-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/8df31636883034d9b5f3861193b2efa0.pdf
b64fe2ab0ee24476e96bd05281e8e8d4
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
14537
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
WH [White House] Office for Women's Inits. [Initiatives] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
4
7
3
�Clmton 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 titlefromthe original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
�H. Working Women
�Facts o/iWorkin;
U.S. Department of Labor
Women's Bureau
Women
No. 95-1
May 1995
20 FACTS ON WOMEN WORKERS
There were 102 million women age 16 and
over in the United States in 1994. Of that
total, a record 60 million were in the civilian
labor force (persons working or looking for
work).
Women's share of the total labor force
continues to rise. Women accounted for
46 percent of total United States labor force
participants in 1994 and are projected to
comprise 48 percent in the year 2005.
Nearly six out of every ten women-58.8
percent-age 16 and over were labor force
participants (working or looking for work) in
1994.
Women's groups between the ages of 20 and
54 had labor force participation rates of at least
70 percent. Even half the Nation's teenage
women ages 16-19 were labor force
participants--51 percent (see Table 1).
Labor force participation by marital status
varies for women. Divorced and separated
women have higher participation rates mainly
because they are the primary or the only wage
earners in their families (see Table 2).
Unemployment for all women in 1994 was
only 6.0 percent. For white women it was
5.2 percent; 11.0 percent for black women;
and 10.7 percent for Hispanic women.
Table 1
Labor Force Participation Rates
For Women by Age Groups, 1994
Aee Grouos
All Women
16 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 65
65 and over
Participation Rate
58.8
51.3
71.0
74.0
77.1
74.6
48.9
9.2
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labo
Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1995.
Table 2
Female Labor Force Participation,
by Marital Status, March 1994
Marital Status
Participation Rate
All women
58.8
Never Married
65.1
Married, spouse present
60.6
Married, spouse absent
62.9
Divorced
73.9
Widowed
17.6
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Unpublished Data, March 1994.
�When unemployed women seek jobs they are
more inclined to contact the prospective
employer directly (67 percent); and less often
to send out resumes or fill out applications (42
percent); place or answer ads (22 percent);
contactfriendsor relatives (16 percent); use
public employment agencies (19 percent); and
use private employment agencies (7 percent).
11.
Many women who work part time are inuliiple
job holders. In 1994. 3.3 million women hek
more than one job. The highest rate ot
multiple jobholding was among women 20 to
24 years old--7.6 percent.
12.
More women are working more than one job
primarily for economic reasons-to meet
regular household expenses, to pay off debts,
and to save for the future.
Fifty-seven million women were employed in
1994. The largest proportion still work in
technical, sales, and clerical occupations.
Table 4
Women as Multiple Jobholders, 1994
(numbers in thousands)
Table 3
Employed Women by Occupation, 1994
Age
(in millions)
Occupation
Total
Management and
Profession Specialty
Technical, Sales and
Administrative Support
56.6
16.3
24.0
10.1
Service Occupations
Precision Production, Craft,
1.2
and Repair
Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers 4.3
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing
.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1995.
9.
10.
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
No. Emoloved
Women have made substantial progress in
obtaining jobs in the managerial and
professional specialties. In 1984 they held one
third (33.6 percent) of managerial and
executive and nearly half (48.5 percent) of the
professional occupations. By 1994 they held
48.1 percent of managerial/executive positions
and accounted for over half (52.8 percent) of
workers employed in professional occupations.
Of the 57 million employed women in the
United States in 1994, 41 million worked full
time (35 or more hours per week); nearly 16
million worked part time (less than 35 hours
per week). Two-thirds of all part-time
workers were women (67 percent).
Number
Rate
178
452
880
932
650
215
29
5.9
7.6
6.1
6.0
6.0
4.2
1.8
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ot Labor
Statistics, Unpublished Data, Annual Averages 1994.
13.
The ratio of women's 1994 median weekly
earnings to men's is 76.4 percent. Even in
traditionally female occupations where women
outnumber, women still earn less than men
(see Table 5).
Table 5
Median Weekly Earnings.
Selected Traditionally Female Occupations, 1994
Earnings
Occupation
Registered nurses
Elementary school teachers
Cashiers
General office clerks
Health aides, except nursing
Women
Men
$680
621
220
367
271
$709
650
264
403
301
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1995.
�14.
1993; for families maintained by men. no wife
present, thefigurewas $26,467; while
married-couple families had a median income
of $43,005.
With women still concentrated in lower paying
occupations and having overall earnings about
three-fourths that of men, it is no wonder that
more adult women than men are below the
poverty level (see Table 6).
19.
Table 6
Poverty Status of Persons, by Age and Sex, 1993
(numbers in thousands)
Age
Total
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
Below Poverty Level
Women
Men
22,365
2,979
3,656
2,610
1,388
1,289
2,750
16,900
1,875
2,148
1,647
1,134
897
1,004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Income, Poverty, and Valuation of
Noncash Benefits:1993.
15.
16.
17.
18.
According to summer 1993 statistics from the
Bureau of the Census, mothers receiving Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
were nearly 3 times as likely as their nonAFDC counterparts to be under 25 years old
(28 percent versus 10 percent). Mothers on
AFDC had an average of 2.6 children; non
AFDC mothers averaged 2.1. About 1.8
million of the Nation's 3.8 million mothers (48
percent) receiving AFDC had never married.
Nearly 4.5 million families with female
householders were below the poverty level in
1993. Thisfigurerepresents 35.6 percent of
all families with female householders.
Of the 68.5 million families in the United
States in 1993, 12.4 million (18 percent) were
maintained by women-S million were white;
3.8 million were black; and 1.5 million were
Hispanic.
Families maintained by women, (no husband
present) had a median income of $17,443 in
Of all labor force participants, women were
more likely to have completed high school than
were men. Ninety-one percent of female
labor force participants held a minimum of a
high school diploma, compared to 88 percent
of men. A somewhat lower percentage of
women than men were college graduates.
Table 7
Percent Distribution of the Labor Force by
Educational Attainment, Sex, Race. 1993
Category
Women Men
25 years and over
100.0 100.0
Less than a high school diploma
9.6 13.0
High school graduate, no college 36.7 33.8
Some college or associate degree 28.2 24.9
College graduates
25.5 28.3
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Unpublished Data, Annual Averages. 1994.
20.
Regardless of race, women with college
degrees were more apt to have bachelor's
degrees in professional and technical,
disciplines than in other areas of study.
Table 8
Percentage Distribution of Field of Study of Women,
by Race, Year Ending 1991
Bachelor's Degrees
Natural sciences
Engineering and
Computer sciences
Humanities and
Social sciences
Professional/Technical
White Black
Hispanic
6.2
5.7
6.2
8.6
8.5
9.7
33.3
51.8
30.9
54.9
36.7
47.4
Source: U.S. Department of Education. National
Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of
Education, 1994.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
A p r i l 11,1996
NATIONAL PAY INEQUITY AWARENESS DAY, 1996
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
More than three decades after the passage of the
Egual Pay Act and T i t l e V I I of the C i v i l Rights Act,
women and people of color continue to suffer the
consequences of unfair pay d i f f e r e n t i a l s . I n
comparing median weekly earnings, l a s t year American
women earned only 75 cents for every dollar a man
brought home, with African American women and Hispanic
women c o l l e c t i n g j u s t 66 cents and 57 cents,
respectively. Significant wage gaps e x i s t for African
American and Hispanic men, Asians, P a c i f i c Islanders,
and Native Americans as well.
A p r i l 11 i s the day on which American women's
wages for 1996, when added to t h e i r entire 1995
earnings, f i n a l l y equal what men earned i n 1995 alone.
Unfair pay practices e x i s t a t a l l education l e v e l s and
in every occupation. Last year, women physicians and
lawyers earned substantially l e s s than t h e i r male
counterparts. The problem i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute i n
female-dominated professions and in jobs where
minority groups are disproportionately represented.
Though changing technologies and a growing demand for
services have made t h e i r positions increasingly v i t a l ,
America's c h i l d care providers, secretaries, t e x t i l e
workers, telephone operators, s o c i a l workers, and
maintenance people are among those who bear the
greatest wage discrepancies.
Ensuring f a i r pay i s an e s s e n t i a l part of helping
women and t h e i r families become and remain
s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . According to 1993 data, the vast
majority of households depend on the wages of
a working mother, and 12 percent of a l l families are
supported by a woman working as the single head of
household. Studies show that salary inequities often
force women to turn to public assistance to keep a
roof over t h e i r children's heads and food on the
table.
�F a i r pay equity p o l i c i e s can be implemented simply
and without incurring undue costs. Twenty States have
already established programs aimed at increasing the
wages of employees in female-dominated jobs, and many
private sector businesses have implemented voluntary
p o l i c i e s . These employers understand that f a i r pay i s
an invaluable human resource management tool that
helps a t t r a c t and r e t a i n the best workers.
At the Fourth World Conference on Women held i n
Beijing, China, the United States joined more than 180
other countries to address problems facing women and
to promote workers' basic r i g h t s . This was an
important step, and we must build on i t to further the
dialogue about f a i r pay and treatment i n t h i s country.
Women and minority workers have long fueled our
Nation's progress, and we must do a l l we can to
recognize t h e i r achievements and to leave a legacy of
equality and j u s t i c e for t h e i r children to cherish.
N W THEREFORE, I , WILLIAM J . CLINTON, President
O,
of the United States of America, by virtue of the
authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, do hereby proclaim A p r i l 11, 1996,
as National Pay Inequity Awareness Day.
I c a l l upon Government o f f i c i a l s , law enforcement agencies,
business and industry leaders, educators, and a l l the
people of the United States to recognize the f u l l
value of women's s k i l l s and contributions to the labor
force. I urge a l l employers to review t h e i r
wage-setting practices and to see that t h e i r
employees, p a r t i c u l a r l y women and people of color, are
paid f a i r l y for t h e i r work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
t h i s eleventh day of A p r i l , in the year of our Lord
nineteen hundred and ninety-six, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two
hundred and twentieth.
WILLIAM J . CLINTON
�PAY INEQUITY DAY
April 11, 1996
THE PROBLEM
o
American women face a 28 percent wage gap.
o
April 11 is Pay Inequity Awareness Day for women. April 11 marks the date by
which women will have earned what men earned during calendar year 1995; women
have to work through April 11 - fourteen weeks longer than men ~ to earn what men
earn, on average.
o
Some specifics: Women physicians last year earned 35 percent less than male
counterparts; women lawyers earned 18 pecent less than male attorneys.; unfair pay
practicies exist in all occupations.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE
o
The President has fought for policies to ease working women's economic burden,
including:
- Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993 to reward work for
America's most hard-working families. This proposal benefitted 40 million
Americans — 15 million parents and their children.
- A proposed increase in the Minimum Wage. Nearly 60 percent of all
minimum wage earners are women. Nearly 70 percent of the people who
would benefit from the President's proposal are adults and 40 percent are the
sole bread winners for their households.
- Relief for working families in his 1997 budget, including a $500 tax credit
for to ease the costs of each young child and $10,000 deduction for higher
education.
- Expanded Head Start: The President's proposal would allow a million kids
would be in Head Start by the year 2,002. (Currently 750,000 children have
access to Head Start).
o
The first bill President Clinton signed into law was the Family and Medical Leave
Act, which guarantees' Americans jobs while they take unpaid leave to care for a sick
family member or new child.
o
The President has challenged Congress to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill to
preserve their health care insurance throughout a life of changing jobs.
o
"Working Women Count Honor Roll": The President initiated a nationwide
initiative to ease working women's stress — through voluntary pledges by employers to
provide child care, additional family leave time, or other real changes to make life
�WOMEN AND THE MINIMUM WAGE
The minimum wage offers us a prime opportunity to speak to women and the struggles of
their daily lives. Minimum wage is particularly important to women both as workers (women
account for 59 percent of all minimum wage earners) and as providers for their families.
In Stan Greenberg's recent study on the target audience (white, high-school educated, married
men and women under age 50), he found that the top concern ~ especially for women - is
stretching each dollar to meet the family's expenses.
Similarly, Celinda Lake's "Women's Voices '96" found that "women feel a very real
responsibility for supporting their families, and they worry in specific personal terms about
meeting basic expenses and stretching each dollar." In some of Celinda's more recent studies,
she has emphasized that women seek economic independence and security not only for
financial reasons but also as a strategy to gain respect.
In addition, Greenberg found that the targeted women are sympathetic to families who are
less well off than they are (while men are not); even middle class women worry about
how poor people are surviving financially. Greenberg found that this constituency
overwhelmingly supports an increase in the minimum wage (79 percent — similar to the 83
percent of all Americans found in the ABC Poll 1/29/96).
Some important facts:
o
Women and minorities are disproportionately represented among minimum wage
earners:
- Women today are 47 percent of the labor force, but they account for 59
percent of all minimum wage earners.
- 5.8 million women would directly benefit from the President's proposal to
raise the minimum wage. Four million of these are adults.
- Single heads of households, who are often women, represent over one-fifth of
all families who currently rely on the earnings of a worker making $4.25 to
$5.14 per hour.
- The decline in the real value of the minimum wage since 1979 accounts for
30 percent of the rise in wage inequality for women (DiNardo, Lemieux &
Fortin).
- Black and Hispanic workers make up 21 percent of the nation's workforce,
but they make up 30 percent of all workers earning $4.25 per hour or less.
�o
One of the main arguments against raising the minimum wage is that it would affect
mostly teenagers. This is false. Raising the minimum wage is a family issue:
Almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults and 72 percent of women
earning minimum wage are 20 years old or older.
o
Four in ten minimum wage earners are the sole bread winners for their families.
o
We need to make the minimum wage a living wage to fight poverty as well as to give
impoverished families a real alternative to welfare. Twenty percent of those living on
the minimum wage the last time it was raised in 1991 were in poverty, and an
additional 13 percent were near poverty.
Some suggested language:
o
Women today are struggling to make ends meet and are particularly harmed by
keeping the minimum wage down: 59 percent of all minimum wage earners are
women.
o
By keeping the minimum wage down. Congress is keeping earnings down for women - specifically 4 million adult women working to pay mortgages or rent or childcare or
to pay their household bills.
o
A raise helps families get by: A 90 cent increase means $1,800 a year for a full-time
worker. For an average family that means:
- seven months of groceries,
- four months' rent or mortgage payments,
- a full year of health care (including prescription drugs),
- nine months' utility bills,
- three months' total transportation costs, or
- more than a year's tuition at a community college.
o
A raise in the minimum wage has a real impact on the daily lives of real families: For
instance, David and Jennifer Dow in Pennsylvania were forced to choose between
diapers for their toddlers and eyeglasses. They went without eyeglasses.
5/96
White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach
�Working Women Count!
Key Findings
Workine Women Count! revealed a resounding consensus:
o a consensus on issues that crosses all occupations and
incomes, all generations and races, and all regions of the country;
o the concems of the women in the scientific sample mirror those of the selfselected respondents to the public questionnaire.
o More than 250,000 women responded to the public questionnaire.
Working women like working:
o 79% of respondents tell us they "love" or "like" their jobs overall.
The concerns of greatest importance to working women were:
o Pay and benefits
- 65% of women say "improving pay scales" is a high priority for change.
- 49% of women say " I don't get paid what I think my job is worth."
- "Health insurance for all" ranks as the number one priority for change:
43% of women respondents who work part-time and 34%
of women over age 55 lack health insurance (far greater
than the 18% of the general population who lack
insurance).
o Work and family
- Stress ranks as working women's number one problem.
- 63% of mothers with children age 5 and under, and 61% of single mothers,
give high priority to getting paid leave to care for children or relatives.
- Almost half of all respondents support paid leave as a priority for change.
o Valuing women's work and skills
- 61% of respondents say they have little or no ability to advance.
- a majority of women give high priority to "insuring equal opportunity."
- On-the-job training and giving employees more responsibility for how
they do their jobs are cited by more than half of respondents as
priorities for change.
�Background
The Working Women Count! campaign was initiated by the Department of Labor's Women's
Bureau as an attempt to ask women across the country what they like about work, what they
don't like and what they would like to see changed.
More than 250,000 women responded to the popular questionnaire, available May 5 - August
31, 1994, in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Portuguese, Braille and Large
Type. The questionnaire was distributed by 1,600 partner organizations in all 50 states,
Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to their constituents, employees, members, or
readers. A parallel telephone survey of 1,200 women from a scientifically selected, national
random sample was conducted in June, 1994.
The Working Women Count! campaign was launched on May 5, 1994, at the White House,
with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and actors Linda
Lavin ("Alice") and Valerie Harper ("Rhoda").
There are 58 million working women in the U.S. — nearly half of the American workforce.
Ninety-nine percent of all women work for pay at some point in their lives.
�A REPORT TO THE \ ATIO V
Mvccutive Suinnian
WOMEN'S BUREAU
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
�WOMEN WORK FOR PAY—in greater numbers, in
launched Working Women Count! to ask
more occupations, and for more years of their
working women about their jobs—what they
lives than ever before. Todav. women make up
like, what thev do not like, and what they want
nearly half of our nation's workforce, and a
to change.
l,
staggering 99. of women in America will work
<>
We believed that if we spoke to women,
for pav sometime during their lives. Nearly
they would talk back. And they did. In record
even- woman has a stake in what happens in
numbers.
tlie workplace.
In only four months, over a quarter of a
Despite the imponance of women to
million women told us what it means to be a
today's economy, not enough is known about
working woman in America today. This report
how women themselves evaluate their work
reflects their concems and experiences.
lives. In Mav 1994. the Women's Bureau
" o the Run of the Mill Survey"
Nt
As part of the Clinton administration effort to
"reinvent government.'' Working Women
Count! reached out on an unprecedented
scale with a publicly distributed questionnaire
asking women about their lives a.s workers.
"This i.s not the run of the mill survey,"
promised First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"This i.s the experts themselves—working
women—telling us what we need to do."
The Women's Bureau enlisted more than
1.600 partners to help distribute the questionnaire. Tlie partners include more than 300
businesses. 900 grassroots organizations, 75
unions, daily newspapers, national magazines
and Federal agencies—in all 50 States, the
Virgin Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico.
In addition to the popular questionnaire,
the Women's Bureau conducted a telephone
survey with a scientifically selected, national
random sample. This scientific sample provided a benchmark for evaluating the replies of
women who chose to be counted in response
to the public outreach. Unless otherwise
noted, thefiguresused to discuss the results
of the Working Women Count! questionnaire are drawnfromthe scientific sample.
�Issues and Concerns
The questionnaire surfaced a number of issues
More than half of the sample,
and concems that are shared by working
61%, say they have little or no ability
women from both the popular and scientific
to advance. This increases to 69% for
samples. The numbers cited are drawn from
blue collar workers anti 70% for technical
the scientific survey:
workers.
Health and pension benefits are
critical concems. Health care insurance
for all ranks as the number one priority for
change. Forty-three percent of women
who work part-time and 34% of women
over 55 years old lack health care insurance. These percentages far exceed the
18% of the general population who lack
14% of white women and 26% of
women of color report losing a job or
promotion on the basis of their gender or race. While women of color
repon a higher incidence of discrimination, both groups give high priority to
"insuring equal opportunity"—50% of
white women and 61% of women of color.
health insurance. Fifty-seven percent of
re.sp< )ndents give their pension plans negative ratings, including 23° > who have no
pension at all.
63% of mothers with children age
five and under, and 61% of single
mothers, give high priority to getting
paid leave to care for children or rela-
Vacation and sick leave benefits
are inadequate. While 14% of respondents report having no sick leave, the fig-
tives. Almost half of the respondents of all
ages and family situations suppon paid
leave as a priority for change.
ure for those earning less than 510,000 is
31%. Of respondents in blue collar occupations. 46% say they have either inadequate vacation time or none at all.
56% of women with children age
five and under say "finding affordable
child care" is a serious problem, and
over half of this group (53%) say "informa-
Stress ranks as working women's
number one problem. This problem,
tion about and support for dependent
care" is a high priority for change.
identified by almost 60% of all respondents,
cuts across income and rxxupationalgroups. It is particularly acute for women
in their forties who hold professional and
managerial jobs (74%) and for single
mothers (67%).
65% of women say "improving
pay scales" is a high priority for
change, and 49% say, "I don't get paid
what I think my job is worth."
�Findings: A Consensus for Change
Working Women Count/ paints a complex
portrait of American working women in the
1990's. The voices of working women in this
report reveal their pride and satisfaction at
being breadwinners for their families and a
significant part of the American workforce.
Fully ~9V.'. of respondents tell us that they
either "love" or "like" their jobs overaJl.
Working Women Count! also reveals a
pow erful consensus among working women
about what i.s wrong with their jobs, and what
needs to befixed—aconsensus that crosses all
occupations and incomes, all generations and
difficulty of balancing work andfamily
obligations. They report that problems
with child care are deep andpen'asire,
affecting families acmss the economic
spectrum.
Opportunity Should Reflect the
Value of Women's Work: Working
women tell us they have valuable skills
and on-the- job experience, but often do
not get recognition and credit for what
they can do—nor access to training to
build their skills and increase their
marketabiJity.
On-the-job training, and giving
employees more responsibilih'for how
they do theirjobs, are cited by more thati
half of respondents as priorities for
change.
races, and all regions of the country.
In addition, the priorities and concerns of
the women in the scientific sample mirror
those of the self-selected respondents to the
public questionnaire. This convergence points
to the depth of consensus among America's
w trking women.
<
Working Women Count! respondents
speak with one voice on the following issues:
Pay and Benefits Should Provide
Economic Security: Working women tell
us they are breadwinners, and frequently
the sole support of their households. Yet,
they are not getting the pay and benefits
commensurate with the work they do, the
level (if respi insibility they hold, or the
societal contribution they make.
