history books.
Clearly, the unbalanced power distribution is a worldwide phenomenon. This is not an
American phenomenon. And one of the interesting issues that I've looked at as I've traveled in
other countries and spoken with many, many women in various positions of leadership and
advocacy roles, is how even in societies that have given much greater lip service to women's
equality, it often falls far short of the aspiration that is set as an ideal.
And I think that has to do with many of the questions we were just beginning to discuss.
And those are the very difficult and personal matters of this balance or this struggle, as Judith
said, about the choices in women's lives.
And, you know, it's wonderful to have the choices that we now have to chart our own
futures. But the result is that there are still many more complexities involved in women's
choices, in general, being very stereotypical, than there are in men's choices, And that for women
it's a constant stream of choices that have to be met. Does one take the promotion that is offered
when one has a young child, knowing that that means you won't have the time to really invest in
your child the way you want to. And, if so, does that mean you're forever off the track in
government or business.
If you are an older woman, after you've raised your children, you've done what you
thought you needed to do -- not what someone else expected of you -- will you be judged fairly if
you attempt to re-enter the work force, even though you have an
enormous amount to give to any organization that would be willing to employ you.
These are very difficult, personal decisions. And, of course, the lesson that young women
often receive is that they can't "have it all." Which means that they cannot have the kind of
family life they think they would like, plus the kind of professional life they would like to
pursue. And until we get to a point where that is either a question that young men pose
themselves, or neither young men or women have to pose, then there will continue to be an
imbalance. And the imbalance will
reflect the different life choices that are now open to women, but which exact consequences
down the road as women attempt to try to have a fulfilling personal and professional life, as well
as to make public contributions.
And I think it's important we keep all three of those aspects in mind, which is part of the
reason why the speakers addressed different characteristics, because there are public roles that
are not paid for, that are outside the home, that are critical to the functioning of any community,
which women have traditionally carried out, but which more and more women feel, under the
pressure of work, and paid work, and work in the home, they can no longer fulfill. And so we're
losing a lot because of the absence of that volunteerism that was always a hallmark of women's
contributions.
So I think that the question that Marie Theresa poses goes to the heart of the most difficult
area, and perhaps the one that we're now ready to address as a society, and that is this intensely
personal area of how one democratizes relationships. And that is a very difficult challenge. And
so for the issues that young women will particularly confront, that will remain at the forefront of
how they define their own lives, and how we as society define the conflicting roles that women
take on, and between men and women.
Perhaps -- Alice, or Nancy, or Ruth?
PROFESSOR KESSLER-HARRIS: I mean, I completely agree with everything you've
said, and think that perhaps we could even push it one step further. And that is to say that, in
order to do that, I think we have to begin to think about the issue that
was raised by one of the earlier questions, which is how men are socialized and whether we can't
begin to imagine households in which men and women take equal responsibilities, or divide the
responsibilities in some kind of more equitable way than is now the case.
But then I think we have to go yet one step further to say that I don't actually think we'll be
able to do that until we begin to reduce some of our emphasis as families and as a society on the
kinds of materialist values that we now possess. But I think in order to do that, we're going to
have to think a little less as individuals, as families and as a society about what we possess and
how we use it than and a little more about the sort of sharing of some of the social goods and
social well-being of our society that until we can drop some of those materialist values or push
them back a little bit and do a little more sharing, it will be very difficult to start reevaluating
relationships in any one family until we think about how we're relating in the world as a whole.
MRS. CLINTON: You know, I was recently in California with Congresswoman Ellen
Tauscher and I was in her district, and we're told by many of the people there that they commute
two and a half hours to jobs at places like Sun Microsystems and others,
and that they spend three to five hours on the road in their cars, away from their children and
away from their spouses.
It makes it nearly impossible for them to think about how to balance family and work, let
alone participate in the PTA, be a coach of a Little League team or whatever. And that's just one
example, and it's certainly not confined to California or to
the high-tech industry; you can find it throughout our country. And so there are social aspects of
how individuals make these decisions, and I think that's an important lesson to be reminded of as
we end this century.
You know, there were certainly social aspects as to how people lived their lives at the
beginning of the last century that influenced how many hours they had to work. And there are
stories of Jane Adams going through the neighborhood around Hull
House and finding children tied to chairs because both parents had to be in the factories for 12
hours a day and there was no child care. So that sparked a movement that led to a lot of the
changes that increased the quality of life for people in our country.