////pro/ 7/71; pay scales and health care
i)isiira)ice for all are the two top-ranking
priorities for workplace change of respondents in both the scie)itific and popular
samples
Underscoring this consensus, respondents
repeatedly express distress and frustration:
they are distressed that their work at home and
on the job continues to be devalued, and they
are frustrated with the visible and invisible
signs of inequality.
Respondents are concerned about incidents of discrimination. However, the most
frequently described inequities, those that
seem to weigh most heavily, are systemic. Time
and again, women describe a work world that
still compensates women in almost even' job
and profession at a lesserratethan men,
defines jobs done primarily by women as less
v;iluable, and fails to acknowledge that women
are mainstays in both the workplace and the
home.
As a working mother from Louisiana
Workplace Culture Should
Support and Respect Families:
Working women tell us their families are
ven important to them. Yet, they feel that
neither their empk >yers nor public policy
adequately recognize or suppon women's
family responsibilities.
The nnniher one issue women want
to bring lo the President's attention is the
writes. "My first priority is, and will always be,
to care for my family. However. 1 take my job
very seriously and I am entitled to receive the
same compensation and consideration for what
I do as does any male working in a comparable
-
capacity in the nation."
�Conclusions: Making Working W m n Count!
o e
Working Women Count! gives voice to the
children and creating some full-day, full-year
hopes and concems of America's working
slots to better serve working parents.
women.
We heard a consensus for change across
Most importandy, the administration is
working to provide greater economic security
occupations and incomes, across races, ages
for all Americans. Expansion of the Earned
and regions. Respondents told us: that child
Income Tax Credit gives a boost to low-income
care is hard to find and difficult to afford; that
families with an unprecedented income sup-
pay and benefits, especially health care, are
plement. Passage of the School to Work
neither sufficient nor secure; that training is
Opportunities Act provides young women and
valued by the professionals who have it and
men with new opportunities for job training
sought by the blue collar women who need it;
and education and demonstrates the impor-
that discrimination is experienced by women
tance of investing in our future workforce.
of all races; and that workplace inequalities on
Through tough and consistent enforcement of
the basis of gender are endemic and in need
our labor laws, the Department of Labor has
of remedy.
been sending a clear signal to employers that
Many of the problems women shared
this administration is committed to promoting
with us are also issues for working men.
equal opportunity in the workplace and pro-
Wliile some of the obstacles respondents
tecting all workers, regardless of gender, race,
wrote about stem from discrimination, others
age or ability.
reflect the trend toward a workforce anxious
Solutions to the problems Working
about job insecurity, declining benefits, and
Women Count! respondents have identi-
stagnant wages. Tlie stresses on working fami-
fied must come from many quarters.
lies affect all family members and, likewise, the
Positive change will require a cooperative effort,
remedies stand to benefit all.
and the imaginations and talents of many indi-
The Clinton administration shares
viduals and organizations. More than 1,600 part-
working women's concems about these
ners joined the Women's Bureau out of a shared
problems and is actively working toward
concern and desire to understand what working
solutions. For example, the first piece of legis-
women care about. Now each of us—govern-
lation signed by President Clinton was the
ment, business, unions, grassroots organiza-
Family and Medical Leave Act, enacted in 1993
tions, and the media—has an important role to
after a ten-year congressional battle and two
play And we can each begin by discussing these
vetoes by the previous administration. It is an
issues with our own co-workers, our own com-
F I Y O P R I L Y W T OT
UX R A TA L , T H I
P R I SO OF THE F D R L
E MS I N
E EA
important step, and the first legislation in
munity organizations, and our own families. We
GOVERNMENT. SOURCE CREDIT
decades to recognize the need for poliq' that
must build the consensus documented in this
supports women's work and family responsibil-
report into a national consensus for change.
MATERIAL COVTAINT.O IN THIS
P B I A I N IS IN THF. P B C
U LC TO
LU
D O H \ l N AND HAY BE RF.PRODr(:ED.
IS R Q E T D B T N T R Q I E .
E U S E U O E UR D
\ ^'EltMISSION IS REQUIRED ONLY
R P O U E A Y C P RGF E
ER D C N O Y I I T D
/ERIAL C N AN D HEREIN.
OTIE
ities. In 1994, the President signed the Head
Our challenge? To build high performance
Stan Reauthoriza-tion bill, which proxides for
workplaces that fully and fairly value women as
the expansion of this very successful child care
equal partners in American life.
THIS MATERIAL WILL BE MADE
A AL B E T S NO Y I P I E
V I A L O E S R M AR D
I DV D A S U O R Q E T
N I T L L P N E US.
VOICE PHONE: 202-219-6652
TDD PHONE: 1-800-326-2577
programs-expanding the number of eligible
�America's working women have made their voices
heard. In vast numbers and with extraordinary candor
and insight, women from every region of the country
have responded to this unprecedented questionnaire
and told us about their lives. This report is the culmination.
The report weaves a fabric of opinion and experience that is as richly diverse as America's working
women themselves. Yet these wide-ranging convictions are unified by a common thread: women—
indeed, all working people—want the opportunity
and the resources to lead full, productive lives. They
want to be treatetl not as disposable parts, but as
essential assets. And they want to work in an environment that treats them with dignity, respects the importance of their families, and invests in their skills.
Moving in this direction is essential. It's essential
for reasons of fairness and equality, but it is equally an
economic imperative. In today's economy, only one
resource offers an enduring competitive edge: people.
Everything else—machines, processes, raw materials—can be easily replicated. The only element that
cannot be easily duplicated i.s workers—their skills,
their creativity, their capacity to work together.
Investing in America's workers is the key to competitive success. Private companies, government, and
labor unions must equip workers—whatever their
gender or race—with a set of flexible skills that they
can sharpen throughout their working lives. Working
women appreciate the urgency of this task. On-the-job
training was cited by more than half the women in this
questionnaire as a priority for change.
Tlie same is true for giving workers—especially
women—authority on the job. This, too. i.s a matter of
both equity and common sense. Workers who are
treated fairly, who are respected, and who are given
responsibility perform better and produce more. Our
best companies have recognized the value of flattening their traditional hierarchies and pushing responsibility to the front-line workers who know the product
and customers best.
Still, not even- organization is committed to
investing in workers' skills and reorganizing the workplace. Some have opted for another route. And that is
why it is also essential to block the low road of unsafe
conditions, job discrimination, and meager wages. Fair
pay and adequate child care, the questionnaire results
reveal, are critical to working women and therefore
critical to the country. Providing safe, healthy, and
family-friendly workplaces is a national priority.
As we continue to reshape workforce policy—
together with employers, women's groups, and communirv' and labor organizations—we will address the
issues which working women themselves have so
forcefully and eloquently raised.
ROBERT B. REICH
SKCRKTAKI Oh LABOR
This repon—an historic attempt to collect the views
of working women—arrives in a Capitol that has
already begun to change. Much work remains to
improve the lives of working women. But already
hopeful signs of progress are emerging throughout
the country.
The Clinton Administration began making
progress almost immediately upon taking office. For
example, the first bill President Clinton signed into
law was the Family and Medical Leave Act, which
gives workers—men and women—unpaid time off
work to care for a new child or a sick relative. The
importance of this achievement cannot be underestimated, coming as it did after a decade-long congressional battle and two vetoes by the previous
President. This legislation is a landmark achievement, the first legislation in decades to honor
women's work and put families first.
In addition, this year the President signed the
Head Stan Reauthorization bill, which expands this
proven child care program. More children will now
be able to participate, and there will be more full-day;
full-year slots to better serve working parents.
The Administration is also forging solutions to
working women's central concern: economic security. Thanks to the School-to-Work Opponunities Act,
more of our nation's young people—both young
women and men—will be able to move smoothly
from the classroom to a job with a future. The
Earned Income Tax Credit, pan of the President's
economic plan, is providing tax relief for fifteen million working families with modest incomes. And this
Administration is vigorously enforcing the laws that
promote equal opponunity and prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age or disability.
We've made a good start. And the voices of
America's working women add the fuel to power
even greater progress.
TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE FULL REPORT,
WORKING WOMEN COUNT! A REPORT TO THE NATION,
P E S S N A S L - D R S E MAILING L B L TO:
L AE E D
E FA D E S D
AE
WOMEN'S BUREAU
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
ATTN: WWC! REPORT
200 CoNSTmmoN AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 2 0 2 1 0
KAREN NUSSBAUM
DIRECTOR. WOMEN'S BUREAU
�WORKING WOMEN COUNT RECOMMENDATIONS
Making Work Better for Women
^
^
^
^
^
PAY AND BENEFITS
• Raise the minimum wage
• Encourage better pay practices through streamlined contract
compliance for Federal contractors
• Establish the Fair Pay Clearinghouse for employees and
employers interested in improving pay practices
• Initiate a Pension Education Campaign to provide needed
information about retirement and pension planning
WORK AND FAMILY
o
• Hold a series of community forums to promote and support
efforts to make child care more available, affordable and safe
• Provide tax relief to families caring for children and elders
• Resist efforts to expand the 40-hour work week
• Form a partnership with the National League of Cities to
increase the supply and quality of child care
VALUING WOMEN AND WOMEN'S WORK
• Increase women's access to education and training through skill
grants, tax deductions and IRAs
• Establish the "Working Women Count Honor Roll" to recognize
employers and others who commit to making work better for
women
• Expand the "Don't Work in the Dark" public education
campaign to ensure that women know their basic workplace
rights
�U.S. Department of Labor
0
"
i c e
o' he secretary
Women s Bureau
Washington D C . 20210
Working Women Count Honor Roll
The Department of Labor Women's Bureau has joined with businesses and
organizations from all 50 states to make work better for women and their families.
Since September 1995, we have received more than 800 pledges for positive, concrete
workplace change ranging from flexible work schedules to child care on snow days; from
business school scholarships to paid leave for participating in a child's school activities.
Combined, they put millions of dollars in the pockets of America's working families.
The Honor Roll was launched to address concems voiced by working women across
the country when the Women's Bureau reached out and asked them how they felt about their
jobs. An unprecedented quarter of a million women responded to the Working Women Count
Survey and said they needed change in three key areas: better pay and benefits, help in
balancing work and family, and more respect and opportunity on the job.
The Women's Bureau has promised to obtain more than a thousand pledges affecting
the lives of at least a million working people. It's one of the main U.S. commitments that
Ambassador Madeleine Albright announced at the Fourth World Conference on Women in
Beijing.
Employers and others interested in joining the Honor Roll must pledge to initiate new
programs or policies that make a real difference in the areas women told the Women's Bureau
they care about most. Call 1-800-827-5335 for pledge materials. Together we really can
make a difference.
March 18, 1996
�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.
Divider Title:
I
�I.
Choice
�Voters For Choice Survey Research Update
(As Of March, 1996)
I)
Manv Republicans Think Bob Dole Is Pro-Choice:
A)
CNN/Time Poll
2/24/96
1002 Registered GOP Voters
Margin of Error: +/- 3%
? 7 % o f rpnirtprprl G O P vntPre
S l
ippnrt RnhJ22lp
thpcp Dole supporters,
1 % think Bob Dole supports a pro-rhoice position.
1
B)
NARAL/Hickman-Brown Poll
10/23/95 - 10/26/95
800 Registered Voters
Margin of Error: +/-3.5%
Pro-Choice GOP Voters:
•4- — * 44% Dont Know Dole's Position On Choice
35% Know Dole Is Anti-Choice And Disagree With Him On Issue
I **> ' hmk Dole Is Pro-Chojc^)
Pro-Choice Independent Voters:
_^ ^S^TTonTKnow Dole's Position On Choice^)
% Know Dole Is Anti-Choice And Disagree With Him On Issue
C
1 0 % T h i n k D o l e Is P r n - C h n i ^
�2)
Voters Do Not Support The GOP Platform Plank Supporting A Constitutional Ban On
Abortion:
A)
CNN/Time Poll
2/24/96
1002 Registered GOP Voters
Margin of Error: 4-/- 3%
A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion Should Not Be In The GOP
Platform:
65% Agree With This Position
74% of Dole Supporters Agree With This Position
B)
NARAL/Hickman-Brown Poll
10/23/95 - 10/26/95
800 Registered Voters
Margin of Error: + / - 3 . 5 %
The Republican Party Platform says that all abortions should be outlawed,
regardless of the circumstances that led to the pregnancy and regardless of the
health or wishes of the woman involved. Do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
29% Total Agree With GOP Platform
68% Total Disagree With GOP Platform
16%
13%
14%
54%
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
63% of Republican Women Voters Oppose Platform
4 7 % Strongly Disagree
16% Somewhat Disagree
�C)
CBS/New York Times Poll
10/22/95- 10/25/95
1269 Registered Voters
Margin of Error: + / - 3 %
(478 GOP Primary Voters/Margin of Error: 4-/-5%)
The Republican Party Platform should specifically support a Constitutional
Amendment to outlaw abortion:
76% of GOP Primary Voters Oppose Outlawing Abortion
3)
Voters Strongly Support The Pro-Choice Plank Of The Democratic Platform:
A)
NARAL/Hickman-Brown Poll
10/23/95 - 10/26/95
800 Registered Voters
Margin of Error: 4-/-3.5%
The Democratic Party Platform says that government should not interfere with
a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion, regardless of the
circumstances that led to the pregnancy and regardless of the health or wishes
of the woman involved. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
61 % Total Agree With Pro-Choice Democratic Platform
35% Total Disagree With Pro-Choice Democratic Platform
42%
19%
13%
22%
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
52% of GOP Women Voters Support Pro-Choice Democratic Platform
33% Strongly Agree
I 9% Somewhat Agree'
�4)
The Strongest Pro-Choice Argument Continuec; To Be Based On Anti-Government
Iptrusign:
A)
NARAlVHickman-Brown Poll
10/23/95-10/26/95
800 Registered Voters
Margin of Error: +/-3.5%
65% of registered voters are concerned that government will go too far trying
to regulate private personal decisions like abortion.
64% of registered GOP women voters are concerned that government will go
too far trying to regulate private personal decisions like abortion.
73% of registered independent women voters are concerned that government
will go too far trying to regulate personal decisions like abortion.
67% of registered voters believe that most politicians who vote to restrict a
woman's right to choose are hypocritical: they say they want less government
involvement in the economy and a smaller government, but they turn around
and give government almost total power in this private issue.
53% of registered women voters believe that politicians who vote to restrict a
woman's right to choose do not trust women to make their own decisions
(44% GOP women, 45% Independent women, 65% of Democratic women
support this belief)-
�E X E C U T I V E
O F F I C E
10-Apr-1996
SUBJECT:
OF
T H E
P R E S I D E N T
06:16pm
STATEMENT ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION VETO
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
A p r i l 10,
1996
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R.
1833, which would prohibit doctors from performing a
certain kind of abortion. I do so because the b i l l
does not allow women to protect themselves from
serious threats to their health. By refusing to
permit women, in reliance on t h e i r doctors' best
medical judgment, to use t h i s procedure when t h e i r
l i v e s are threatened or when t h e i r health i s put i n
serious jeopardy, the Congress has fashioned a b i l l
that i s consistent neither with the Constitution nor
with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have
an abortion generally should be between a woman, her
doctor, her conscience, and her God.
I support the
decision i n Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to
choose, and I believe that the abortions protected by
that decision should be safe and rare. Consistent
with that decision, I have long opposed late-term
abortions except where necessary to protect the l i f e
or health of the mother. In fact, as Governor of
Arkansas, I signed into law a b i l l that barred t h i r d
trimester abortions, with an appropriate exception for
l i f e or health.
The procedure described in H.R. 1833 has troubled
me deeply, as i t has many people. I cannot support
use of that procedure on an e l e c t i v e basis, where the
abortion i s being performed for non-health related
reasons and there are equally safe.medical procedures
available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations
that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a
�doctor's medical judgment, the use of t h i s procedure
may be necessary to save a woman's l i f e or to protect
her against serious injury to her health. In these
situations, in which a woman and her family must make
an awful choice, the Constitution requires, as i t
should, that the a b i l i t y to choose t h i s procedure be
protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from
women who desperately wanted to have their babies, who
were devastated to learn that t h e i r babies had f a t a l
conditions and would not l i v e , who wanted anything
other than an abortion, but who were advised by t h e i r
doctors that t h i s procedure was t h e i r best chance to
avert the r i s k of death or grave harm which, i n some
cases, would have included an i n a b i l i t y to ever bear
children again. For these women, t h i s was not about
choice — not about deciding against having a c h i l d .
These babies were certain to perish before, during or
shortly after birth, and the only question was how
much grave damage was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because i t
f a i l s to protect women i n such dire circumstances —
because by treating doctors who perform the procedure
in these t r a g i c cases as criminals, the b i l l poses a
danger of serious harm to women. This b i l l , i n
c u r t a i l i n g the a b i l i t y of women and t h e i r doctors to
choose the procedure for sound medical reasons,
v i o l a t e s the constitutional command that any law
regulating abortion protect both the l i f e and the
health of the woman. The b i l l ' s overbroad criminal
prohibition r i s k s that women'will suffer serious
injury.
That i s why I implored Congress to add an
exemption for the small number of compelling cases
where selection of the procedure, in the medical
judgment of the attending physician, was necessary to
preserve the l i f e of the woman or avert serious
adverse consequences to her health. The l i f e
exception in the current b i l l only covers cases where
the doctor believes that the woman w i l l die. I t f a i l s
to cover cases where, absent the procedure, serious
physical harm, often including losing the a b i l i t y to
have more children, i s very l i k e l y to occur. I told
Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 i f i t were
amended to add an exception for serious health
consequences. A b i l l amended in t h i s way would s t r i k e
a proper balance, remedying the constitutional and
human defect of H.R. 1833. I f such a b i l l were
presented to me, I would sign i t now.
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a
�procedure that appears inhumane. But to eliminate i t
without taking into consideration the rare and t r a g i c
circumstances in which i t s use may be necessary would
be even more inhumane.
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and
constitutionally appropriate proposal I made, instead
leaving women unprotected against serious health
r i s k s . As a r e s u l t of t h i s Congressional indifference
to women's health, I cannot, in good conscience and
consistent with my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to uphold the law,
sign t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n .
WILLIAM J . CLINTON
�The Issue is Not Abortion
by Mary-Dorothy Line
My husband and I are extremely offended by the ad sponsored by the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops that appeared in the March 26, 1996 edition of the Washington Post. A bill
pending before the House (H.R. 1833) would ban intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E)
procedures used in some late-term abortions; late term abortions which are provided to protect
the mother's life or health when there is no hope for the baby. This legislation is wrong, and it
would hurt a lot of American families. We know. We are one of those families.
I am a registered Republican and we are practicing Catholics. Last April, we found out I was
pregnant with our first child and were extremely happy. 19 weeks into my pregnancy, an
ultrasound indicated that there was something wrong with our baby. The doctor noticed that his
head was too large and contained excessive fluid. This problem is called hydrocephalus. Every
person's head contains fluid to protect and cushion the brain, but if there istoomuch fluid, the
brain cannot develop.
As practicing Catholics, when we have problems and worries, we turn to prayer. So, our whole
family prayed. We were scared, but we are strong people and believed that God would not give
us a problem if we couldn't handle it. This was our baby; everything would be fine. We never
thought about abortion.
A few weeks later we had two more ultrasounds We consulted with five specialists, who all told
us the same thing. Our little baby had an advanced, textbook case of hydrocephaly. We asked
what we could do. They all told us there was no hope and recommended that we terminate the
pregnancy. We asked about in utero operations and shunts to remove the fluid, but were again
told there was nothing we could do. We were devastated. I can't express the pain we still feel
- this was our precious little baby, and he was being takenfromus before we even had him.
My doctors, some of the best in the country, recommended the intact D&E procedure. No
scissors were used and no one sucked out our baby's brains as is depicted in the inflammatory
ads supporting H.R. 1833. A simple needle was used to remove the fluid - the samefluidthat
killed our son - to allow his head to pass through the birth canal undamaged. THIS WAS NOT
OUR CHOICE - THIS WAS GOD'S WILL.
My doctors knew that we would want to have children in the future, even though it was the
furthest thing from my mind at the time. They recommended the best procedureforme and our
baby. Because the trauma to my body was minimized by this procedure, I was able to become
pregnant again. We are expecting another baby in September.
I pray every day that this will never happen to anyone again, but it will, and those of us
unfortunate enough to have to live this nightmare need a procedure which will give us hope for
the future.
�Congress needs to hear the truth. The truth does make a difference - when people listen. La
week, I testified at a hearing held in the Maryland legislature. A committee there was
considering a bill similar to the one Congress is prepared to pass this week. In Maryland, they
listened. And in Maryland, several conservative legislators joined in the 15-6 committee vote to
reject this bill.
After seeing the callous way our tragedies are regarded by the proponents of H.R, 1833,1 know
the only hope to protect families lies with the President of the United States. I am told he is a
good man. I am told he listens to people. I hope he listens to us, to the truth, and not to the
political propaganda. I pray he shows love and compassion for women like me and families like
mine. I pray he vetoes this bill.
Many people do not understand the real issue - it is women's health; not abortion and
certainly not choice. We must leave decisions about the type of medical procedure to employ
with the experts in the medical community and with the families they affect. It is not the place
for government.
T|jTCI_
�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 titlefromthe original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
J
�J
-
Facts from the n
Report
'
G
a s s
Ce
^
«''in« Com mission Fact-Fi di g
n
n
�Facts From the Glass Ceiling Commission Fact-Finding Report
Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital
*
Thousands of qualified women and minority men are finding their careers stopped by invisible barriers
before reaching senior management and decision making positions in corporate America. But instead of calling it
racism, sexism, or xenophobia, we call it the "glass ceiling."
*
Goodf o r Business highlighted some of the most telling data. Simply put, surveys of the top Fortune 1000
industrial and 500 service companies show that 95 percent of senior level managers ore men and of that 95 percent,
97 percent are white.
*
Only .6 percent of male senior managers are African American; .4 percent Hispanic; .3 percent Asian and
Pacific Islander American.
*
That translates into slightly more than 2100 senior women executives in these companies - far too few in
proportion to their numbers in the work force. And only five percent of these senior women are minorities; 22.
percent are African American and .2 percent are Hispanic American and 1.8 percent are Asian and Pacific Islander
American.
*
This at a time when there are 58.4 million working women in America, more than 45 percent of the U.S.
work force. Women and minorities are two-thirds of the population, two-thirds of consumers and 57 percent of the
work force.
*
. Women and minorities seem to have the greatesil opportunity for advancement in industries where change
like deregulation and restructuring is occurring such as telecommunications; fast growing industries such as
business services; and those with female intensive work forces such as finance, real estate and human resources.
*
A 1993 study rated the performance of the Standard and Poor's 500 companies on factorsrelatingto the
hiring and advancement of minorities and women. This study showed that companies having successful efforts to
eliminate glass ceiling bairiers record substantially higher stock market prices than otherwise comparable
companies.
*
Companies that win the Labor Department awards for exemplary voluntary effort at affording affirmative
opportunities to its employees see an increase in their stock prices following the announcement of the award.
*
Jobs that become associated with a particular racial or gender category tend to be organizationally
stereotyped and valued accordingly.
*
Jobs typically filled by minorities and women have short or no career ladders so that few of the people
filling them ever compete for the top management positions.
*
Regardless of credentials and preparedness, the return on investment or income, continues unequal. Equal
educational attainment does not guarantee fair compensation.
*
"The Concrete Wall" is how African Americans depict the lack of promotion and equitable compensation.
They see this struggle for advancement as a continuation of the fighl against outright racist patterns in society and
corporate America. It is almost impossible for one person alone to break through cement, concrete or brick.
*
The total African American male labor force participation rate is 63.1 percent Thisrepresentsan increase
of 3.5 percent berween 1980 and 1990 compared to an overall 4.2 percent Increase for whites.
*
In 1990,63.2 percent of African American women, ages 20 to 24, were in the labor force, as compared to
71.7 percent of their white female peers.
*
African American men and women comprise less than 2.5 percent of total employment in the top jobs in
the private sector.
�Factsfromthe Federal Glass Ceiling Commission's "Good for Business"
Page 2
*
African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount of their white male
counterparts.
*
African American women with professional degrees earn only 60 percent of what white males earn with
similar credentials.
*
The foremost barrier to the advancement of African American men and women is subtle racism and
prejudice.
*
African Americansrepresenta $257 billion consumer market
*
Women of color often encounter different gender-based stereotypes different than those applied to white
women along with stereotypesrelatingto their race/ethnicity.
*
"More than Glass" characterizes the barriers for American Indian people who state that their invisibility at
the top stemsfromtlie lack of knowledge on the part of non-Indians - many of whomrelyon stereotypes.
*
About 9 percent of American Indians completed a bachelor's degree or higher in 1990 compared to S
percent in 1980-still lower than 20 percent for the total population in 1990.
*
According to the 1990 Census, only 7,862 American Indians held executive, administrative, or managerial
positions at any level, very little of it in the private sector.
*
Most govenunent training programs targeted at American Indians focus on blue collar, craft, or clerical
skills, not the technical or management skills necessary for executive level positions.
*
Asian and Pacific Islander Americans talk of "The Impenetrable Glass" presenting a challenge, for they are
seen as the "model" minority, but a minority nonetheless with its pejorative connotation. The positive labels turn
negative to become a barrier to upward mobility.
*
From 1970-1990, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans were the fastest growing minority group. The
Asian and Pacific Islander American population doubled to 7.3 million. It is the third largest minority after African
Americans and Hispanics.
*
Sixty percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders were bom outside of the U.S.
*
The Asian and Pacific Islander population is projected to total 9.9 million by the year 2000. This represents
a 26 percent increasefrom1990.
*
A 1992 study of 806 board of directors for the public Fortune companies revealed that Asian and Pacific
Islander American women held less than one one-hundneth of one percent of the seats and men held less than twotenths of one percent of the seats.
*
Asian and Pacific Islander men feel that they have more than sufficient educational credentials and
experience and still are kept under the ceiling because they arc perceived as superior professionals but not as
managerial material.
*
Although, Asian and Pacific Islander women continue to lag behind Asian and Pacific Islander men in rates
of post-graduate education; women contributed significantly to the increase in Ihe overall representation of Asian
and Pacific Islander Americans in higher education.
•
Asian and Pacific Islander Americans represent a S94 billion consumer market
�05/13/96
18:.11
©202
523 UiHh
Facts from the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission's "Good for Business"
Page 3
*
For Hispanic Americans, the phenomena of glass ceiling is referred to as "Tlie Two-Way Mirror" which
keep themfrommoving beyond a certain level. They discussed feeling as if Latinos and Latinas arc always being
watched and judged, but not truly knowing who is on the other side.
*
According to the 1990 Census, the Hispanic population grew 53 percent between 1980 and 1990. The
increase to 22.4 million is attributable almost equally to the birth rate and immigration.
*
According to the Census, Hispanic American men have the highest work force participation rate of any
ethnic group at 78.2 percent. Hispanicsrepresented7.9 percent of the total workforce.
*
In 1990, only 370,000 Hispanic Americans had earned advanced degrees now considered essential for
climbing the corporate ladder.
*
Most Hispanics are not recent arrivals. Census data indicates that 66.7 percent of the Hispanic were bom in
the U.S.. The group with the highest percentage of those bom in the U.S. is of Mexican heritage.
*
Hispanic Americans represent a $ 175 billion consumer market
*
In 1995. fifty-one Hispanic American served on the board of seventy-four of the Fortune 1000 corporations
"^--41 men and 10 women;
?
:
•
*
Glass Ceiling research reveals that women of all racial and ethnic groups are most likely to be employed in
the service industries and in finance,realestate, wholesale and retail bade. Nearly 75 percent of employed women
work in these industries.
*
In 1990, Financial Women International surveyed male CEOs and female vice presidents on the existence
of a glass ceiling. 73 percent of the male CEOs didn't think there was a ceiling; 71 percent of the women did.
*
The number of women holding bachelor and post graduate degrees has steadily increased. In 1970, women
earned only 8.7 percent of the degrees in business and management; in 1990 it was 46.7 percent And more and
more postgraduate degrees are in the field of business management and law — the credentials that are now
considered to he prerequisites for senior management positions.
*
Surveys show women executives in 1992 earning an average of SI87,000 and men earning an average of
$289,000 — a difference of $102,000 in average annual compensation.
*
The largest percentage of women in management is found in thefinancialservices industry.
*
force.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, White womenrepresent112 percent of all women in the labor
*
White women in corporate America agree they have made some movement through the glass ceiling, but
do not perceive that the problem has been solved.
*
According to Catalyst only two women are CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.
*
The disproportionate responsibilities maintained by women outside the organization operate as a penalizing
factor to their earning potential.
*
For all groups of women - African American, White, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific - the percentages in
professional, technical, and managerial jobs were generally higher in government and the non-profit sector than in
the private, for-profit sector.
�05/13/96
18:.32
'£2202 aZZ UIH.T
Uhixr
Factsfromthe Federal Glass Ceiling Commission's "Good for Business"
Page 4
*
According to Labor Department data, in 1992,37 percent of executive, administrative, and managerial
positions in the private sector were held by white women, 3 percent by African American women, and 1.9 percent
by Hispanic women.
*
Goodfor Business identified three types of glass ceiling barriers. They are societal, governmental, and
internal structural barriers or business barriers.
*
Societal barriers include a supply barrier related to educational opportunities and the level of job
attainment There is also a "difference" barrier manifested through conscious and unconscious stereotyping and bias.
It translates into a syndrome that people who do the hiring feel most comfortable "hiring people who look like
them".
*
Stereotypes must be confronted with hard data because, if left unrefiited, they become factual in the
popular mind and reinforce glass ceiling barriers.
*
Governmental barriers include the collection and disaggregation of employmentrelateddata which make it
difficult to ascertain the status of various groups at the managerial level. Also, there continues to be inadequate
reporting and dissemination of information relevant to glass ceiling issues. Most important, there needs to be
vigorous and consistent monitoring and enforcement of laws and policies already on the books.
*
- Internal structural barriers or business barriers include: outreach andrecruitmentpractices that do not reach
orrecruitwomen and minorities; corporate climates that alienate and isolate; pipeline barriers thatrestrictcareer
growth because of poor training, inadequate mentoring, biased rating and testing systems; few or no internal
communication networks; limitedrotationaljob assignments that lead to the executive suite; and institutional
rigidity that deny thefragilefamily and work balance.
Updated May 1996
�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 titlefromthe original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
K
�K. Women and Welfare Reform
�WOMEN'S COMMITTEE OF 100
Concems with the NGA Welfare Proposal
The NGA welfare proposal differs little in its basic outline from the legislation passed by Congress, and vetoed
by the President (H.R. 4, also known as the Personal Responsibility Act). Both HR 4 and the NGA proposal:
#1 Remove the guarantee that families will get the assistance they need. This guarantee is not about the amo
of money allocated, but goes to the heart of protecting families in need-who meet all eligibility and other
requirements-against destitution. No child, or parent providing care for a child, should have that guarantee
subject to the vagaries of state budgets or annual appropriations. Anything short of the current entitlement
subjects poor children and their parents to the lottery of state economic conditions, competing budget demand
and unexpected state treasury shortfalls.
#2 Make it harder, not easier, for women to become economically self-sufficient.
•
Both proposals lack provisions for basic education and job skill programs, including English as a second
language and basic literacy. Since 60% of welfare recipients have skill levels at or below the sixth grade,
a "work first" is a guarantee of failure for large numbers of recipients. Work is not the issue; two thirds
of mothers who leave welfare via employment return, because they are unable to afford child care, earn
sufficient wages or keep temporary jobs. Thus the issue is securing successfid and permanent exits. The
Family Support Act requirement that all states develop JOBS or JOBS-type programs is repealed by both
proposals. With reduced funds, lowered state "maintenance of effort" requirements, and competing
demands for state budget monies, many states are likely to reduce or abandon their JOBS program efforts.
•
Like H.R.4, the NGA proposal has no provision for transitional services, with both Medicaid and Child
Care Transition monies disappearing into the block grant pot. The NGA Medicaid proposal will provide
for some children, depending upon age and parent's incomes, but will not provide for the parents. These
Transition programs recognized that many adults moving from welfare to work, having taken jobs that
lack health benefits, need the support of continuing Medicaid during the crucial first months off welfare.
•
Although the NGA increases funds for child care, states today are not spending the child care monies
available now, presumably because they either do not have the necessary child care infrastructure, or do
not wish to invest the state match required. Without a child care guarantee, or protection against
sanctions or time limits in the absence of child care, mothers will be forced to choose between
maintaining benefits and accepting inadequate or no child care.
•
Although, the NGA proposal provides the states more flexibility than did the H.R.4 bill (such as by
reducing the required number of hours of work to meet work requirements), like H.R. 4, the increased
work requirements that will absorb most child care monies, leaving litde or none for post-welfare or
working poor families.
•
Both proposals reward states for hurting, not helping families, who are trying to become self-sufficient.
Because states will be allowed to count families which have been terminatedfromthe program, as well
as families whose earnings are inadequate, towards meeting work requirements and earning performance
incentive awards, states will be rewarded for pushing families off the rolls, no matter what the economic
consequences. At the same time, the resources necessary to make the transition to economic selfsufficiency safe and successful, for parents as well as children, will be reduced under both proposals.
While state treasuries are protected against increased need due to demographic changes or economic downturns,
families in need are not. What will happen to children whose parents have too litde income to afford adequate
(or any) child care, to ill parents who have no health care, to families who have reached the time limit and find
there are no jobs?
ForJUrther information, contact the Women's Committee of 100 c/o NASW, 750 Ut Street, NE. Ste. 700, WDC • 202/3364345
�Clmton 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.
Divider Title:
�L.
Affirmative Action
�PRESIDENT CLINTON SUPPORTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
March 12, 1996
PRESIDENT CLINTON SUPPORTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT ARE
FAIR, EFFECTIVE AND BALANCED. "The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the
lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country are an
unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it." But the
President is against the unqualified receiving benefits over the qualified regardless of race or
gender.
AFTER THE ADARAND DECISION -- WHILE REAFFIRMING HIS COMMITMENT TO
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS - PRESIDENT CLINTON INSTRUCTED FEDERAL
AGENCIES TO WORK WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT SUCH
PROGRAMS ARE FAIR AND THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE SUPREME COURTS
TEST.
•
The Supreme Court confirmed that the federal government can use affirmative action
to remedy the effects of racial discrimination, but held that such programs must serve
a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored.
AFTER A THOROUGH REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND STATISTICAL DATA,
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONCLUDED THAT THERE STILL EXITS A COMPELLING
NEED FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS THAT BENEFIT DISADVANTAGED
MINORITY BUSINESSES.
•
The Justice Department has announced completion of its review of federal affirmative
action employment programs that clarifies the appropriate scope and duration of affirmative
action in federal hiring. As a practical matter, few modifications will be required in the
way federal agencies carry out affirmative action policies in federal employment - they
have long been subject to the standards of Title VQ of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or ethnicity in employment and imposes limits on the use of
affirmative action in the workplace.
•
The Justice Department has been working with agencies to propose government-wide
regulatory changes to ensure that federal procurement programs are narrowly tailored to
meet the constitutional standards of Adarand.
•
The proposal is not yet final. The proposal would change the administration of these
programs, but would not eliminate them.
•
The Justice Department separately will analyze other programs, such as direct federal aid
programs and government grants. That analysis is ongoing.
�REMARKS BY T H E PRESIDENT
O N AFFIRMATIVE A C T I O N
National Archives
July 19, 1995
My fellow Americans: In recent weeks I have begun a conversation with the American
people about our fate and our duty to prepare our nation not only to meet the new century, but to
live and lead in a world transformed to a degree seldom seen in all of our history. Much of this
change is good, but it is not all good, and all of us are affected by it. Therefore, we must reach
beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.
Our challenge is twofold: first, to restore the American dream of opportunity and the
American value of responsibility; and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity
into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one.
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I am absolutely convinced we cannot
restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the
American people together. To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with
the issues that divide us. Today I want to discuss one of those issues: affirmative action.
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive today, because affirmative action
began 25 years ago by a Republican president with bipartisan support. It began simply as a means
to an end of enduring national purpose - equal opportunity for all Americans.
So let us today trace the roots of affirmative action in our never-ending search for equal
opportunity. Let us determine what it is and what it isn't. Let us see where it's worked and where
it hasn't, and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Along the way, let us remember always that
finding common ground as we move toward the 21st century depends fundamentally on our shared
commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. It is a moral imperative, a constitutional
mandate, and a legal necessity.
There could be no bener place for this discussion than the National Archives, for within
these walls are America's bedrocks of our common ground - the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights. No paper is as lasting as the words these documents contain. So we
put them in these special cases to protect the parchment from the elements. No building is as solid
as the principles these documents embody, but we sure tried to build one with these metal doors 11
inches thick to keep them- safe, for these documents are America's only crown jewels. But the best
place of all to hold these words and these principles is the one place in which they can never fade
and never grow old - in the stronger chambers of our hearts.
29
�Beyond all else, our country is a set of convictions: We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our whole history can be seen first as an effort to preserve these rights, and then as an
effon to make them real in the lives of all our citizens. We know that from the beginning, there
was a great gap between the plain meaning of our creed and the meaner reality of our daily lives.
Back then, only white male property owners could vote. Black slaves were not -even counted as
whole people, and Native Americans were regarded as little more than an obstacle to our great
national progress. No wonder Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on slavery, said he trembled to think
God is just.
On the 200th anniversary of our great Constitution, Justice Thurgood Marshall, the
grandson of a slave, said, "The government our founders devised was defeaive from the start,
requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the
system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights
we hold as fundamental tcday."
Emancipation, women's suffrage, civil rights, voting rights, equal rights, the struggle for the
rights of the disabled -all these and other struggles are milestones on America's often rocky, but
fundamentally righteous journey to close the gap between the ideals enshrined in these treasures
here in the National Archives and the reality of our daily lives.
I first came to this very spot where I'm standing today 32 years ago this month. I was a
16-year-old delegate to the American Legion Boys Nation. Now, that summer was a high-water
mark for our national journey. That was the summer that President Kennedy ordered Alabama
National Guardsmen to enforce a court order to allow two young blacks to enter the University of
Alabama. As he told our nation, "Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he
would wish to be treated; as one would wish his children to be treated."
Later that same summer, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King told
Americans of his dream that one day the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners
would sit down together at the table of brotherhood; that one day his four httle children would be
judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. His words captured the
hearts and steeled the wills of millions of Americans. Some of them sang with him in the hot sun
that day. Millions more like me listened and wept in the privacy of their homes.
It's hard to believe where we were just three decades ago. When I came up here to Boys
Nation and we had this mock congressional session I was one of only three or four southerners
who would even vote for the civil rights plank. That's largely because of my family. My
grandfather had a grade school education and ran a grocery store across the street from the
cemetery in Hope, Arkansas, where my parents and my grandparents are buried. Most of his
customers were black, were poor, and were working people. As a child in that store I saw that
people of different races could treat each other with respect and dignity.
30
�But I also saw that the black neighborhood across the street was the only one in town
where the streets weren't paved. And when I returned to that neighborhood in the late '60s to see a
woman who had cared for me as a toddler, the streets still weren't paved. A lot of you know that I
am an ardent movie-goer. As a child I never went to a movie where I could sit next to a black
American. They were always sitting upstairs.
In the 1960s, believe it or not, there were still a few courthouse squares in my state where
the rest rooms were marked "white" and "colored." I graduated from a segregated high school
seven years after President Eisenhower integrated Little Rock Central High School. And when
President Kennedy barely carried my home state in 1960, the poll tax system was still alive and
well there.
Even though my grandparents were in a minority, being poor, Southern whites who were
pro-civil rights, I think most other people knew better than to think the way they did. And those
who were smart enough to act differently, discovered a lesson that we ought to remember today:
Discrimination is not just morally wrong, it hurts everybody.
In 1960, Atlanta, Georgia, in reaction to all the things that were going on all across the
South, adopted the motto, "The city too busy to hate." And however imperfectly over the years,
they tried to live by it. I am convinced that Atlanta's success - it now is home to more foreign
corporations than any other American city, and one year from today it will begin to host the
Olympics - that that success all began when people got too busy to hate.
The lesson we learned was a hard one. When we allow people to pit us against one another
or spend energy denying opportunity based on our differences, everyone is held back. But when we
give all Americans a chance to develop and use their talents, to be full partners in our common
enterprise, then everybody is pushed forward.
My experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South and in the legacy slavery left. I
also lived with a working mother and a working grandmother when women's work was far rarer
and far more circumscribed than it is today. But we all know there are millions of other stories those of Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, people with disabilities, others against
whom fingers have been pointed. Many of you have your own stories, and that's why you're here
today - people who were denied the right to develop and use their full human potential. And their
progress, too, is a part of our journey to make the reality of America consistent with the principles
just behind me here.
Thirty years ago in this city, you didn't see many people of color or women making their
way to work in the morning in business clothes, or serving in substantial numbers in powerful
positions in Congress or at the White House, or making executive decisions every day in
businesses. In fart, even the employment want ads were divided, men on one side and women on
the other.
It was extraordinary then to see women or people of color as television news anchors, or,
believe it or not, even in college sports. There were far fewer women or minorities as job
31
�supervisors, orfirefighters,or police officers, or doctors, or lawyers, or college professors, or in
many other jobs that offer stability and honor and integrity to family life.
A lot has changed, and it did not happen as some sort of random evolutionary drift. It took
hard work and sacrifices and countless acts of courage and conscience by millions of Americans. It
took the political courage and statesmanship of Democrats and Republicans alike, the vigilance and
compassion of courts and advocates in and out of government committed to the Constitution and
to equal protection and to equal opportunity. It took the leadership of people in business who
knew that in the end we would all be better. It took the leadership of people in labor unions who
knew that working people had to be reconciled.
Some people, like Congressman Lewis there, put their lives on the line. Other people lost
their lives. And millions of Americans changed their own lives and put hate behind them. As a
result, today all our lives are better. Women have become a major force in business and political
life, and far more able to contribute to their families' incomes. A true and growing black middle
class has emerged. Higher education has literally been revolutionized, with women and racial and
ethnic minorities attending once overwhelmingly white and sometimes all male schools.
In communities across our nation police departments now better reflect the make-up of
those whom they protea. A generation of professionals now serve as role models for young
women and minority youth. Hispanics and newer immigrant populations are succeeding in making
America stronger.
For an example of where the best of our future lies just think about our space program and
the stunning hook-up with the Russian space station this month. Let's remember that that program,
the world's finest, began with heroes like Alan Shepard and Senator John Glenn, but today it's had
American heroes like Sally Ride, Ellen Ochoa, Leroy Child, Guy Bluford and other outstanding,
completely qualified women and minorities.
How did this happen? Fundamentally, because we opened our hearts and minds and
changed our ways. But not without pressure - the pressure of court decisions, legislation, executive
action, and the power of examples in the public and private sector. Along the way we learned that
laws alone do not change society; that old habits and thinking patterns are deeply ingrained and die
hard; that more is required to really open the doors of opportunity. Our search to find ways to
move more quickly to equal opportunity led to the development of what we now call affirmative
action.
The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic
exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from opportunities to develop,
perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to
open the doors of education, employment and business development opportunities to qualified
individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent
discrimination.
32
�It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate berween two unacceptable
pasts. One was to say simply that we declared discrimination illegal and that's enough. We saw that
that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as railroad porters, and kept women with
degrees under a glass ceiling with a lower paycheck.
The other path was simply to try to impose change by leveling draconian penalties on
employers who didn't meet certain imposed, ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable
quotas. That, too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness.