Well, today we may have to rethink how do we do this. And technology may be a friend
in this because if there can be more opportunities to work at home or more decentralized work
places, ways that both women and men can feel that they're more
connected both to their home and to their community, that might create the kind of environment
for some of these changes.
MS. LOVELL: And that's a perfect introduction to Ron Menson's* question to Dr.
Simmons, isn't it? And Ron Menson is a senior project officer of the Ford Foundation.
If you notice I'm speaking faster it's because our time is fleeing so fast, so I'm going to
encourage you to keep your answers short so we can get to the rest of the questions.
Q
Well, thank you. I'd just like to say, though, prior to my question, that I think in the
personal choices that you've spoken of, Mrs. Clinton, the whole question of how couples manage
a dual career is part of it. And I think, just personally, I'd like to commend you and the President
for that modeling, that helps a lot of people figure out what the possibilities are. (Applause.)
You've talked a great deal about the work of women as volunteers. In my own work at the
Foundation, I see the need for men to become more involved in family and in community. Dr.
Simmons, does having more women in public life mean that fewer
volunteers will be available to conduct or direct activities that were specialized by women? And
how can more Americans be encouraged to play this wider role?
DR. SIMMONS: I actually don't think so. And my reason for saying that is just my own
experience in, for example, the communities of which I'm a part, and particularly African-
American communities. I think that, if anything, people are committing themselves more to
civic engagement. Older Americans who have retired -- some of them retiring older, some of
them retiring quite young. I have a niece, who's only 50 years old, who's retired from corporate
life. And what's she doing? She's volunteering in a local school, and also for the Diabetes
Association.
So I think there is something -- I see also on the other end of the age continuum, young
people who are engaging in these kinds of activities to an incredible extent. All of our students
do this kind of service, more or less, today. It's a dramatic change. These are not individuals
who will let go of that feeling of being involved in those communities. So they will mature as
adults, and retire, and put even more time into
community endeavors.
So I think not. I think that also those people who are in public life are also finding ways to
volunteer, to be involved in various dimensions. So I think, personally, it's a very rich
environment for volunteer efforts. And so it's wonderful on this day to be thinking back about
the ways in which this started for women and to see that today, women still have that fire in them
to get things done in this country.
There's a whole world out there where women are still suffering bondage, and where
children are in incredible circumstances. And women care about that, as men do as well, and
want to help. So I just see many opportunities for more involvement.
MRS. CLINTON: Dr. Simmons's last comment leads, amazingly, and totally unplanned,
to this e-mail question from attorney Vicky LeBlanc of Delafield, Wisconsin, and this is for the
President: What can we as ordinary Americans do to help the
women of Afghanistan? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Vicky. First of all, I'm sure all of you here know how
horrible the conditions are for women in Afghanistan. Hillary and I had an event here at the
White House not very long ago, we had two Afghan women here,
among others, to sort of stand for what women in their country are going through.
I want someone in the audience to help me. There is a national organization of women, a
group now focused on this, and mostly the leaders are in California, although some in the East
Coast -- Ann, what's the name of it?
MS. LEWIS: The Feminist Majority. And Ellie Smeal is here
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Ellie is here working -- Feminist Majority is working on it.
And I'm going to have a meeting with some of their leaders very soon to talk about what more I
can do, aside from not recognizing the Taliban and speaking against it.
I think the important thing is that we need people to support this organization. We need
women and men around the country to engage in contributing to a common effort to highlight
what is going on, who is being hurt, what the consequences are to
the society as a whole and what we can do to help the people that are being hurt.
This is the 50th anniversary of the International Declaration of Human Rights. It is simply
not acceptable to say that this is nothing more than an expression of religious
convictions. We just had an election in Iran, local elections. There were hundreds of women
candidates. We see, even in Iraq, a country we have serious differences with, their women are
not subject to these sorts of constraints because they are women.
And I think the most important thing I could say to an ordinary citizen is, write your
member of Congress and tell them not to acknowledge or recognize the government under any
circumstances until there are changes, and (applause) -- get
in touch with the Feminist Majority and get all the material, and make sure that you are doing
whatever you can do to help those women over there and to give support for the ones that are
sticking their necks out to try to change things.