So a middle ground was developed that would change an inequitable status quo gradually,
but firmly, by building the pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for jobs, and
giving more people the chance to learn, work and earn. When affirmative action is done right, it is
flexible, it is fair, and it works.
I know some people are honestly concerned about the times affirmative action doesn't
work, when it's done in the wrong way. And I know there are times when some employers don't
use it in the right way. They may cut corners and treat a flexible goal as a quota. They may give .
opponunities to people who are unqualified instead of those who deserve it. They may, in so
doing, allow a different kind of discrimination. When this happens, it is also wrong. But it isn't
affirmative action, and it is not legal.
So when our administration finds cases of that sort, we will enforce the law aggressively.
The Justice Department files hundreds of cases every year, attacking discrimination in employment,
including suits on behalf of white males. Most of these suits, however, affect women and minorities
for a simple reason - because the vast majority of discrimination in America is still discrimination
against them. But the law does require fairness for everyone and we are determined to see that that
is exactly what the law delivers.
Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not mean and what I won't allow it to
be. It does not mean - and I don't favor - the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the
qualified of any race or gender. It doesn't mean - and I don't favor - numerical quotas. It doesn't
mean - and I don't favor - rejection or selection of any employee or student solely on the basis of
race or gender without regard to merit.
Like many business executives and public servants, I owe it to you to say that my views on
this subject are, more than anything else, the product of my personal experience. I have had
experience with affirmative action, nearly 20 years of it now, and I know it works.
When I was Attorney General of my home state, I hired a record number of women and
African American lawyers - every one clearly qualified and exceptionally hardworking. As
Governor, I appointed more women to my Cabinet and state boards than any other governor in
the state's history, and more African Americans than all the governors in the state's history
combined. And no one ever questioned their qualifications or performance. And our state was
better and stronger because of their service.
33
�As President, I am proud to have the most diverse administration in history in my Cabinet,
my agencies and my staff. And I must say, I have been surprised at the criticism I have received
from some quarters in my determination to achieve this.
In the last two and a half years, the most outstanding example of affirmative action in the
United States, the Pentagon, has opened 260,000 positions for women who serve in our Armed
Forces. I have appointed more women and minorities to the federal bench than any other
president, more than the last two combined. And yet, far more of our judicial appointments have
received the highest rating from the American Bar Association than any other administration since
those ratings have been given.
In our administration many government agencies are doing more business with qualified
firms run by minorities and women. The Small Business Administration has reduced its budget by
40 percent, doubled its loan outputs, dramatically increased the number of loans to women and
minority small business people, without reducing the number of loans to white businessowners
•who happen to be male, and without changing the loan standards for a single, solitary application.
Quality and diversity can go hand in hand, and they must.
Let me say that affirmative action has also done more than just open the doors of
opportunity to individual Americans. Most economists who study it agree that affirmative action
has also been an important part of closing gaps in economic opportunity in our society, thereby
strengthening the entire economy.
A group of distinguished business leaders told me just a couple of days ago that their
companies are stronger and their profits are larger because of the diversity and the excellence of
their work forces achieved through intelligent and fair affirmative action programs. And they said
we have gone far beyond anything the government might require us to do because managing
diversity and individual opportunity and being fair to everybody is the key to our future economic
success in the global marketplace.
Now, there are those who say, my fellow Americans, that even good affirmative action
programs are no longer needed; that it should be enough to resort to the courts or the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in cases of actual, provable, individual discrimination
because there is no longer any systematic discrimination in our society. In deciding how to answer
that let us consider the facts.
The unemployment rate for African Americans remains about twice that of whites. The
Hispanic rate is still much higher. Women have narrowed the earnings gap, but still make only 72
percent as much as men do for comparable jobs. The average income for an Hispanic woman with
a college degree is still less than the average income of a white man with a high school diploma.
According to the recently completed Glass Ceiling Report, sponsored by Republican
members of Congress, in the nation's largest companies' only six-tenths of one percent of senior
management positions are held by African Americans, four-tenths of a percent by Hispanic
34
�Americans, three-tenths of a percent by Asian Americans; women hold between three and five
percent of these positions. White males make up 43 percent of our work force, but hold 95 percent
of these jobs.
Just last week, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank reported that black home loan applicants
are more than twice as likely to be denied credit as whites with the same qualifications; and that
Hispanic applicants are more than one and a half times as likely to be denied loans as whites with
the same qualifications.
Last year alone the federal government received more than 90,000 complaints of
employment discrimination based on race, ethnicity or gender. Less than three percent were for
reverse discrimination.
Evidence abounds in other ways of the persistence of the kind of bigotry that can affect the
way we think even if we're not conscious of it, in hiring and promotion and business and
educational decisions.
Crimes and violence based on hate against Asians, Hispanics, African Americans and other
minorities are still with us. And, I'm sorry to say, that the worst and most recent evidence of this
involves a recent report of federal law enforcement officials in Tennessee attending an event
literally overflowing with racism - a sickening reminder of just how pervasive these kinds of
attitudes still are.
By the way, I-want to tell you that I am committed to finding the truth about what
happened there and to taking appropriate action. And I want to say that if anybody who works in
federal law enforcement thinks that that kind of behavior is acceptable, they ought to think about
working someplace else.
Now, let's get to the other side of the argument. If affirmative action has worked and if
there is evidence that discrimination still exists on a wide scale in ways that are conscious and
unconscious, then why should we get rid of it as many people are urging? Some question the
effectiveness or the fairness of particular affirmative action programs. I say to all of you, those are
fair questions, and they prompted the review of our affirmative action programs, about which I will
talk in a few moments.
Some question the fundamental purpose of the effort. There are people who honestly
believe that affirmative action always amounts to group preferences over individual merit; that
affirmative action always leads to reverse discrimination; that ulumately, therefore, it demeans those
who benefit from it and discriminates against those who are not helped by it.
I just have to tell you that all of you have to decide how you feel about that, and all of our
fellow countrymen and women have to decide as well. But I believe if there are no quotas, if we
give no opportunities to unqualified people, if we have no reverse discrimination, and if, when the
problem ends, the program ends, that criticism is wrong.'That's what I believe. But we should have
this debate and everyone should ask the question.
35
�Now let's deal with what I really think is behind so much of this debate today. There are a
lot of people who oppose affirmative action today who supported it for a very long time. I believe
they are responding to the sea change in the experiences that most Americans have in the world in
which we live.
If you say now you're against affirmative action because the government is using its power
or the private sector is using its power to help minorities at the expense of the majority, that gives
you a way of explaining away the economic distress that a majority of Americans honestly feel. It
gives you a way of turning their resentment against the minorities or against a particular
government program, instead of having an honest debate about how we all got into the fix we're in
and what we're all going to do together to get out of it.
That explanation, the affirmative action explanation for the fix we're in is just wrong. It is
just wrong. Affirmative action did not cause the great economic problems of the American middle
class. And because most minorities or women are either members of that middle class or people
who are poor who are struggling to get into it, we must also admit that affirmative action alone
won't solve the problems of minorities and women who seek to be a part of the American Dream.
To do that, we have to have an economic strategy that reverses the decline in wages and the growth
of poverty among working people. Without that, women, minorities, and white males will all be in
trouble in the future.
But it is wrong to use the anxieties of the middle class to divert the American people from
the real causes of their economic distress - the sweeping historic changes taking all the globe in its
path, and the specific policies or lack of them in our own country which have aggravated those
challenges. It is simply wrong to play politics with the issue of affirmative action and divide our
country at a time when, if we're really going to change things, we have to be united.
I must say, I think it is ironic that some of those - not all, but some of those who call for
an end to affirmative action also advocate policies which will make the real economic problems of
the anxious middle class even worse. They talk about opportunity and being for equal opportunity
for everyone, and then they reduce investment in equal opportunity on an evenhanded basis. For
example, if the real goal is economic opportunity for all Americans, why in the world would we
reduce our investment in education from Head Stan to affordable college loans? Why don't we
make college loans available to every American instead?
If the real goal is empowering all middle class Americans and empowering poor people to
work their way into the middle class without regard to race or gender, why in the world would the
people who advocate that turn around and raise taxes on our poorest working families, or reduce
the money available for education and training when they lose their jobs or they're living on
poverty wages, or increase the cost of housing for lower-income, working people with children?
Why would we do that? If we're going to empower America, we have to do more than
talk about it, we have to do it. And we surely have learned that we cannot empower all Americans
by a simple strategy of taking opponunity away from some Americans.
36
�So to those who use this as a political strategy to divide us, we must say, no. We must say,
no. But to those who raise legitimate questions about the way affirmative action works, or who
raise the larger question about the genuine problems and anxieties of all the American people and
their sense of being left behind and treated unfairly, we must say, yes, you are entitled to answers
to your questions. We must say yes to that.
Now, that's why I ordered this review of all of our affirmative action programs; a review to
look at the facts, not the politics of affirmative action. This review concluded that affirmative
action remains a useful tool for widening economic and educational opportunity. The model used
by the military, the Army in particular - and I'm delighted to have the Commanding General of
the Army here today because he set such a fine example - has been especially successful because it
emphasizes education and training, ensuring that it has a wide pool of qualified candidates for every
level of promotion. That approach has given us the most racially diverse and best-qualified military
in our history. There are more opportunities for women and minorities there than ever before.
And now there are over 50 generals and admirals who are Hispanic, Asian or African Americans.
We found that the Education Department had programs targeted on under-represented
minorities that do a great deal of good with the tiniest of investments. We found that these
programs comprised 40 cents of every $1,000 in the Education Department's budget.
Now, college presidents will tell you that the education their schools offer actually benefit
from diversity; colleges where young people get the education and make the personal and
professional contacts that will shape their lives. If their colleges look like the world they're going to
live and work in, and they learn from all different kinds of people things that they can't learn in
books, our systems of higher education are stronger.
Still, I believe every child needs the chance to go to college. Every child. That means every
child has to have a chance to get affordable and repayable college loans, Pell Grants for poor kids
and a chance to do things like join AmeriCorps and work their way through school. Every child is
entitled to that. That is not an argument against affirmative action, it's an argument for more
opportunity for more Americans until everyone is reached.
As I said a moment ago, the review found that the Small Business Administration last year
increased loans to minorities by over two-thirds, loans to women by over 80 percent, did not
decrease loans to white men, and not a single loan went to a unqualified person. People who never
had a chance before to be part of the American system of free enterprise now have it. No one was
hurt in the process. That made America stronger.
This review also found that the executive order on employment practices of large federal
contractors also has helped to bring more fairness and inclusion into the work force.
Since President Nixon was here in my job, America has used goals and timetables to
preserve opportunity and to prevent discrimination, to urge businesses to set higher expectations
for themselves and to realize those expectations. But we-did not and we will not use rigid quotas to
mandate outcomes.
37
�We also looked at the way we award procurement contraas under the programs known as
set-asides. There's no question that these programs have helped to build up firms owned by
minorities and women, who historically had been excluded from the old-boy networks in these
areas. It has helped a new generation of entrepreneurs to flourish, opening new paths to self-reliance
and an economic growth in which all of us ultimately share. Because of the set-asides, businesses
ready to compete have had a chance to compete, a chance they would not have otherwise had.
But as with any government program, set-asides can be misapplied, misused, even
intentionally abused. There are critics who exploit that faa as an excuse to abolish all these
programs, regardless of their effects. I believe they are wrong, but I also believe, based on our
factual review, we clearly need some reform. So first, we should crack down on those who take
advantage of everyone else through fraud and abuse. We must crack down on fronts and
pass-throughs, people who pretend to be eligible for these programs and aren't. That is wrong.
We also, in offering new businesses a leg up, must make sure that the set-asides go to
businesses that need them most. We must really look and make sure that our standard for eligibility
is fair and defensible. We have to tighten the requirement to move businesses out of programs once
they've had a fair opportunity to compete. The graduation requirement must mean something - it
must mean graduation. There should be no permanent set-aside for any company.
Second, we must, and we will, comply with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision of last
month. Now, in panicular, that means focusing set-aside programs on panicular regions and
business sectors where the problems of discrimination or exclusion are provable and are clearly
requiring affirmative action. I have directed the Attorney General and the agencies to move forward
with compliance with Adarand expeditiously.
But I also want to emphasize that the Adarand decision did not dismantle affirmative action
and did not dismantle set-asides. In fact, while setting stricter standards to mandate reform of
affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the
continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States.
What the Supreme Coun ordered the federal government to do was to meet the same more
rigorous standard for affirmative action programs that state and local governments were ordered to
meet several years ago. And the best set-aside programs under that standard have been challenged
and have survived.
Third, beyond discrimination we need to do more to help disadvantaged people and
distressed communities, no matter what their race or gender. There are places in our country where
the free enterprise system simply doesn't reach. It simply isn't working to provide jobs and
opponunity. Disproportionately, these areas in urban and rural America are highly populated by
racial minorities, but not entirely. To make this initiative work, I believe the government must
become a better partner for people in places in urban and rural America that are caught in a cycle
of poverty. And I believe we have to find ways to get the private sector to assume their rightful
role as a driver of economic growth.
38
�It has always amazed me that we have given incentives to our business people to help to
develop poor economies in other parts of the world, our neighbors in the Caribbean, our neighbors
in other parts of the world - I have supported this when not subjert to their own abuses - but we
ignore the biggest source of economic growth available to the American economy, the poor
economies isolated within the United States of America.
There are those who say, well, even if we made the jobs available people wouldn't work.
They haven't tried. Most of the people in disadvantaged communities work today, and most of
them who don't work have a very strong desire to do so. In central Harlem, 14 people apply for
every single minimum-wage job opening. Think how many more would apply if there were good
jobs with a good future. Our job is to connect disadvantaged people and disadvantaged communities
to economic opportunity so that everybody who wants to work can do so.
We've been working at this through our empowerment zones and community develop
banks, through the initiatives of Secretary Cisneros of the Housing and Urban Development
Department and many other things that we have tried to do to put capital where it is needed. And
now I have asked Vice President Gore to develop a proposal to use our contracting to support
businesses that locate themselves in these distressed areas or hire a large percentage of their workers
from these areas - not to substitute for what we're doing in affirmative action, but to supplement
it, to go beyond it, to do something that will help to deal with the economic crisis of America. We
want to make our procurement system more responsive to people in these areas who need help.
My fellow Americans, affirmative action has to be made consistent with our highest ideals
of personal responsibility and merit, and our urgent need to find common ground, and to prepare
all Americans to compete in the global economy of the next century.
Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court's Adarand
decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that
I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind,
including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or
other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that
doesn't meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America.
Affirmative action has not always been perfect, and affirmative action should not go on
forever. It should be changed now to take care of those things that are wrong, and it should be
retired when its job is done. I am resolved that that day will come. But the evidence suggests,
indeed, screams that that day has not come.
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over. That should not be surprising.
We had slavery for centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. We waited
another hundred years for the civil rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than a hundred
years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most societies do. But we are making
more progress than many people.
39 •
�Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We
should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple
slogan: Mend it, but don't end it.
Let me ask all Americans, whether they agree or disagree with what I have said today, to
see this issue in the larger context of our times. President Lincoln said, we cannot escape our
history. We cannot escape our future, either. And that future must be one in which every
American has the chance to live up to his or her God-given capacities.
The new technology, the instant communications; the explosion of global commerce have
created enormous opportunities and enormous anxieties for Americans. In the last two and a half
years, we have seen seven million new jobs, more millionaires and new businesses than ever before,
high corporate profits, and a booming stock market. Yet, most Americans are working harder for
the same or lower pay. And they feel more insecurity about their jobs, their retirement, their
health care, and their children's education. Too many of our children are clearly exposed to
poverty and welfare, violence and drugs.
These are the great challenges for our whole country on the homefront at the dawn of the
21st century. We've got to find the wisdom and the will to create family-wage jobs for all the
people who want to work; to open the door of college to all Americans; to strengthen families and
reduce the awful problems to which our children are exposed; to move poor Americans from
welfare to work.
This is the work of our administration - to give the people the tools they need to make the
most of their own lives, to give families and communities the tools they need to solve their own
problems. But let us not forget affirmative action didn't cause these problems. And getting rid of
affirmative action certainly won't solve them.
If properly done, affirmative action can help us come together, go forward and grow
together. It is in our moral, legal and practical interest to see that every person can make the most
of his life. In the fight for the future, we need all hands on deck and some of those hands still need
a helping hand.
In our national community we're all different, we're all the same. We want liberty and
freedom. We want the embrace of family and community. We want to make the most of our own
lives and we're determined to give our children a better one. Today there are voices of division
who would say forget all that. Don't you dare. Remember we're still closing the gap between our
founders' ideals and our reality. But every step along the way has made us richer, stronger and
better. And the best is yet to come.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
40
�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.
Divider Title:
�M. United Nation's Fourth World Conference on Women
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 5, 1995
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE
ON W M N
OE
BEIJING, CHINA
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you very much Gertrude Mongella, for
your dedicated work that has brought us to t h i s point.
Distinguished delegates and guests, I would l i k e to thank the
Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be part
of t h i s important United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women.
This i s t r u l y a celebration — a celebration of the contributions
women make in every aspect of l i f e : in the home, on the job, i n
the community, as mothers, wives, s i s t e r s , daughters, learners,
workers, c i t i z e n s and leaders.
I t i s also a coming together, much the way women come
together every day in every country.
W come together in f i e l d s and in factories. In v i l l a g e
e
markets and supermarkets. In l i v i n g rooms and board rooms.
Whether i t i s while playing with our children in the park, or
washing clothes in a r i v e r , or taking a break at the o f f i c e water
cooler, we come together and t a l k about our aspirations and
concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and
our families.
However different we may appear, there i s far more that
unites us than divides us. W share a common future. And we are
e
here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity
and respect to women and g i r l s a l l over the world — and i n so
doing, bring new strength and s t a b i l i t y to families as well.
By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on
issues that matter most in the l i v e s of women and t h e i r families:
access to education, health care, jobs, and credit, the chance to
enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate f u l l y i n the
p o l i t i c a l l i f e of t h e i r countries.
There are some who question the reason for t h i s conference.
Let them l i s t e n to the voices of women in t h e i r homes,
neighborhoods, and workplaces.
There are some who wonder whether the l i v e s of women and
g i r l s matter to economic and p o l i t i c a l progress around the globe.
. . . Let them look at the women gathered here and at Hairou. . .
�. the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and
women who run t h e i r own businesses.
I t i s conferences l i k e t h i s that compel governments and
peoples everywhere to l i s t e n , look and face the world's most
pressing problems.
Wasn't i t after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years
ago that the world focused for the f i r s t time on the c r i s i s of
domestic violence?
E a r l i e r today, I participated i n a World Health Organization
forum. I n that forum we talked about ways that where government
o f f i c i a l s , NGOs, and individual c i t i z e n s are working on ways to
address the health problems of women and g i r l s .
Tomorrow, I w i l l attend a gathering of the United Nations
Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion w i l l focus on
l o c a l — and highly successful — programs that give hard-working
women access to credit so they can improve t h e i r own l i v e s and the
l i v e s of t h e i r families.
What we are learning around the world i s that, i f women are
healthy and educated, t h e i r families w i l l f l o u r i s h . I f women are
free from violence, t h e i r families w i l l flourish. I f women have a
chance to work and earn as f u l l and equal partners i n society,
t h e i r families w i l l f l o u r i s h .
And when families flourish, communities and nations w i l l
flourish.
That i s why every woman, every man, every c h i l d , every
family, and every nation on our planet does have a stake in the
discussion that takes place here.
Over the past 25 years, I have worked p e r s i s t e n t l y on issues
r e l a t i n g to women, children and families. Over the past
two-and-a-half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more
about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the
world.
I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together
regularly i n t h e i r v i l l a g e to discuss nutrition, family planning,
and baby care.
I have met working parents in Denmark who t a l k about the
comfort they f e e l in knowing that t h e i r children can be cared for
in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.
I have met women i n South A f r i c a who helped lead the struggle
to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.
I have met with the leading women of my own hemisphere who
are working every day to promote l i t e r a c y and better health care
for the children in t h e i r countries.
I have met women i n India and Bangladesh who are taking out
small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other
materials to create a livelihood for themselves and t h e i r
families.
�I have met doctors and nurses i n Belarus and Ukraine who are
trying to keep children a l i v e i n the aftermath of Chernobyl.
The great challenge of t h i s conference i s to give voice to
women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go
unheard.
are
are
Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women
70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who
not taught to read and write.
Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's
children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do i s not valued —
not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not
by government leaders.
At t h i s very moment, as we s i t here, "women around the world
are giving birth, r a i s i n g children, cooking meals, washing
clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly
l i n e s , running companies, and running countries.
Women also are dying from diseases that should have been
prevented or treated; they are watching t h e i r children succumb to
malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation; they are
being denied the right to go to school by t h e i r own fathers and
brothers; they are being forced into prostitution, and they are
being barred from the bank lending o f f i c e and banned from the
ballot box.
Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to speak for those who could not.
As an American, I want to speak up for women i n my own
country — women who are r a i s i n g children on the minimum wage,
women who can't afford health care or c h i l d care, women whose
l i v e s are threatened by violence, including violence i n t h e i r own
homes.
I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good
schools, safe neighborhoods, clean a i r and clean airwaves. . .
. . .for older women, some of them widows, who have raised
t h e i r families and now find that t h e i r s k i l l s and l i f e experiences
are not valued in the workplace. . . for women who are working a l l
night as nurses, hotel clerks, and f a s t food chefs so that they
can be at home during the day with t h e i r kids. . . and for women
everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are
c a l l e d upon to do each day.
Speaking to you today, I speak for them, j u s t as each of us
speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go
to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about
the direction of t h e i r l i v e s , simply because they are women.
The truth i s that most women around the world work both
inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.
We need to understand that there i s no one formula for how
women should lead t h e i r l i v e s .
�That i s why we must respect the choices that each woman makes
for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to
r e a l i z e her God-given potential.
We also must recognize that women w i l l never gain f u l l
dignity u n t i l t h e i r human rights are respected and protected.
Our goals for t h i s conference, to strengthen families and
s o c i e t i e s by empowering women to take greater control over t h e i r
own destinies, cannot be f u l l y achieved unless a l l governments —
here and around the world — accept t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to
protect and promote internationally recognized human r i g h t s .
The international community has long acknowledged — and
recently affirmed at Vienna — that both women and men are
e n t i t l e d to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the
right of personal security to the right to determine freely the
number and spacing of the children they bear.
No one should be forced to remain s i l e n t for fear of
r e l i g i o u s or p o l i t i c a l persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.
T r a g i c a l l y , women are most often the ones whose human rights
are violated.
Even i n the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to
be used as an instrument of armed c o n f l i c t . Women and children
make up a large majority of the world's refugees. And when women
are excluded from the p o l i t i c a l process, they become even more
vulnerable to abuse.
I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, i t i s time to
break our s i l e n c e . I t i s time for us to say here i n Beijing, and
the world to hear, that i t i s no longer acceptable to discuss
women's rights as separate from human rights.
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the
history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there
are those who are trying to silence our words.
The voices of t h i s conference and of the women at Hairou must
be heard loud and c l e a r :
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when babies are denied
food, or drowned, or suffocated, or t h e i r spines broken, simply
because they are born g i r l s .
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when women and g i r l s are
sold into the slavery of prostitution.
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when women are doused with
gasoline, s e t on f i r e and burned to death because t h e i r marriage
dowries are deemed too small.
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when individual women are
raped i n t h e i r own communities and when thousands of women are
subjected to rape as a t a c t i c or prize of war.
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when a leading cause of
�death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 i s the violence they are
subjected to i n t h e i r own homes by t h e i r own r e l a t i v e s .
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when young g i r l s are
brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital
mutilation.
I t i s a v i o l a t i o n of human rights when women are denied the
right to plan t h e i r own families, and that includes being forced
to have abortions or being s t e r i l i z e d against t h e i r w i l l .
�I f there i s one message that echoes forth from t h i s
conference, l e t i t be that human rights are women's r i g h t s . . . .
And women's r i g h t s are human rights, once and for a l l .
Let us not forget that among those r i g h t s are the r i g h t to
speak f r e e l y . And the right to be heard.
Women must enjoy the right to p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l y in the s o c i a l
and p o l i t i c a l l i v e s of their countries i f we want freedom and
democracy to t h r i v e and endure.
I t i s indefensible that many women i n non-governmental
organizations who wished to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s conference have
not been able to attend — or have been prohibited from f u l l y
taking part.
Let me be c l e a r . Freedom means the r i g h t of people to
assemble, organize, and debate openly. I t means respecting the
views of those who may disagree with the views of t h e i r
governments. I t means not taking c i t i z e n s away from t h e i r loved
ones and j a i l i n g them, mistreating them, or denying them t h e i r
freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of t h e i r
ideas and opinions.
In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of
women's suffrage. I t took 150 years after the signing of our
Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.
I t took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many
courageous women and men.
I t was one of America's most d i v i s i v e philosophical wars. But
i t was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot
fired.
We have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances l a s t
weekend, of the good that comes when men and women j o i n together
to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.
We have seen peace p r e v a i l in most places for a h a l f century.
We have avoided another world war.
But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that
continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.
Now
i t i s time to act on behalf of women everywhere.
I f we take bold steps to better the l i v e s of women, we w i l l
be taking bold steps to better the l i v e s of children and families
too.
Families r e l y on mothers and wives for emotional support and
care; families r e l y on women for labor in the home; and
increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to r a i s e
healthy children and care for other r e l a t i v e s .
As long as discrimination and inequities remain so
�commonplace around everywhere in the world — as long as g i r l s and
women are valued l e s s , fed less, fed l a s t , overworked, underpaid,
not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of t h e i r homes
— the potential of the human family to create a peaceful,
prosperous world w i l l not be realized.
Let t h i s conference be our — and the world's — c a l l to
action.
Let us heed the c a l l so that we can create a world in which
every woman i s treated with respect and dignity, every boy and
g i r l i s loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope
of a strong and stable future.
That i s the work before you, that i s the work before a l l of
us, who have a vision of the world we want to see for our children
and our grandchildren. The time i s now. We must move beyond
rhetoric, we must move beyond recognition of problems, to working
together, to have the common efforts to build that common ground
we hope to see.
God's blessings on you, your work and a l l who w i l l benefit
from i t . Godspeed and thank you very much.
###
�WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 6, 1995
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
REMARKS TO THE NGO FORUM
HUAIROU, CHINA
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. I f e e l so much
at home and so much a part of t h i s group. I only wish that i n
addition to the enthusiasm and interest amongst a l l of the NGOs
who are gathered here, the weather had been more cooperative t h i s
morning and I greatly regret that we were forced to move t h i s
occasion indoors i n order to avoid any of us drowning out there.
But I am very sorry that not everyone who wished to be with us
t h i s morning was able to be i n , and I hope a l l of you w i l l convey
my personal regrets to anyone who was turned away or disappointed
because of the s i z e of t h i s auditorium.
I t i s a great pleasure for me to be here, and I want to s t a r t
by thanking Supatra and Irene for t h e i r leadership i n t h i s
extraordinary and h i s t o r i c enterprise. But I also want to thank
a l l of you who are here, because I know from looking a t the l i s t s
of people who have come, of knowing personally many of the
Americans who have come, that i n t h i s auditorium and a t t h i s
Forum, there are thousands and thousands of women and men who
every day work to make l i v e s better i n t h e i r communities for a l l
people. And that i s the greatest contribution any one of us i s
able to make, and that i s why the United States and many other
countries so strongly support the e f f o r t s of NGOs and have worked
very hard to ensure that NGOs could p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s Forum. As
many of you know, our government and other governments recognize
the important role that NGOs play i n policy and planning, i n
development and implementation and monitoring of programs that
advance the progress of women.
I have come here, to Huairou, to salute you for your
dedication to a cause greater than a l l of us. I know that many of
you went to great e f f o r t s to be here. I know many were kept from
attending t h i s Forum. I know that for many of you who did get
here, getting here was f a r from easy. Many of you did not even
know u n t i l the l a s t minute that you would be permitted to t r a v e l
here, and others bore great personal expense i n order to come. I n
addition to the weather, which i s not i n anyone's control, and i s
always unpredictable, I know that you have had to endure severe
frustrations here as you have pursued your work. And I also want
to say a s p e c i a l word on behalf of women with d i s a b i l i t i e s who
have faced p a r t i c u l a r l y challenging (inaudible)
But I mostly want to thank you for your perseverance, because
you did not give up, you did not stay away, you are here, and the
fact that you are, w i l l make a difference i n the days and months
and years to come. Because even though you may not be physically
present i n B e i j i n g a t the Conference during these ten days, the
�wisdom that i s accumulated here, the experience, the energy, the
ideas are on f u l l display. Thanks to your resourcefulness, your
tenacity, your sense of purpose and your s p i r i t , you are playing
an important r o l e i n t h i s Conference, and you w i l l be the key
players i n determining whether or not t h i s Conference goes beyond
r h e t o r i c and a c t u a l l y does something to improve the l i v e s of women
and children.
As I said yesterday, the faces of the women who are here
mirror the faces of the millions and m i l l i o n s who are not. I t i s
our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , those of us who have been able to attend t h i s
Conference and t h i s NGO Forum, to make sure that the voices that
go unheard w i l l be heard. This Conference i s about making sure
that women, t h e i r children, t h e i r f a m i l i e s , have the opportunities
for health care and education, for jobs and p o l i t i c a l
p a r t i c i p a t i o n , for l i v e s free of violence, for basic l e g a l
protections, and yes, for i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y recognized human
rights no matter where they are or where they l i v e .
Time and time again we have seen that i t i s NGOs who are
responsible for making progress i n any society. Some of us never
knew we were NGOs twenty and twenty-five and t h i r t y years ago.
That was not even a phrase that any of us had ever heard. We were
people working together on behalf pf a l l of those r i g h t s which we
care about and hold dear. But when one looks a t the progress that
has been made throughout the world, i t i s clear that i t i s the
NGOs who have charted r e a l advances for women and children. I t i s
the NGOs who have pressured governments and have led governments
down the path to economic, s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l progress, often
in the face of overwhelming h o s t i l i t y . Again, NGOs have
persevered, j u s t as you have by coming here and staying here and
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s Forum. What w i l l be important as we end the
Forum and the Conference at the end of t h i s week i s that i t w i l l
be NGOs who w i l l hold governments to the commitments that they
make. And i t i s important that the f i n a l Platform for Action that
i s adopted be d i s t i l l e d down into words that every woman, no
matter where she l i v e s , or how much education she has, can
understand. I think we should want every woman, no matter where
she i s , to believe that there are women a l l over the world who
care about her health, who want her children to be educated, who
want her to have the dignity and respect that she deserves to
have.
When I think of the faces that I have seen i n my own country,
when I think of the women who did not have health care because
they cannot afford i t i n the United States of America, when I
think p a r t i c u l a r l y of a woman I met i n New Orleans, Louisiana, who
told me that because she did not have enough money she was told by
physicians there i n our country, that they would not do anything
about the lump i n her breast, but would merely wait and watch,
because i f she had insurance she would have been sent to a
surgeon. I think about the woman I met i n a v i l l a g e outside
Lahore, Pakistan, who had ten children, f i v e boys and f i v e g i r l s ,
and was struggling as hard as she could to make sure her g i r l s
were educated and wanted help to get that job done. I think of
the faces of the beautiful women I met a t SEWA, the Self-Employed
Women's Association i n India. A l l of them had walked miles and
miles, some of them for twelve and f i f t e e n hours to get to our
meeting together, and I listened as they stood up and t o l d me what
i t had meant that for the f i r s t time i n t h e i r l i v e s , they were
�having a l i t t l e money of t h e i r own. They could buy t h e i r own
vegetable c a r t s . They could buy t h e i r own thread and materials so
that they could make income for themselves and t h e i r f a m i l i e s .
I think of the women i n the v i l l a g e i n Bangladesh, a v i l l a g e
of untouchables, I think of how those women who were Hindus
i n v i t e d to t h e i r v i l l a g e for my v i s i t women from the neighboring
v i l l a g e who were Moslems. I think of how those women s a t together
under a lean-to. Hindus and Moslems together i n one of the
poorest countries of the world, but so many of those women t e l l i n g
me what t h e i r l i v e s had been changed to become because they had
become borrowers that were now part of the Grameen Bank
micro-enterprise e f f o r t . I think p a r t i c u l a r l y of the play that
t h e i r children put on for me to see, a play i n which the children
acted out the r e f u s a l by a family to l e t a g i r l c h i l d go to
school. And then further down the road from that v i l l a g e , I stood
and watched families coming to receive food supplements i n return
for keeping t h e i r g i r l children i n school.
Those are the kinds of women and experiences that happen
throughout the world, whether one t a l k s about my country or any
country. Women are looking for the support and encouragement they
need to do what they can for t h e i r own l i v e s and the l i v e s of
t h e i r children and the l i v e s of t h e i r f a m i l i e s . The only way t h i s
Conference w i l l make a difference to these women i s i f the r e s u l t s
of the Conference are taken and d i s t i l l e d down into one page
perhaps, which states basic p r i n c i p l e s that you and I would
perhaps debate and understand but may not be e a s i l y communicated.
I f that i s done, then to carry that message into every corner of
the world so there can be sharing of experiences. When I came
home from Bangladesh, I v i s i t e d i n Denver, Colorado, a program
that i s modeled on the Grameen Bank, helping American women who
are welfare r e c i p i e n t s get the dignity and the s k i l l s that they
need to take care of themselves and t h e i r children.
So despite a l l of the d i f f i c u l t i e s and f r u s t r a t i o n s you have
faced i n coming here and being here, you are here not only on
behalf of yourselves, but on behalf of millions and m i l l i o n s of
women whose l i v e s can be changed for the better. I f you resolve
along with a l l of us, to leave t h i s place and do what we can
together to make the changes that w i l l give respect and dignity to
every woman.
I know that today a t the women's conference there i s a
s p e c i a l celebration of g i r l s . The theme i s : "Investing i n Today's
G i r l s , Tomorrow's Women, and the Future." W know that much of
e
what we do, we are doing not for ourselves, but we are doing for
our daughters, our nieces, our granddaughters. We are doing i t
because we have the hope that the changes we work for w i l l take
root and flower in t h e i r l i v e s . When I was p r i v i l e g e d to be i n
New Delhi, India, I met a young woman who I think spoke for many,
many women, and someone asked me yesterday at the Conference i f I
had a copy of the poem which t h i s young woman wrote. And I said
that I did and she asked i f I could read i t today, and I said that
I would. Because t h i s was a poem about breaking the s i l e n c e , the
s i l e n c e that a f f l i c t s too many women's l i v e s , the s i l e n c e that
keeps women from expressing themselves freely, from being f u l l
p a r t i c i p a n t s even i n the l i v e s of t h e i r own f a m i l i e s . This poem
written by a young woman, I think, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate
since we are celebrating today the future of g i r l s . Let me read
i t to you:
�"Too many women i n too many countries speak the same
language of s i l e n c e . My grandmother was always s i l e n t ,
always agreed. Only her husband had the p o s i t i v e right, or
so i t was said, to speak and to be heard. They say i t i s
d i f f e r e n t now.
After a l l , I am always vocal, and my
grandmother thinks I t a l k too much. But sometimes I wonder.
When a woman gives her love as must do generously, i t i s
accepted. When a woman shares her thoughts as some women do
graciously, i t i s
allowed. When a Woman f i g h t s for power
as a l l women would l i k e to, quietly or loudly, i t i s
questioned. And yet, there must be freedom i f we are to
speak. And yes, there must be power i f we are to be heard.
And when we have both freedom and power, l e t us not be
misunderstood. We seek only to give words to those who
cannot speak
too many women i n too many countries.
I seek only to forget my grandmother's s i l e n c e . "
That i s the kind of f e e l i n g that l i t e r a l l y m i l l i o n s and
m i l l i o n s of women f e e l every day. And much of what we are doing
here a t t h i s Forum and a t t h i s Conference i s to give words to
break the s i l e n c e and then to act. When I was a t Copenhagen for
the Summit on Social Development, I was pleased to announce that
the United States would make an e f f o r t to enhance educational
opportunities for g i r l s so that they could attend school i n
A f r i c a , Asia, and L a t i n America. Today that e f f o r t , funded with
United States' d o l l a r s , i s being organized i n countries throughout
those continents by NGOs.
There are so many ways we can work together. There are so
many things that must be done. And l e t me j u s t end with a
postcard that I received from a woman who, with many, many others,
wrote me her feelings and thoughts about t h i s Conference. I don't
know t h i s woman, but she wrote to t e l l me that she wanted me to
carry t h i s card to B e i j i n g . And she went on to say, "Be assured
of many prayers for the success of the Conference, to better
conditions for women and children throughout the world."
She put on t h i s card a prayer and the prayer was written i n many
languages. I t ' s a prayer that applies and can be said by many, i f
not a l l of the world's r e l i g i o n s . And I want to end with that
because I think that i n many respects what we are attempting to do
requires the kind of f a i t h and commitment that t h i s prayer
represents:
"Oh God, creator of the heavens and the earth, we pray
for a l l who gather i n Beijing [and I would add Huairou as
well] bless them, help them and us to see one another
through eyes enlightened by understanding and compassion.
Release us from prejudice so we can receive the s t o r i e s of
our s i s t e r s with respect and attention. Open our ears to the
c r i e s of a suffering world and the healing melodies of peace.
Empower us to be instruments i n bringing about your j u s t i c e
and equality everywhere."
That i s my prayer as w e l l , and with my thanks to a l l of you I
believe we can take the r e s u l t s of t h i s Forum and t h i s Conference
and begin to t r a n s l a t e them into actions that w i l l count, i n the
l i v e s of g i r l s and women who w i l l have never heard of what we have
done here, by whose l i v e s can be changed because of what you have
�done coming here.
Thank you a l l very much.
###
�(prepared f o r d e l i v e r y )
REMARKS OF
AMBASSADOR MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
CONCERNING THE FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN
CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY BREAKFAST
NASHINGTON t D.C.
AUGUST 2, 1995
Good m o r n i n g .
I am p l e a s e d t o be here.
I may be
p r e j u d i c e d , b u t I t h i n k t h e Center f o r N a t i o n a l P o l i c y i s a
g r e a t o r g a n i z a t i o n , and I a p p r e c i a t e i t s w i l l i n g n e s s t o sponsor
t h i s t i m e l y event.
The F o u r t h World Conference on Women w i l l convene i n China
i n 33 days and, l e t t h e r e be no doubt, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w i l l
be t h e r e .
We w i l l be t h e r e because t h i s conference i s a r a r e
o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h a r t f u r t h e r g a i n s i n t h e s t a t u s and r i g h t s o f
more t h a n h a l f t h e people on e a r t h .
As l e a d e r o f t h e American d e l e g a t i o n , I am c o n f i d e n t t h a t
U.S. g o a l s w i l l have s t r o n g s u p p o r t . These i n c l u d e —
o p r o m o t i n g and p r o t e c t i n g t h e human r i g h t s o f women and
e n d i n g v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t women;
o expanding t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f women i n p o l i t i c a l and
economic d e c i s i o n m a k i n g ;
o a s s u r i n g e q u a l access f o r women t o e d u c a t i o n and h e a l t h
care throughout t h e i r l i v e s ;
o s t r e n g t h e n i n g f a m i l i e s through e f f o r t s t o balance t h e
work and f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f b o t h women and men; and
o r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i n c r e a s e d r o l e o f nongovernmental
o r g a n i z a t i o n s (NGO's) i n b u i l d i n g s t r o n g c o m m u n i t i e s — a t t h e
l o c a l , n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l s .
The c o n f e r e n c e i n B e i j i n g w i l l be t h e f o u r t h i n a s e r i e s
begun 20 years ago i n Mexico C i t y . These g a t h e r i n g s have
s p u r r e d l e g a l , s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l reforms t h a t have enhanced
the l i v e s o f women and g i r l s around t h e g l o b e . Our g o a l now i s
t o b u i l d on p a s t g a i n s and t o hasten t h e removal o f c o n t i n u i n g
o b s t a c l e s t o t h e f u l l and e q u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f women i n
society.
�- 2 As someone whose f a m i l y was d r i v e n f r o m i t s home t w i c e when
I was a c h i l d , f i r s t by H i t l e r , t h e n by S t a l i n , I b e l i e v e i t i s
the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f e v e r y f r e e person t o do what he o r she
can t o advance t h e freedom o f o t h e r s . And I i n t e n d t o see t h a t
the U.S. d e l e g a t i o n t o t h e Women's Conference serves as an
unabashed advocate f o r freedom and human r i g h t s .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t o d a y , i n c o u n t r i e s around t h e w o r l d ,
a p p a l l i n g abuses a r e b e i n g committed a g a i n s t women. These
i n c l u d e c o e r c e d a b o r t i o n s and s t e r i l i z a t i o n s , c h i l d r e n s o l d
i n t o p r o s t i t u t i o n , r i t u a l m u t i l a t i o n s , dowry murders and
o f f i c i a l indifference t o violence.
The C l i n t o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l use t h e c o n f e r e n c e i n
B e i j i n g t o u n d e r l i n e t h e t r u t h t h a t v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t women i s
no one's p r e r o g a t i v e ; i t i s n o t a c u l t u r a l c h o i c e ; i t i s n o t an
i n e v i t a b l e consequence o f b i o l o g y — i t i s a c r i m e t h a t we a l l
have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o condemn, p r e v e n t , p u n i s h and s t o p .
Now, t h e r e a r e t h o s e who say t h a t we s h o u l d w i t h d r a w from
the Women's Conference because o f t h e human r i g h t s p o l i c i e s o f
the h o s t c o u n t r y . Those s u g g e s t i o n s a r e w e l l - m o t i v a t e d , b u t
t h e y miss t h e main p o i n t . American w i t h d r a w a l would n o t s t o p
the c o n f e r e n c e o r cause i t t o be moved; i t would l e a d , i n s t e a d ,
t o a c o n f e r e n c e i n which 130 m i l l i o n American women would be
u n r e p r e s e n t e d and i n which American i n f l u e n c e and l e a d e r s h i p
would n o t be f e l t .
I t j u s t does n o t make sense, i n t h e name o f human r i g h t s , •
t o b o y c o t t a c o n f e r e n c e t h a t has, as a p r i m a r y purpose, t h e
p r o m o t i o n o f human r i g h t s .
The way t o h e l p women, i n China and elsewhere, i s n o t t o
abandon t h e f i e l d t o o t h e r s , b u t r a t h e r t o a t t e n d t h i s
c o n f e r e n c e , t o debate head-on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f p h i l o s o p h y and
i d e o l o g y t h a t e x i s t , t o l a y o u t b e f o r e t h e w o r l d t h e abuses we
want t o h a l t and t h e o b s t a c l e s t o p r o g r e s s we want t o remove,
and t o g a i n commitments t o change from t h e s o c i e t i e s most i n
need o f change. That i s what l e a d e r s h i p and a commitment t o
f r e e and open d i s c u s s i o n a r e a l l about.
W i t h r e s p e c t t o H a r r y Wu, o u r p o s i t i o n i s c l e a r . He s h o u l d
be r e l e a s e d i m m e d i a t e l y and unharmed. H i s case i s a t o p
p r i o r i t y f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I can u n d e r s t a n d why some
would want t o t i e c o n f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o Mr. Wu's r e l e a s e ,
but t h a t assumes f a l s e l y t h a t o u r a t t e n d a n c e would be some s o r t
of f a v o r t o B e i j i n g . We have no cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t o u r
approach t o t h e c o n f e r e n c e w i l l have any impact on China's
d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g Mr. Wu.