MS. LOVELL: Thank you. A last quick question from Carol Gilligan, the founder of the
Harvard Project on Psychology, and a quick answer.
Q
This is for Professor Cott. Nancy, we've heard a lot about women's reformers and the
fight for rights. But I wonder if you could say more about what you see as women's
responsibilities as citizens.
PROFESSOR COTT: Well, briefly, I think we all share responsibilities as citizens that
women and men are similarly indebted to the public and have a respect for the public interest and
participate in it. I do think that as the President was referring to before, if women's historical and
social situation has lend them some special qualities or lent many of them special qualities, then
perhaps those can be especially valuable.
I mean, two areas that I think they might be are, one, in the area of finding ways to end
war-making, not because I think women are intrinsically peaceful I don't but because in fact,
historically, they have been much less involved in war-making as a gender group, and so this is
certainly what women pacifists of the '20s, '30s, '40s thought and hoped, and I think there is
potential for that for finding different means of
reconciliation of differences.
And secondly, I mean, a very big problem of the world in general, not so much of our
country, that I think women have a special interest in is the question of world over-population. I
mean, it's clear around the world that where women are more
educated birth rates drop.
So I do think that there are those are two very major areas. The 20th century has been
the most destructive century in human history in terms of states' destruction of human lives. And
let's hope the 21 st reverses that pattern and maybe women citizens have something special to
contribute to that.
MRS. CLINTON: And, Carol, I would just add that one of the ways we can honor the past
is by voting. And there are still too many women who, for whatever reason, do not choose to
exercise their right to vote - which Evie's sisters and others fought for, for so many years. And
it doesn't have to be different from men's voting, it just has to be an expression of one's own
beliefs and a way of demonstrating one's responsibility
as a citizen, the most fundamental obligation, it seems to me, in a democracy.
So anything we can do informally and formally to encourage women to feel empowered at
least to vote is a step in the direction of making them feel that they have responsibilities which
they will fulfill in this democracy.
MS. LOVELL: I'm sorry, didn't get to all your great questions. Mr. President, your final
thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: When the Founders wrote the documents that got us all started, they
said they were doing all this so that we could better protect life and liberty, and pursue happiness.
And even they were smart enough to know that they weren't really writing that for white male
propertyholders only, even though those were the only folks that could vote then.
So a great deal of the history of this country is about the expansion of the notion of
liberty, with notions of equality and justice. And we hardly ever think about what they meant by
the pursuit of happiness. They didn't mean riding the rides at the county fair. They really meant
the pursuit of a good life, dreaming dreams and trying to live them.
When I think about what the women's issues of the 21st century will be, I do think there
will still be some significant liberty, equality issues related to wealth and power closing the
wage gap, the earnings gap, dealing with the enormously complicated problem of the fact that
there are more elderly women than men because you may be genetically superior to us after all
-- (laughter) and that, as a consequence, their poverty rate is twice the rate of elderly men.
Breaking all the glass ceilings that have been alluded to.
But I predict to you that there will be increasing focus, more than at any time in our
history, on the latter purpose of our getting together as a nation -- and that is the
pursuit of happiness. And I believe that will require us to deal with questions of balance and
interdependence, more than ever before. The one we talked about a little tonight is a balance
between work and family. There is no more important job for any
society than raising children. And men have to recognize that, too. But I think that will be a big
deal, how to balance work and family.
The other big balance questions will come involve with how do you keep society together
with all the diversity we share, not just gender, but the racial diversity, the cultural diversity, the
religious diversity. And women will be uniquely positioned to play a major role in that.
And, finally -- I'll just give one other example because we're running out of time -- how do
we balance our obligation to prosper as well as we can and preserve the planet
in the face of the evidence on climate change and other things.
So I believe there will be a huge challenge, which is an enormous opportunity for women,
in the whole area of our pursuit of happiness properly defined.
When Susan B. Anthony came here in 1906 and gave what turned out to be her last public
comment, in a church here in Washington, D.C. -- the last public word she ever uttered was,
"Failure is impossible." I am persuaded by the presence of you
in this crowd and those whom you represent that on the edge of a new century she's still right.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
9:30 P.M. EST