�- 3 We do have reason, however, t o hope t h a t t h e conference
w i l l have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e s t a t u s o f women i n China.
Conference p r e p a r a t i o n s a l r e a d y have c o n t r i b u t e d t o a
h e i g h t e n e d awareness w i t h i n China o f women's i s s u e s . There i s
p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n o f p r e v i o u s l y taboo s u b j e c t s , i n c l u d i n g
v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t women. Chinese r e t u r n i n g from t h e p r e p a r a t o r y
meetings have d e s c r i b e d t h e i r h e i g h t e n e d s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e
t r e a t m e n t o f women i n t h e media and t o t h e economic
e x p l o i t a t i o n o f women. I t m a t t e r s a g r e a t d e a l t h a t more t h a n
5,000 Chinese women w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e NGO forum and w i l l
t a k e t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s back t o t h e i r communities.
Given t h e n a t u r e o f China's human r i g h t s r e c o r d , I do n o t
mean t o exaggerate t h e impact o f t h i s one c o n f e r e n c e .
But as a
former b o a r d member o f t h e N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r Democracy, I
know t h a t one o f t h e b e s t ways t o promote d e m o c r a t i c t h i n k i n g
i s t o expose people t o new ideas on m a t t e r s t h a t r e l a t e
d i r e c t l y t o t h e i r own l i v e s .
Exposure t o such t h i n k i n g m a t t e r s t o us n o t o n l y i n China,
b u t around t h e w o r l d , because c o u n t r i e s i n which women have a
f a i r share o f power t e n d t o be more s t a b l e , d e m o c r a t i c ,
prosperous and j u s t t h a n those i n which women a r e m a r g i n a l i z e d
and r e p r e s s e d .
The Women's Conference w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o a f r e e r and more
e q u i t a b l e w o r l d . As i t s recommendations a r e implemented, i t
w i l l a l s o s t r e n g t h e n f a m i l i e s around t h e w o r l d . We know from
our own e x p e r i e n c e t h a t when f a m i l i e s a r e s t r o n g , c h i l d r e n a r e
c a r e d f o r , s o c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t i v e values a r e t a u g h t and an
environment i s c r e a t e d i n which c i v i l i t y and l a w may t h r i v e .
So we want momentum t o b u i l d around t h e i d e a t h a t women and
men s h o u l d share f a i r l y i n t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f f a m i l y l i f e ;
we want t o see g i r l s v a l u e d t o t h e same degree as boys; we want
p a r e n t s and p r o s p e c t i v e p a r e n t s t o be a b l e t o make i n f o r m e d
judgments as t h e y p l a n t h e i r f a m i l i e s ; and we want t o see
domestic v i o l e n c e c u r t a i l e d and condemned.
Each o f t h e s e i s a c e n t r a l element o f t h e Conference d r a f t
P l a t f o r m f o r A c t i o n . And e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n on each w i l l h e l p
f a m i l i e s and communities everywhere.
D e s p i t e r e c e n t g a i n s , women remain an u n d e r v a l u e d and
u n d e r d e v e l o p e d human r e s o u r c e . T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t women
have t r o u b l e f i n d i n g work; i n many s o c i e t i e s — e s p e c i a l l y i n
r u r a l , a g r i c u l t u r a l l y - b a s e d a r e a s — t h e y do t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f
the work; b u t t h e y don't own t h e l a n d , t h e y a r e n o t t a u g h t t o
read, t h e y c a n ' t o b t a i n p e r s o n a l o r business l o a n s and t h e y a r e
d e n i e d e q u a l access t o t h e l e v e r s o f p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g .
�- 4 I t i s no a c c i d e n t t h a t most o f t h o s e i n t h e w o r l d who a r e
a b j e c t l y poor a r e women, o f t e n c a r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t t h e
h e l p o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s f a t h e r ; many t r a p p e d from an e a r l y age
i n a web o f abuse, d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , i g n o r a n c e and powerlessness
from w h i c h o n l y a few a r e a b l e t o escape.
We cannot be i n d i f f e r e n t .
I t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t , i n Angola,
o n e - t h i r d o f a l l homicides a r e p e r p e t r a t e d a g a i n s t women,
u s u a l l y by t h e i r spouse.
I n T h a i l a n d , c h i l d p r o s t i t u t i o n i s growing because c l i e n t s
b e l i e v e o l d e r p r o s t i t u t e s a r e more l i k e l y t o be i n f e c t e d by
HIV.
I n Senegal, females r e c e i v e l e s s t h a n o n e - t h i r d t h e
s c h o o l i n g r e c e i v e d by males.
I n S i e r r a Leone, women p e r f o r m much o f t h e s u b s i s t e n c e
f a r m i n g and a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e a r i n g and have l i t t l e
opportunity f o r education.
And almost everywhere, women a r e r e s t r i c t e d by
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a t t i t u d e s and s o c i a l and economic s t r u c t u r e s
that are unjust.
The Women's Conference w i l l n o t s o l v e these problems
o v e r n i g h t , b u t i t w i l l c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o them and promote
r e m e d i a l a c t i o n . Women t h e w o r l d over a r e p r e p a r e d t o be f u l l
p a r t n e r s i n s u s t a i n a b l e development, b u t t h e y need access t o
e d u c a t i o n and h e a l t h c a r e ; t h e y need access t o c r e d i t ; and t h e y
need e q u a l i t y under t h e law. R e l e a s i n g t h e p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t y
o f women i s one key t o b r e a k i n g t h e c y c l e o f p o v e r t y ; and t h a t
w i l l c o n t r i b u t e , i n t u r n , t o h i g h e r standards o f l i v i n g f o r a l l
nations.
Since t h e f i r s t Women's Conference 20 years ago,
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r women have expanded t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d . I t
i s no l o n g e r a q u e s t i o n o f whether women from a l l c o u n t r i e s
w i l l have a s t r o n g v o i c e i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e i r d e s t i n i e s , b u t
o n l y when and how t h a t g o a l w i l l be a c h i e v e d .
But b u i l d i n g i n c l u s i v e s o c i e t i e s i s s t i l l a work i n
progress.
The U n i t e d S t a t e s has been w o r k i n g on i t f o r two
c e n t u r i e s . F o r more t h a n h a l f o u r n a t i o n ' s h i s t o r y , u n t i l 75
years ago t h i s month, American women c o u l d n o t even v o t e . Many
t r a d i t i o n a l o r a u t h o r i t a r i a n s o c i e t i e s s t i l l have a v e r y l o n g
way t o go. The F o u r t h Women's Conference w i l l o f f e r g u i d e l i n e s
and promote commitments f o r every s t a t e t o move f o r w a r d ,
whatever c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s and p o l i c i e s may be.
�- 5 I n p r e p a r i n g f o r t h i s conference, I was reminded o f an o l d
Chinese poem i n which a f a t h e r says t o h i s young daughter:
We keep a dog t o watch t h e house;
A pig i s useful, too;
We keep a c a t t o c a t c h a mouse;
But what can we do
W i t h a g i r l l i k e you?
For me, t h e Women's Conference w i l l be a success i f i t
b r i n g s us even a l i t t l e c l o s e r t o t h e day when g i r l s a l l over
the w o r l d w i l l be a b l e t o l o o k ahead w i t h c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e i r
l i v e s w i l l be v a l u e d , t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y r e s p e c t e d , t h e i r
r i g h t s p r o t e c t e d and t h e i r f u t u r e s determined by t h e i r own
a b i l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r .
I n such a w o r l d , t h e l i v e s o f a l l o f us—men and women,
boys and g i r l s — w i l l be e n r i c h e d .
And i t i s t o make p r o g r e s s towards such a w o r l d t h a t t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s w i l l be p a r t i c i p a t i n g a c t i v e l y , f o r c e f u l l y and
proudly i n Beijing.
Thank you v e r y much. Now, I would be happy t o respond t o
any q u e s t i o n s you might have.
�October 25,
1995
The President's Interagency Council on Women
On August 26, 1995, prior to the UN Fourth World Conference
on Women, President Clinton announced the formation of an
interagency Women's Council. This intragovemmental body i s
charged with coordinating the implementation of the Platform for
Action adopted at Beijing, including the U.S. commitments
announced at the Conference. The Council w i l l also develop
related " i n i t i a t i v e s to further women's progress and engage in
outreach and public education to support the successful
implementation of the Conference agreements. The President said:
"The (Women's) Conference i s going to t a l k
about education and domestic violence and grass
roots economics, employment, health care, p o l i t i c a l
participation
And we don't intend to walk away
from i t when i t ' s over. I'm going to e s t a b l i s h an
interagency council on women to make sure that a l l
the e f f o r t and good ideas a c t u a l l y get implemented
when we get back home."
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, who
served as Co-Chair of the o f f i c i a l U.S. delegation to Beijing,
w i l l c h a i r the Council and F i r s t Lady H i l l a r y Rodham Clinton w i l l
serve as Honorary Chair. The Council w i l l include high level
representatives from Executive Branch agencies. Theresa Loar and
Kathleen Hendrix from the State Department, w i l l continue to play
leadership roles as they did in preparation for the Women's
Conference.
The President's Interagency Council on Women may
reached at:
202/456-7350
202/456-7357 fax
http://women.usia.gov/usia
(internet)
be
The President's Interagency Council
on Women
The White House
New Executive Office Building
Suite 3212
Washington, DC 20503
�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 titlefromthe original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
N
�N
-
V ,
'
0 , e n c e
Against Women
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 21, 1996
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ACTS TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
7 call on American men and women in families to give greater respect to one
another. We must end the deadly scourge of domestic violence in our country."
- President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1996
The National Domestic Violence Hotline
The Clinton Administration is committed to ensuring that every woman has access to information
and emergency assistance, wherever and whenever she needs it. This 24-hour, toll-free, national
domestic violence hotline will provide crisis assistance, counseling, and local shelter referrals
to women across the country. Hotline counselors will also be available for non-English speakers
and for people who are hearing impaired.
The voice number is 1-800-799-SAFE, and the TDD number for
the hearing impaired is 1-800-787-3224.
The hotline is operated by the Texas Council on Family Violence, through an HHS grant
authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. HHS's Administration for Children and
Families, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration contribute funding for the hotline. HHS authorizationfromFY 1995
to FY 2000: $3 million. ($1 million in start-up funding, plus $400,000 a year in maintenance
payments).
The Violenre Against Women Act
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed as part of the Crime Act of 1994, is
landmark bipartisan legislation - combining tough new penalties with programs to prosecute
offenders and help women victims of violence.
VAWA is authorized to provide $1.6 billion over five years to hire more prosecutors and
improve domestic violence training among prosecutors, police officers, and health and social
services professionals. It provides for more shelters, counseling services, and research into
causes and effective public education campaigns. In addition, VAWA establishes new laws that
enable victims to sue in federal court and allow law enforcement officers to pursue perpetrators
across state lines.
�-2The Justice Department and HHS are leading the following initiatives under the Violence Against
Women Act:
The Advisory Council on Violence Against Women
o
The Advisory Council on Violence Against Women was created on July 13, 1995. Cochaired by Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Health and Human Services
Donna Shalala, the Council consists of 46 experts - representatives from law
enforcement, media, health and social services, victim advocacy, and survivors working together to prevent violence against women.
Justice Department Programs under VAWA
o
In 1995, states received $26 million under the STOP (Services, Training, Officers,
Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Grant program. Every state was awarded
approximately $420,000 to develop and strengthen law enforcement and prosecutorial
strategies and improve victims services in cases involving violent crimes against women.
($130 million was appropriated for this program in FY 1996).
o
The latest innovative COPS initiative is the Community Oriented Policing to Combat
Domestic Violence program. This COPS program will make $20 million available to
police departments nationwide that are interested in applying community policing
techniques tofightdomestic violence.
o
The Justice Department isfinalizingguidelines to implement the Jacob Wetterling Act,
which gives states afinancialincentive to adopt effective registration systems for persons
convicted of sexually violent crimes and for convicted child molesters. The guidelines
will be finalized in early 1996.
o
In March of 1995, President Clinton appointed former Iowa Attorney general Bonnie J.
Campbell to head the Justice Department's Violence Against Women Office. The office
coordinates the Federal government's efforts to implement the Violence Against Women
Act.
o
Note: For the current fiscal year, Congress has authorized the following funding levels
for these VAWA programs: $500,000 for victim counselors, $1 million for training
programs, $28 million to encourage mandatory arrest policies, $7 million for rural
domestic violence programs, $1.5 million for national stalker reduction programs, and
$200,000 for a study on campus sexual assault. However, none of these programs was
funded by Congress under the current Continuing Resolution.
�-3 Health and Human Services Prngrams under VAWA
o
Grants for Battered Women's Shelters. In 1995, HHS awarded $32.6 million to states,
territories, and tribes to provide shelter services to victims of family violence and their
dependents and for related services, such as alcohol and substance abuse prevention and
family violence prevention counseling. The Crime Bill provided new resources to extend
these services under the existing Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. HHS
authorizationfromFY 1996 to FY 2000: $325 million.
O
Fdncation and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Assaults Against Women State grant
will be available for rape prevention and education programs conducted by rape crisis
centers or similar nongovernmental, nonprofit entities. The funds will support
educational seminars, the operation of hotlines, training programs, preparation of
informational materials, and other activities to increase awareness of and to help prevent
sexual assault. States receiving grants must devote at least 25 percent of theirfimdsto
education programs targeted to middle school, junior high school, or high school
students. HHS authorizationfromFY 1996 to FY 2000: $205 million. (CDC received
an appropriation of $28.5 million, or 81 percent of the President's request, for FY 1996).
o
rommunitv Programs on Domestic Violence. This program, administered by CDC, will
help build new community programs aimed at reducing domestic violence, as well as
strengthen and better coordinate existing community intervention and prevention
programs. The program will also evaluate the impact of comprehensive community
programs on reducing domestic violence. This program was appropriated $3.1 million
for FY 1996 under the current Continuing Resolution.
o
Youth Education on Domestic Violence. Four model curricula for youth education about
domestic violence will be created for primary, middle and secondary schools, as well for
as higher education levels. The curricula will be chosen by HHS and the Department of
Education, and will then be used as model programs for schools across the country. This
program was authorized at $400,000 in FY 1996, but has not been funded under the
current Continuing Resolution.
Other Efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services
o
Since 1984, HHS has provided funding under the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act for battered women's shelters, information and referral services, and public
education prevention campaigns.
o
In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its National Injury Center,
working with the Justice Department, expanded their public prevention and awareness
efforts in a new initiative to research the prevalence of domestic violence.
�-4The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) administers
several programs that both research and work to address substance abuse and mental
health issues among victims of domestic violence.
The Administration on Aging and the National Institute of Mental Health have joined to
create the National Center on Elder Abuse to research the causes and impacts of domestic
abuse of seniors. In addition to this project, HHS fimds four nati()nal resource centers
which provide information, technical assistance, and researchfindingson domestic
violence.
HHS also funds several programs that aim to strengthen families, prevent the abuse of
women and children, and help families provide a healthy and safe environment for
children. These programs include the Family Preservation and Support program;
Community Schools; and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act grants.
�U.S. Department of Justice
Ubshingion, DC. 20630
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY
Selected Statistics on Violence Against Women
Women were attacked about six times more often by offenders with
w h o m they had an intimate relatiohship than were male violence
victims.
Nearly 3 0 percent of all female homicide victims were known to
have been killed by their husbands, former husbands or boyfriends.
In contrast, just over 3 percent of male homicide victims were
known to have been killed by their wives, former wives or
girlfriends.
Husbands, former husbands, boyfriends and ex-boyfriends
committed 26 percent of rapes and sexual assaults.
•
Forty-five percent of all violent attacks against female victims 12
years old and older by multiple offenders involve offenders they
know.
The rate of intimate-offender attacks on w o m e n . separated from
their husbands was about three times higher than that of divorced
w o m e n and about 25 times higher than that of married women.
Women of all races were equally vulnerable to attacks by intimates.
However, women in families w i t h incomes below $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 per year
were more likely than other women to be violently attacked by an
intimate.
AUGUST
1995
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 2,
1995
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, 1995
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Domestic violence disrupts communities, destroys
relationships, and harms hundreds of thousands of Americans each
year. I t i s a serious crime that takes many forms and a complex
problem with multiple causes. Those abused can be children,
s i b l i n g s , spouses, or parents, and both victims and offenders
come from a l l r a c i a l , s o c i a l , r e l i g i o u s , ethnic, and economic
backgrounds. Among the most t r a g i c e f f e c t s of family violence i s
the cycle of abuse perpetrated by children and teenagers who see
and experience b r u t a l i t y at home— these young people often lack
c r u c i a l guidance to help them form strong, p o s i t i v e bonds of
kinships.
Americans are fortunate that knowledge about domestic
violence has increased and that public i n t e r e s t i n deterrence i s
stronger than ever. During the past decade, v i t a l partnerships
have formed between Federal agencies and private-sector
organizations to expand prevention s e r v i c e s i n urban, r u r a l , and
undeserved areas across the country. These e f f o r t s have helped to
coordinate a i d for victims and t h e i r c h i l d r e n — not only
providing s h e l t e r , but also furnishing alcohol and drug abuse
treatment, c h i l d care, and counseling. I n addition, I am proud
that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
contains tough new sanctions and includes a provision for a
national "hot l i n e " where victims can receive information and
assistance.
But the struggle to end domestic violence i s f a r from over.
According to a recent J u s t i c e Department study for 1992 and 1993,
women were about s i x times more l i k e l y than men to experience
violence committed by offenders with whom they had an intimate
r e l a t i o n s h i p . And i n 1992, nearly 30 percent of a l l female
homicide victims were known to have been k i l l e d by husbands,
former husbands, or boyfriends. We need more prevention campaigns
and public awareness e f f o r t s ; we must continue to build a l l i a n c e s
among government, community associations, businesses, educators,
and r e l i g i o u s organizations to strengthen our f a m i l i e s and to
teach a l t e r n a t i v e s to violent behavior.
NOW, THEREFORE, I , WILLIAM J . CLINTON, President of the
United States of America, by v i r t u e of the authority vested i n me
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby
proclaim October 1995, as "National Domestic Violence Awareness
�Month." I c a l l upon government o f f i c i a l s , law enforcement
agencies, health professionals, educators, and the people of the
United States to join together to end the family violence that
threatens so many citizens. I further encourage a l l Americans to
recognize the dedication of those working to end the horrors of
abuse. Offering support, guidance, encouragement, and compassion
to survivors, these caring individuals exemplify our Nation's
highest ideals of service and citizenship.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second of
October, i n the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and- ninetyfive, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
two hundred and twentieth.
�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 titlefromthe original document is
indicated below.
Divider Title:
O
�O.
List of Women's Organizations
�CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
PUBLIC POLICY, 1735 S St., NW, WDC 20009,
COALITION OF LABOR UNION WOME
1126 16th St., NW, WDC 20036
Martha Burk - President
(202) 797-0606
Fax: (202) 265-6245
Gloria Johnson, President, c/o IUE
(202) 296-1200
Fax: (202) 785-4563
Heather Hauck - D.C. Contact
(202) 466-4610
Fax: (202) 776-0537
CTR. FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
WOMEN'S ECONOMIC JUSTICE CTR
1875 Conn., Ave., NW #710 WDC 20009
Linda Tarr-Whelan
(202) 387-6030 Fax: (202) 986-2539
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE LAW AND
POLICY, 120 Wall Street, 18th Floor, NY, NY 10005
COMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM
1333 H ST., NW #700 WDC 20005
Kathy Bonk
(202) 682-1270 Fax: (202) 682-2154
ECONOMISTS' POLICY GROUP ON ?'S
5430 41st Place, NW, Washington, DC 20015
Janet Benshoff - President
Kathryn Kolbert - Vice- President
(212) 514-5534
Fax: (212) 514-5538
Barbara Bergman
(202) 537- 3036, Fax: (202) 885-3790
CHILD CARE ACTION CAMPAIGN
330 7th Ave. 17th Floor, New York, NY 10001,
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT SUMMIT
775 Hidden Lane, Greensboro, KY 42743
Barbara Reisman - President
(212) 239-0138
Fax: (212) 268-6515
Allie Hixson (502) 932-7216
CHURCH WOMEN UNITED
475 Riverside Dr., #812, New York, NY 10115
Ann B. Garvin - President
Marquerita Belisle - Pres. and Gen. Director
(212) 870-2347
Fax: (212) 870-2338
Nancy Chupp - DC Representative
110 Maryland Avenue, NE WDC 20002
(202) 544-8747
Fax: (202) 543-1297
CLEARINGHOUSE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES
P.O. Box 70603, Friendship Heights, MD 20813
Ruth Nadel - President
(301) 871-6106 or (202) 362-3789
Fax: (202) 638-2356
Elaine Newman - Former President
(202) 363-9795
Fax: (202) 363-8475
FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN
1400 Eye St., NW #425, WDC 20005
Janie Taylor - President
Karen Scott - Exec. Director Dorothy Nelms
Lynn Eppard - Legislative Director
(202) 898-0994
Fax: (202) 898-0998
FEMINISTS INSTITUTE, INC./ 75th Anniv.
Women's Suffrage Task Force
P.O. Box 30563, Bethesda, MD 20824
Caroline Sparks - President
(301) 805-5611 OR (202) 467-2235
THE FEMINIST MAJORITY
1600 Wilson Blvd#801 Arlington,VA 22209
Eleanor Smeal - President
Harriett Trudell - Government Relations
Peggy Yorkin - Chair of Board
(703) 522-2214
Fax: (703) 522-2219
�GEN. FEDERATION OF ?'s CLUBS
1734 N St., NW, WDC 20036-2990
INSTITUTE FOR ? AND WORK
16 East 34th Street, New York, NY 10016
Jeanine Faubion - International President
Judith Maggrett - Exec. Director
Laurie Cooper - Legislative Director
(202) 347-3168
Fax: (202) 835-0246
Dr. Francine Moccio - Director
(212) 340-2836
Fax: (212) 340-2822
GIRL SCOUTS
1025 Conn., Ave., NW #309 WDC 20036
Carmen Delgado Votaw - Dir. of Govt.. Relations,
(202)659-3780 Fax:(202)331-8065
GIRLS INCORPORATED
30 East 33rd St., New York. NY 10016
Alice H. Ball - President
Isabel C. Stewart - Exec. Director
Amy Sunick Ploth - Communications Dir.
(212) 689-3700
Fax: (212) 683-1253
Mildred Kiefer Wurf - WDC Representative
3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite #700
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 657-6266
Fax: (301) 652-6240
GRAY PANTHERS PROJECT FUND
2025 Pennsylvania Av, NW #821, WDC 20006
Dixie Homing, Director
(202) 466-3132 FAX: (202) 466-3133
HADASSAH
INST. F O R ? POLICY RESEARCH 1400
NW#104, WDC 20036
Heidi Hartman - Director
Roberta Spalter-Roth - Dir. Of Research
(202) 785-5100
Fax: (202) 833-4362
INTERNATL BLACK WOMEN'S WAGES
HOUSEWORK CAMPAIGN, P.O. Box 866S
CA 90086
Margaret Prescode
(213) 221-1698 FAX: (213) 227-9353
INTERNATIONAL WAGES FOR HOUSE\
CAMPAIGN, P.O. Box 11795, Philadelphia, P
Phoebe Jones Schellenberg
(610) 664-8762 FAX: (610) 664-0681
JEWISH WOMEN INTERNATIONAL
(Formerly B'Nai B'rith Women)
1828 L St., Suite #250, WDC 20036
Norma Tucker - Exec. Director
Susan Finkelstein - Dir. of Public Affairs
Maya Townsend - Dir. of Public Affairs
(202) 857-1300
Fax: (202) 857-1380
50 W. 58th St, NY, NY 10019
Amy Rutkin
(212) 303-8136 FAX: (212) 303-4525
HISPANIC WOMEN'S COUNCIL
3509 W Beverly Blvd, Montebello, CA 90640
Mary George - Exec. Director
(213) 725-1657
Fax: (213) 725-0939
1VET FOR WOMEN
.111 Jeff Davis Highway, #704 Arlington. VA 22202.
Gayla D. Salinas - President
(703)413-4111
Fax:(703) 13-4117
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
1730 M St., NW, WDC 20036
Becky Caine - President (lives in W. VA)
Judy Conover - Executive Director
Betsy Lawson -Senior Lobbyist
(202) 429-1965
Fax: (202) 429-0854
�LINKS, INC.
1200 Mass., Ave., NW, WDC 20005
NA'AMAT/USA
5432 Conn. Ave., NW WDC
Patricia Russell-McCloud - President
Mary P. Douglas - Administrative Officer
(202) 842-8686
Fax: (202) 842-4020
Shoshana Riener - DC Contact
(202)362-0923
Fax: None
Kay Webb - Chair - Legis. Impact Comm. 1020
Belfast Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610
(919) 560-6105
Fax: (919) 560-5011
NATL ABORTION FEDERATION
1436 U St., NW #103 WDC 20009
Vicki Saporta - Exec. Director
(202) 667-5881
Fax: (202) 667-5890
MAIL BOXES, INC.
2101 Crystal Plaza Arcade, Arlington, VA 22202,
Tom Dunn - DC Contact
(703) 415-0400
Fax: (703) 415-0403
NARAL
1156 15th St., NW #700, WDC 20005
MANA, A NATL LATINA ORGANIZATION
1725 K St., NW #501 WDC 20006
Kate Michelman - President
James Wagoner - Exec. VP
Jo Blum - Political Director
(202) 973-3003 Fax: (202) 973-3070 (leg), 309
Elisa Sanchez - President (202) 822-7706 Laura Campos - Exec. Dir. (202) 833-0060
Ileann Jimenez
(202)833-0060
Fax:(202) 833-0086
NATL ASSOC FOR GIRLS & WOMEN IN
SPORTS, 1900 Assoc. Dr. Reston, VA 22091,
MAUTNER PROJ. FOR LESBIANS W/ CANCER
1707 L St., NW #1060, WDC 20036
SueDurrant - President
Diana Everett - Exec. Director
(703)476-3452
Fax: (703)476-9527
Susan Hester - President
(202) 332-5536
Fax: (202) 265-6854
NATL ASSOC. OF COMM. FOR ?
1828 L St., NW #250, WDC 20036-5104
McLEAN SATELLITE COMM., INC, 15502
Ridgecrest Dr, Lake Montclair. Dumfries, VA 22026
Fayola Madupe, WDC Office Manager
(202) 628-5030
Fax: (202) 628-0645
Camille Murphy - President
Westchester County Office for ?
112 E. Post Road, White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 285-5972
Fax: (914) 285-3246
Man' Anne Severson
(703) 730-0320 FAX: (703) 730-0540
MS. FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN
120 Wall St, 33rd fl, NY, NY 10005
Marie C. Wilson
(212) 742-2300 FAX: (212) 742-1653
MULHAUSER AND ASSOCIATES
730 Rhode Island Ave., NW #712
Washington, DC 20036
Karen Mulhauser - Exec. Director
(202) 463-0180 FAX: (202) 463-0182
NATL ASSOC. FOR FEMALE EXEC.
Wendy Crisp - Nat'l Pres. (914) 764-9974
Rebecca Darwin - Chief Operating Officer
(212)477-8215
Fax: (212)477-2200
Joanne L. Symons - WDC Representative
927 15th St., NW, #1000 WDC 20005
(202) 289-8538
Fax: (202) 289-3743
�NATL ASSOC. OF NEGRO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC.
1806 New Hampshire Ave., NW, WDC 20009
NATL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE
PHILANTHROPY
2001 S St, NW #620 WDC 20009
Julian Malveaux - President
Sheila Quarlef - Exec. Director
(202) 483-4206
Fax: (202) 462-7253
Lauren M. Zittle -Dir. of Field Operations
(202) 387-9177
Fax: (202) 332-5084
NATL ASSOC. OF ? BUSINESS OWNERS,
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite #830,
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Mailing Address only: 1413 K St., NW #637,
Washington, DC 20005
Margaret Smith - President
Karen Wilcox - Exec. Administrator
(301) 608-2590
Fax: (301) 608-2596
NATL ASSOC. OF WORKING WOMEN
( 9 TO 5), 238 West Wisconsin Ave., #700
Milwaukee, Wl 53203-2308
Ellen Bravo
(216) 566-9308
Fax: (216) 566-0192
^ N A T L BLACK WOMEN'S HEALTH PROJECT,
1211 Conn. Ave., NW #310 WDC 20036,
Julia Scott - President
(202) 835-0117
Fax: (202) 833-8790
NATL COMMITTEE ON ?'s ISSUES
(NASW OFFICE)
Louisa Lopez - Field Director
750 First St., NE #700 WDC 20002-4241
(202) 336-8247
Fax: (202) 336-8310
Ethel James Williams -Volunteer
1301 Delaware Ave., SW #N720
WDC (202)484-0515
NATL CONF. OF PUERTO RICAN ?
5 Thomas Circle, NW, WDC 20005
Lydia Sosa - President
(202) 387-4716
Fax:
NATL COUNCIL OF JEWISH ?
53 W. 23rd St., New York, NY 10010
Susan Katz - President
(212) 645-4048
Fax: (212) 645-7466
Sammie Moshenberg - Director DC Office
1101 15th St., #1012, WDC 20005
(202) 296-2588
Fax: (202) 331 -7792
NATL C T R FOR THE EARLY CHILDHOOD
WORKFORCE, 733 15th St., NW #1037
Washington, DC 20005-2112
NATL COUNCIL OF NEGRO ?
1001 G St., NW #800 WDC 20001
Claudia E. Wayne - Exec. Director
(202) 737-7700
Fax: (202) 737-0370
Dorothy Height - President
(202) 628-0015
Fax: (202) 628-0233
NATL COMM. ON WORKING ?
1000 Vermont Ave., NW #605 WDC 20005
NATL COUNCIL OF ? OF THE U.S.
777 United Nations Plaza, 7th Floor, NY, NY 10
Irene Natividad - DC Contact
(202) 371-8323
Fax: (202) 371-0817
IrynaKurowyckyj - President and Exec. Dir.
(212) 697-1278
Fax: (212) 972-0164
Pamela Moffat 4341 Forest Lane, NW, WDC " O
'
O
(202)363-2192
'ATL COMM. ON PAY EQUITY
126 16th St, NW#411 WDC20036
Susan Bianchi-Sand - Executive Director
(202) 331 -7343
Fax:(202) 331 -7406
�NATL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN
2012 Mass., Ave., NW WDC 20036
Carolyn Eaves - President
Audrey Hanes - Exec. Director
(202) 293-1100
Fax: (202) 861-0298
NATL HOOK-UP OF BLACK ?, INC.
5117 South University, Chicago, IL 60615
Dr. Wynetta Frazier - President
(312)291-2113
Fax:(312)643-1129
NATL ORGANIZATION FOR ?
1000 16th St., NW #700, WDC 20036
Patricia Ireland - President
Rosemary Dempsey & Kim Gandy - VPres.
Linda Berg - Political Director
(202) 331-0066
Fax: (202) 785-8576
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND, 99 Hudson St.,#1201, New York, NY 10013
Kathryn Rogers - Exec. Director
(212) 925-6635
Fax: (212) 226-1066
Pat Reuss - Sen. Policy Analyst/ WDC Office
120 Maryland Avenue, NW WDC 20002
(202) 544-4470
Fax: (202) 546-8605
NATL POLITICAL CONGRESS OF BLACK
WOMEN, 600 NH AVE., NW #1125, WDC 20037
Dr. C. Delores Tucker - President
(202)338-0800
Fax:(202)625-0499
NATL PUERTO RICAN COALITION
1700 K Street, NW #500, WDC 20006
Manuel Mirabal - President
Edna Laverdi - Exec. Assist to President
(202) 223-3915
Fax: (202) 429-2223
ATL ?'s CONFERENCE CENTER
P.O. Box 455, Beaver Dam, Wl 53916
Gene Boyer - President (5/ - 12/1)
(414) 887-1078Fax: (414) 885-3720
Winter address: (12/1-4/15)
16100 Golf Club Road, #201
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
(305) 389-1879
Fax: (305) 389-7656
NATL ?'s CONF. COMMITTEE
Women for Meaningfid Summits, Women's St
UW-Eau Claire, Wl 54702-4004
Sarah Harder - President
(715) 836-5717
Fax: (715) 836-2380
Mal Johnson - (703) 922-4468
Janie B. Taylor - Co-Chair
10300 Buena Vista Ave, Lanham,MD20801
(301)577-0291
Anne B. Turpeau, (202) 667-8166 (fax or phone
NATL WOMEN'S HALL OF FAME
406 Sky hill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314
Susan Lowell Butler - Nat'l Exec. Dir.
Nancy Woodhull - President
(703) 370-3334
Fax: (703) 370-6762
NY state Off: 76 Fall Street, Seneca Falls, NY 1
1
,
NATL ? s HLTH. RESOURCE CTR.
2440 M St., NW #325 WDC 20037
Amy Pryluck - Exec. Director
Heidi Rosvold-Brenholtz - Ed, Nat'l ?'s Health F
(202) 293-6045
Fax: (202) 778-6306
NATL WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK
514 10th St, NW, #400, WDC 20004
Bev Baker
(202) 347-1140 FAX: (202) 347-1168
NATL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
11 Dupont Circle, NW #800 WDC 20005
. Marcia Greenberger - Co-President
Nancy Duff Campbell - Co-President
(202) 588-5180
Fax: (202) 588-5185
NATL WOMEN'S PARTY
144 Constimtion Ave., NE WDC 20002
Helen Arnold - President
(202) 546-1210
Fax:(202) 543-2365
�NATL ?'s P OLITICAL CAUCUS
1211 Conn. Ave., NW #425 WDC 20036
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATTOi
AMERICA, 810 7th Avenue, New York, NY
Anita Perez Ferguson - President
Jody Newman - Exec. Director
Sarah Varela - Deputy Political Director
(202) 785-1100
Fax: (202) 785-3605
Jane Johnson - Interim Co-President
Jim LeFevre - Interim Co-President
(212) 541-7800
Fax: (212) 247-6453
Diane Pollack - Pub.Policy & Gov't Realtions.
Conn. Ave., NW #461, WDC 20036
(202)785-3351
(202)293-4349
NATL ?'s STUDIES ASSOCIATION
7100 Baltimore Av, Ste 301,College Park, MD 20740
Sandy Cover - President, Bernice Carroll
(301) 403-0525
Fax: (301) 403-4137
NETWORK
801 Pennsylvania Av, SE #460, WDC, 20002
Catherine Pinkerton - Lobbyist
Kathy Thornton - Nat'l Coordinator
(202) 547-5556
Fax: (202) 547-5510
9 TO 5: NATL ASSN OF WORKING ?
238 W. Wisconsin Ave., #700, Milwaukee, Wl 53203
;llen Bravo - President & Exec. Dir.
(414) 274-0925
Fax: (414) 272-2870
OLDER WOMEN'S LEAGUE
666 11th St., NW #700 WDC 20001
Deborah Briceland-Betts- Exec. Director
Johnetta Marshall - President
(202) 783-6686
Fax:(202) 638-2356
RELIGIOUS COAL. FOR REPRODUCTB
CHOICE, 1025Vennont Ave., NW #1130 WD
Ann Thompson Cook - Exec. Director
(202) 628-7700
Fax: (202) 628-7716
SIGMA GAMMA RHO SORORITY, INC.
880 South Stony Island Av,Chicago. IL 60617
Dr. Corine J. Green - Pres. (Grand Basileus)
Bonita M. Herring -Exec. Director
(312) 873-9000
Fax: (312) 731 -9642
SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
WOMEN'S HEALTH RESEARCH
1920 L St., NW #510 WDC 20036
Phyllis Greenberger - Executive Director
(202) 223-8224
Fax: (202) 833-3472
Florence Hasteltine, Dir, Center for Population I
NIH, 6100 Exec.Blvd, #8B07 Rockville, MD 20S
(301) 496-1101
Fax: (301) 496-0962
ORGANIZ. OF CHINESE-AMER. ?
1300 N St., NW #100 WDC 20005
SOROPTTMIST INTERNATL OF THE
AMERICAS,
2 Penn Cntr. Plaza,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1883
Kathy Dress - President
(202) 638-0330
Fax: (202) 638-2196
Pauline Tsui - Exec. Director
Joan Cromer - President
Leigh Wintz - Executive Director
(215) 557-9300
Fax: (215) 568-5200
PENSION RIGHTS CENTER
918 16th St., NW #704 WDC 20006
UNIFEM - US Comm for the UN Fund for ?
60 Gramercy Park, North, NY, NY 10010
indy Hounsel - Women's Pension Rts Proj
Karen Ferguson - Exec. Dir.
(202)296-3776
Fax:(202) 833-2472
Hope Miller, President
(212) 697-3232 FAX: (212) 682-9185
Mary Haney, 4353 Verplanck PI, NW, WDC 2001
(202) 966-7737 FAX: (202) 364-8452
�UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, GEN. BOARD
CHURCH AND SOCIETY, 100 Maryland Avenue,
NE,WDC 20002
Thorn White-Wolf Fassett - Gen. Secretary
Jane Hull Harvey - Ass't. Gen. Sec, Anna Rhee
(202) 488-5646
Fax: (202) 488-5663
WOMEN FOR MEANINGFUL SUMMIT.'
806 East 13th SL, Lombard, IL 60148
Linda Weber - Out-Going President
(708) 620-5290
Fax: (708) 629-1690
Ann Anderson - Incoming President
Bev Stripling - Current President
624 9th St., 3rd Fl, NW, WDC 20001
(202) 745-7084
Fax: (202) 745-0051
WASHINGTON WOMEN'S TELEVISION
NETWORK, P.O. Box 7135, WDC 20044
Paula McKenzie - President
(202) 546-5012
Fax: (Same)
? FOR RACIAL & ECONOMIC EQUALIl
Broadway, #606, New York, NY 10038
WIDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR ?
815 15th St., NW #916 WDC 20005
Andrea Miller - President
(212)385-1103
Cindy Marano - Exec. Director
(202) 638-3143
Fax: (202) 638-4885
WOMEN IN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
10605 Judicial Drive, #A-4
Fairfax, VA 22030-5167
THE WOMAN ACTIVIST
2310 Barbour Rd, Falls Church, VA 22043
Flora Crataer - President & Exec. Dir.
(703) 573-8716
Fax: (Same)
WOMEN EMPLOYED
22 W. Monroe, #1400, Chicago, IL 60603
Nancy Kreiter, Anne Ladky
(312) 782-3902 FAX: (312) 782-5249
WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN STATE GOVT
122 C St., NW #840 WDC 20001
Annette Laico - Exec. Director
Mary Gady - Co-Chair
(202) 628-9374
Fax: (202) 628-9744
WOMEN & HOUSING TASK FORCE
McAuley Institute, 8300 Colesville Road
#310, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Jo Anne Kane - President of McAuley Inst,
^ h oda Stauffer - Co-Chair of Task Force
01) 588-8110
Fax:(301) 588-8154
Ann Taylor - President
Gale Clarke Ellsworth - Exec. Director
(703) 359-9000
Fax: (703) 359-0603
WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM
3550 Raymoor Rd, Kensington, MD 20895
Laia Katz - Vice-President
(301)942-1276
Fax: (Same)
Judith Rosenkrantz - President
Elaine Rosenberg - Exec. Director
WOMEN WORK
1625 K St., NW #300 WDC 20006
Olivia White- President
Jill Miller and Ruby Coles - Exec. Dir.
(202) 467-6346
Fax: (202) 467-5366
WOMEN'S ACTION ALLIANCE, INC.
370 Lexington Avenue, #603, New York, NY 100
Kay Allen Concolver - President, Esq.
Karel Amaranth - Exec. Director
(212) 532-8330
Fax: (212) 779-2846
�WOMEN'S ACTION FOR NEW DIRECTIONS,
691 Mass., Av, Arlington, MA 02174
WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP NETWORK
276 Chatterton Pkway, White Plains, NY 1060
Aarlene Victor - President
Susan Shaer - Exec. Director
(617) 643-6740
Fax: (617) 643-6744
Deborah Walden - Dir. Of Pub. Policy & Programming,
110 Maryland, Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 543-8505
Fax: (202) 675-6469
Antonia Stolper
(914) 285-9761 Fax: (914) 285-9763
WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
1875 Conn., Ave., NW #710 WDC 20009
WOMEN'S CAMPAIGN RESEARCH FUND
734 15th St., NW #500, WDC 20009
Judith Lichtman - President
Donna Lenhoff
(202) 986-2600
Fax: (202) 986-2539
Amy Conroy- Exec. Director
(202) 393-8164
Fax: (202) 393-0649
WOMEN'S POLICY, INC.
409 12th St., SW #705 WDC 20024
WOMEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
845 3rd Ave., 15th Fl, New York, NY 10022
Lesley Primmer - Exec. Director
Marjorie Sims - Deputy Director
(202) 554-2323
Fax: (202) 554-2346
Susan Davis - ED, Bella Abzug - Co-Chair
(212) 759-7982
Fax: (212) 759-8647
Anne Zill - Washington Representative
1734 P Street, NW, WDC 20036
202) 265-1757
Fax: (202) 265-1777
WOMEN'S RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
INSTITUTE, 1700 18th St., NW #400 WDC 20
Betty Dooley - President
(202) 328-7070
Fax: (202) 328-3514
WOMEN'S INSTITUTE FOR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS, 3306 Ross PI, NW, WDC 20008
YWCA-USA
726 Broadway, New York, NY 10003
Donna Allen, Pres
(202) 966-7783 FAX: (202) 966-7783
Ann Stallard - President
Prema Mathai-Davis - Nat'l Exec. Dir.
(212) 614-2700
Fax: (212) 677-9716
Beverly Stripling - Dir. Of Advocacy & Public Po
WDC Office
624 9th St., NW #rd Fl, WDC 20001
(202) 628-3636
Fax: (202)783-7123
WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR
PEACE AND FREEDOM
1213 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19107-1619
Jean Gore - President (303) 447-8668
Pamela Jones-Bumley - Admin. Dir. (PA)
Marilyn Clement - Exec. Dir.
(215) 563-7110
Fax: (215) 563-5527
WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH
NETWORK, 7100 Oak Forest Ln Bethesda, MD 20817
vJ
Naomi Baumslag - President
01) 469-9210
Fax: (301) 469-8423
YOUNG WOMEN'S PROJECT
923 F St., NW 3rd Fl, WDC 20004
Nadia Moritz
(202) 393-0461
Fax: (202) 393-0065
ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY
1734 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Jylla M. Foster - President
Vercilla Brown - Exec. Dir.
(202) 387-3103
Fax:(202)232-4593
�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.
Divider Title:
P
�P.
History
�Background on Woman's Suffrage Movement
On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment was certified as part of the U.S. Constitution.
Referred to as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, it states, "The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex." This is why August 26, 1995 is the focal point for the women's suffrage commemoration
activities.
1995 marks the 75th anniversary of this great victory for the woman suffrage movement. The
ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right to vote for all
women. The struggle to achieve this victory lasted for over 72 years. It was a courageous and
persistent political campaign involving tens of thousands of women and men, culminating in the
enfranchisement of one-half of the citizens of the United States. The suffragists' goal was clear
throughout their campaign: not victory over men, but equality with them. The celebration of the
suffrage movement is a substantial milestone on the road to equal rights for women, and it honors
those who helped win the day. It puts women back into our history as active participants.
Women won the vote. They were not given it or granted it. In the House of Representatives,
suffrage passed the first time with the exact number of votes that were needed, with one
supporter being carried in from the hospital and another leaving his wife's deathbed to be there
to cast their votes. In the Senate, suffrage passed with just two votes to spare. When the
Nineteenth Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, the last state, Tennessee, passed
it by a single vote cast at the last minute during a recount, after a legislator's mother told him to
vote for the amendment.
One of the finest legacies left by the women suffragists is the relentless and unviolent manner
of their campaign. Women were a poor and disenfranchised class when they first organized to
gain political power in the mid-1800s. Their struggle for the ballot took over 70 years of
constant, determined campaigning, yet it did not take a single life, and its success has endured.
Compare this with male-led independence movements -- without firing a shot, throwing a rock,
or issuing a personal threat, women won for themselves rights that men have launched violent
rebellions to achieve.
The campaign for women's suffrage was not waged by women alone, men too played a
significant role. The suffrage movement both included men as supporters and depended on the
votes that only men could cast. Many courageous men risked ridicule and worse to actively
support women's rights.
* Source: "Taking a New Look at the Woman Suffrage Movement: A Celebration Speech," National Women's History Project
Suggested quotations:
The last president of the National American Women Suffrage Association, Carrie Chapman Catt:
"During that time [the seventy-two years of campaigning for the right to vote] they were forced
�to conductfifty-sixcampaigns of referenda to male voters; 480 campaigns to get Legislatures to
submit suffrage amendments to voters; 47 campaigns to get State constitutional conventions to
write woman suffrage into state constitutions; 227 campaigns to get State party conventions to
include woman suffrage planks; 30 campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt
woman suffrage planks in party platforms, and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses."
"It is doubtful if any man, even among suffrage men, ever realized what the suffrage struggle
came to mean to women before the end was allowed in America. How much of time and
patience, how much work, energy and aspiration, how much faith, how much hope, how much
despair went into it. It leaves its mark on one, such a struggle. It fills the days and it rides the
nights. Working, eating, drinking, sleeping, it is there. Not all women in all the states of the
Union were in the struggle. There was some women in every state who knew nothing about it.
But most women in all the states were at least on the periphery of its effort and interest when
they were not in the heart of it. To them all, its success became a monumental thing."
"The vote is the emblem of your equality, women of America, the guaranty of your liberty. That
vote of yours has cost millions of dollars and the lives of thousands of women. Money to carry
on this work has been given usually as a sacrifice, and thousands of women have gone without
things they wanted and could have had in order that they might help get the vote for you.
Women have suffered agony of soul which you never can comprehend, that you and your
daughters might inherit political freedom. That voter has been costly. Prize it!"
"I have lived to see the great dream of my life, the enfranchisement of women. We are no longer
petitioners, but free and equal citizens. Let us do our part to keep it a true and triumphant
democracy."
Susan B. Anthony:
"It was we the people, not we the male citizens . . . who formed this union. . . It is downright
mockery to talk to women of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the only means of
securing them. . . the Ballot."
Harriot Stanton Blatch, daughter of the lifelong suffrage leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton:
"Perhaps some day men will raise a tablet reading in letters of gold: 'All honor to women, the
first disenfranchised class in history who unaided by any political party, won enfranchisement
by its own effort alone, and achieved the victory without the shedding of a drop of human blood.
All honor to the women of the world."
Prominent suffrage historian Eleanor Flexner:
"Full political citizenship was, for women -- as for any other group arbitrarily deprived of it -a vital step toward winning full human dignity. [It is] the recognition that women, too, are
endowed with the faculty of reason, the power of judgement, the capacity for social responsibility
and effective action."
�Taking a New Look at the
Woman Suffrage Movement
Celebrating the 75th anniversary
of the woman suffrage movement victory
1995 marks the 75th anniversary of the woman suffrage
movemenf s great victory, ratification of the 19th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing for all American women
the right to vote. This victory had been a very long time in
coming, and it is fitting that it be celebrated with pride and with
hope for the future.
Women vote and actively participate in all levels of
government today because of the woman suffrage movement.
That courageous and persistent political campaign took over 72
years, involved tens of thousands of women and men, and
resulted in the enfranchisement of one-half of the citizens of the
United States. The campaign was inspired by idealism and
grounded in sacrifice. It is of enormous political and social
significance - yet it is virtually unacknowledged in the
chronicles of American history.
�If the suffrage movement had not been so ignored by
historians, women like Lucretia Mott, Carrie Chapman Catt and
Alice Paul would be as familiar to us as Thomas Jefferson,
Theodore Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King, Jr. We would know
how women were denied the right to vote despite the lofty words
of the Constitution. We would know how women were betrayed
after the Civil War, defeated and often cheated in election after
election, and how they were forced to fight for their rights
against entrenched opposition, with virtually no financial, legal,
or political power of their ovm.
If the history of the suffrage movement was better known, we
would understand that democracy, for the first 150 years of our
nation's existence, excluded more than half of the population.
And we would realize that this situation changed only after one
of the most remarkable and successful nonviolent efforts the
world has ever seen.
Women won the vote. They were not given it or granted it
Women won it as truly as any political campaign is ultimately
won or lost. And they won it by the slimmest of margins, which
only underscores the difficulty and magnitude of their victories.
Take the successful California referendum campaign of 1911,
for example. The margin of victory there was just one vote per
precinct!
�In the House of Representatives, suffrage passed the first
time by exactly the number of votes needed, with one supporter
being carried in from the hospital and another leaving his wife's
deathbed to be there to cast their votes. In the Senate, suffrage
passed with just two votes to spare. When the Nineteenth
Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, Tennessee,
the last state, passed it by a single vote, at the very last minute,
during a recount!
Consider this for a moment: Women were a poor and
disenfranchised class wJien they first organized to gain political
power in the mid-1 StfOs. Their struggle for the ballot took over 70
years of constant,^ cLetermined campaigning, yet it did not take a
single life, and its success has endured. Compare this with
male-led independence movements. Without firing a shot,
throwing a rock, or issuing a personal threat, women won for
themselves rights that men have launched violent rebellions to
achieve. The suffragists' deliberate rejection of violence may be
one of the reasons the movement has not received the attention
that is lavished on other, more bloody periods of American
history. But this neglect should not deceive us; this struggle was
waged every bit as seriously as any struggle for equality. We
would do well to consider how women were able to do what men
have rarely even tried to do, change society in a positive and
lasting way without violence and death.
�The suffragists' nonviolent approach was a logical strategy
since a remarkable number of the movemenf s prominent
leaders, including Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice
Paul, were Quakers and pacifists. They were committed to
peaceful resistance and they were opponents of war and
violence. And, they were dear about their goal: not victory over
men, but equality with men.
Like the Black dvil rights movement, the woman suffrage
movement is a record of the experiences of ordinary dtizens
forced tofightfor their own rights against tremendous odds and
sodal inequities. Knowing about suffrage history gives us
wonderful models of political leadership, of women organizers
and administrators, activists and lobbyists. The movement
involved thefirstwomen lawyers, doctors and ministers, the first
women political candidates, thefirstofficeholders. Suffrage
history is an exdting story of achievement, of ingenious
strategies and outrageous tactics used to outwit opponents and
make the most of limited resources.
The suffrage movement induded many American women
whose talents and abilities would have made them prime
candidates for national office had their opportunities been
equal.
�Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy
Stone, Frances Willard, Jane Addams, Ida B. Wells-Bamett,
Carrie Chapman Catt, Mary Church Terrell, Alice Paul and
others proved themselves to be politically important,
enormously competent, highly influential and widely respected
leaders with few equals among their male contemporaries.
The 72-year-long suffrage movement offers us a unique
window on the emergence of women into American political life.
Since they were denied therightto participate directly in
national politics, this is where most of the intelligent, active, and
politically oriented women of the time went. They put their
energy into attacking sodal problems directly and organizing
among themselves, locally and nationally, for their own rights.
But despite all of this, the suffrage movement has been
routinely and consistently ignored by mainstream historians.
And when it has not been ignored it has been substantially
misrepresented. The result is our mistaken notion that the
suffrage movement was an inconsequential cause, one hardly
worthy of our attention, much less our respect The woman
suffrage movement is generally treated as a lone curiosity with
nothing much to teach us, or worse, as a target for dever
academics to critique. Fortunately, there have been some
notable exceptions, but this attitude lies at the heart of the
problem.
�^|
When I take a closer look at the history of the American
woman suffrage movement I see something very different.
What I see is definitely not a dour, old-woman cause
benevolently recognized by Congressional gods. I see a
movement of female organizers, leaders, politicians, journalists,
visionaries, rabble rousers, and warriors. I see an active,
controversial, passionate movement of the best and the
brightest women in America, from all backgrounds, who, as we
say today, boldly went where no women had ever gone before.
It is important to remember that men were suffragists, too.
The suffrage movement both included men as supporters and
depended on the votes that only men could cast. Even when
state suffrage measures were lost, the question often received
tens of thousands of male votes of approval. And, of course, it
was a virtually all-male Senate and House that approved the
amendment, along with 36 virtually all-male state legislatures
that ratified it. Many courageous men riskedridiculeand worse
to actively support women'srights.In my opinion, those men
are far better role models for us today than many better-known
political and militaryfiguresin American history.
The story of the woman suffrage movement is a dramatic one,
filled with intrigue, dedication, frustration, commitment, failure,
and, ultimately a hard-won victory. I do not have time today to
even begin to tell the tale.
�But I will share with you how Carrie Chapman Catt, the last
president of the National American Woman Suffrage
Association, spoke of this essential struggle to amend the
Constitution. She said:
'To get the word 'male'... out of the Constitution cost the
women of this country fifty-two years of pauseless
campaigning.... During that time they were forced to conduct
fifty-six campaigns of referenda to male voters; 480 campaigns
to get Legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 47
campaigns to get State constitutional conventions to write
woman suffrage into state constitutions; 277 campaigns to get
State party conventions to include woman suffrage planks; 30
campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt
woman suffrage planks in party platforms, and 19 campaigns
with 19 successive Congresses. "
(look up and say, "Can you imagine?")
Then she goes on to say: "Millions of dollars were raised,
mainly in small sums, and expended with economic care.
Hundreds of women gave the accumulated possibilities of an
entire lifetime, thousands gave years of their lives, hundreds of
thousands gave constant interest and such aid as they could. It
was a continuous, seemingly endless, chain of activity. Young
suffragists who helped forge the last links of that chain were not
bom when it began. Old suffragists who forged the first links
were dead when it ended."
8
�And, thinking of the impact of the campaign on the women of
America, Carrie Chapman Catt added this: 'It is doubtful if any
man, even among suffrage men, ever realized what the suffrage
struggle came to mean to women before the end was allowed in
America. How much of time and patience, how much work,
energy and aspiration, how much faith, how much hope, how
much despair went into it. It leaves its mark on one, such a
struggle. It fills the days and itridesthe nights. Working,
eating, drinking, sleeping, it is there. Not all women in all the
states of the Union were in the struggle. There were some
women in every state who knew nothing about it. But most
women in all the states were at least on the periphery of its effort
and interest when they were not in the heart of it. To them all,
its success became a monumental thing."
(brief pause)
It is clear to me that the American suffrage movement
stands as a lasting affirmation of our country's democratic
promise for it re-emphasizes the importance of the most
fundamental democratic value, therightto vote. In 1975,
prominent suffrage historian Eleanor Rexner drew this
analogy:
�"Recently there has been a tendency to low-rate the
winning of woman suffrage as something less than the great
achievement it seemed to those who carried on the struggle.
.. Yet full political citizenship was, for women - as for any
other group arbitrarily deprived of it - a vital step toward
winning full human dignity. [It is] the recognition that
women, too, are endowed with the faculty of reason, the
power of judgment, the capacity for social responsibility and
effective action. As a matter of fact, the opposition to
woman suffrage itself bears witness, in a perverse kind of
way, to its significance. Nothing unimportant would have
been so bitterly resisted. If one thinks of those. White and
Black, who laid down their lives only a few years ago in order
that southern Black men and women could register to voteit seems dear that their efforts and sacrifices were no idle
exerdse in gallantry. ... Without the vote, no social or legal
reform was either possible, or lasting."
(brief pause)
You need not be a feminist, female, or even political to enjoy
learning about the suffrage movement. For while the subject is
woman suffrage, the larger story is about democracy, and how a
powerless dass of Americans won concessions and guarantees
from those in power without the use of violence. In learning
about the suffrage movement, you will find a new view of
American history, brimming with new heroes.
1o
�Next to George Washington and his cherry tree we can set
young Carrie Chapman Catt driving a wagon across the prairie
by "dead reckoning" or brave Lucretia Mott trusting her own
safety to a member of the mob roused against her. Let us honor
Sojourner Truth no less than Patrick Henry, and Alice Paul no
less than Woodrow Wilson.
The celebration of the suffrage movement victory holds a
particular relevance now, as it has helped lead us as a country
and a people to where we are today. It celebrates a substantial
milestone on the road to equal rights for women, and it honors
those who helped win the day. It puts women back into our
national history as active participants. It reminds us of the
necessity of progressive leaders, organizers, and visionaries in
every local community. It is the origin of the yet-unpassed
Equal Rights Amendment. It exposes the misplaced fears and
prejudices of those who oppose equal rights for women, and
offers a sobering reminder that too many of these same foolish,
reactionary attitudes from 100 years ago still exist today.
Clearly, the wider goal of women's full equality and freedom has
not yet been achieved, but the victorious woman suffrage
movement offers a new generation of activists a solid base on
which to build for the future.
(more)
11
�Harriot Stanton Blatch, daughter of the lifelong suffrage leader
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, summarized the movement's legacy
best when she wrote these words: 'Terhaps some day men will
raise a tablet reading in letters of gold: 'All honor to women, the
first disenfranchised dass in history who unaided by any
political party, won enfranchisement by its own effort alone, and
achieved the victory without the shedding of a drop of human
ir
blood. All honor to the women of the world!'
M
12
�CT 3i3 4. OS3
THE
- Women's Book
OF
World Records
AND
Achievements
EDITED BY
Lois Decker O'Neill
A DA CAPO PAPERBACK
�Women in Politics
and Government
By Alice Lynn Booth
U.S. Congresswoman Patricia (Pat) Schroeder,
consulting editor
The 1970s proved to be breakthrough
years for women in politics and governonent. No decade in history has had more
significant gains, or "firsts," for women
in public life.
The movement of an unprecedented
number of women into political positions
in the 1970s is easily explainable. Convinced that no one would hand them political power, women organized on their
own behalf to claim it. The declaration
of International Women's Year and Decade was evidence that the movement supersedes ideologies, economies, geography, race, and religion. The status quo
has been upset. "The drive for participation by women is now rooted," said New
York State's Lieutenant Governor MARY
ANNE KRUPSAK. "It is not just a fad. The
political establishment clearly reads this."
Here are some of the '70s breakthroughs:
•Sweden's Prime Minister Thorbjorn
Falldin appointed five women to his 20-
member
Cabinet,
Minister
KARIN
including
SODER.
In
Foreign
France,
was named Secretary of State on the Condition of
Women, the only post of its kind in the
world.
•MARGARET THATCHER became the
first woman party leader in British history. As prime minister of the shadow
cabinet, she could become Britain's
Prime Minister if the Conservatives win
the next election.
FRANCOISE GIROUD
•ANNEMARIE RENCER became Presi-
dent of the German Bundestag; Japan
chose its first female diplomat of ministerial rank as head of the Japanese Mission
to the United Nations; Iran's first was a
woman provincial governor; BERNADETTE OLOWO of Uganda became the
first woman ambassador to the Vatican in 1975, breaking a 900-year tradition that kept female envoys out of the
Holy See.
•The first female cabinet member in
�44
The Women's Book of World Records and Achievements
vious year, and the number of women
in state legislatures jumped by 26 per
cent.
•Nineteen seventy-four was also the
year when Republican MARY LOUISE
SMITH, a grandmother, was named chairman of the Grand Old Party, a first;
ANNE ARMSTRONG became the first
woman ambassador to the Court of St.
James's; and the-feminist caucus of the
Democratic National Committee showed
its stuff at the Democratic mini-Convention. Party leaders were shocked to discover that women were the best-organized group there.
•By 1976, U.S. presidential candidates
couldn't ignore women. Every serious
contender made sure he had women in
visible positions on his campaign staff.
President Jimmy Carter named two
women to his Cabinet, another historic
first, and more women were appointed to
Congresswoman BELLA ABZUO, GLORIA high-ranking administration jobs than
ever before.
STEINEM, BETTY FRIEDAN, and FANNIE
Lou HAMER—announced the formation
•That same year, the Women's Camof the National Women's Political Cau- paign Fund (WCF) proved that women
cus, an organization dedicated to thrust- will empty their pocketbooks to elect
ing women into positions of power at all women candidates. The biggest handicap
levels of government. "No one gives po- facing women candidates is lack of
litical power," said Gloria Steinem (see money. WCF grew out of MAYA
the chapter "Women in Communica- MILLER'S Senate campaign in Nevada in
tions," p. 479). "It must be taken and 1974, when it was recognized that to
we will take it." Women were going to overcome the handicap, women would
stop making coffee and start making have to help one another.
But though thesefirstsare the symbols
policy.
of a new consciousness that, at this time
•Nineteen seventy-four became "the in history, the contribution of women in
year of the woman in politics" when politics and government is sorely needed,,
ELLA GRASSO was elected governor of the fact remains that men still run the
Connecticut, the first woman governor world. Women have not achieved anyin U.S. history who did not follow her thing like their potential as policy-and
husband into office. MARY ANNE KRUP- decision-makers, administrators, and dipSAK'S victory as lieutenant governor of lomats. Women's thoughts, beliefs, exNew York State was another historic perience, and intellect remain barely a
first. So was JANET GREY HAYES'S victory whimper in the halls of state around the
as mayor of San Jose, California, which world.
in turn infused LILA COCKRELL with the
During the 1970s only five nations had
confidence to run for mayor of San An- women as heads of government. Today
tonio, Texas, and win. More U.S. women none of those women is in power. In no
ran for office in 1974 than in any pre- country today do women come near to
Italy, TINA ANSELMI, took over the portfolio of the Ministry of Labor, one of the
toughest posts in that economically
shaken country.
And in Switzerland, where women
were not permitted to vote until 1971, in
1977 a woman was selected from among
the members of the National Council to
serve for a year as its president—an
office equivalent to the U. S. Speaker of
the House and the highest office held by
a woman in the Swiss Confederation.
In the United States in the lOs:
•For the first time in the history of the
Department of State, women employees
organized to demand an end to discriminatory practices. Their successes included the withdrawal of a rule that
forced a woman to resign from the Foreign Service when she married.
•In 1971, four feminist leaders—
�Politics and Govenunent
faring power with men. Even the pro|ftssive Scandinavian countries have
filled only about one fifth of their parliajientary seats with women. Participation
^ women at the United Nations General
assembly was a staggeringly low 8.8 per
peat in 1975. In 26 out of 30 years, representation on the UN Security Council
b s been an absolute 100 per cent male,
&
the United States's record of political
participation by women is about average.
Some nations are worse, a few are better.
Whether or not a nation is industrialized
or developing, the patterns are similar.
Here are some indicators of the long
road ahead in the United States: Nationwide, in 1977, women held less than
7 per cent of all elective offices. None of
tbe 100 U.S. senators was a woman.
This situation changed temporarily in
1978 with the appointment of MURIEL
HUMPHREY to the Minnesota seat vacated by her husband's death, followed
by the appointment of MARYON ALLEN
as senator from Alabama in her late husband's place. Ms. Humphrey soon announced that she would not mn in her
own right; Ms. Allen said that she would.
(In history, only three U.S. women have
been elected to a full Senate term.) Only
18 of 435 members of the House of Representatives in 1978 were women, about
the same as 40 years ago. There has
never been a woman on the U. S. Supreme Court, and only 5 out of 507 cabinet heads have been women.
The obstacles to genuine participation
are enormous. In the United States,
women who run for office most often
run as outsiders—without established
political support and the money that
such support generates. Every race is an
uphill battle. And everywhere, men
who hold power are still reluctant to
bring women into positions of responsibility. Legal remedies may bring legal
relief but don't automatically bring
change. For women to participate fully
as political equals, the social fabric of
45 ^ i ^ -
all nations will have to stretch. Such cultural adaptations take struggle and time.
Still, the 1970s held the promise that
women's voices will become increasingly
audible and, eventually, inextinguishable.
With each new accomplishment by a
woman in politics, another woman develops the will to try. Colorado's Representative PATRICIA ("PAT") SCHROEDER proved that a young wife and mother
with young children could win election
to Congress, and keep her family intact
while serving. She also proved by her
participation on the male-dominated
Armed Services Committee that a female
voice can make a difference in formulating military policy. Her inspiration
will reverberate into the next decade.
"Women have been told so often they
can spectate and not participate, that
they have thought they are not capable
of participating," she says. "But, yes, we
are."
the author of Careers in Politics for the New Woman
(1978), is a graduate of the University of
California at Berkeley (1965) with a
B.A. in political science. She began her
career as a newspaper reporter in Chicago and has since reported in the
United States and free-lanced abroad for
newspapers, radio stations, and magazines. Her articles have appeared in the
Washington Post and the Washington
Star, the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Glamour, Cosmopolitan,
MS, and Juris Doctor magazines. She
specializes in politics, women's issues,
and problems of contemporary life. In
1977 she became press secretary to Congressman Paul Tsongas (D., Mass.).
ALICE LYNN BOOTH,
Consulting editor PATRICIA ("PAT")
SCHROEDER is a member of the House
of Representatives, U. S. Congress, from
Colorado (seep, 72).
i
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
WH [White House] Office for Women's Inits. [Initiatives] [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 58
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-058-005-2015