This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
REMARKS BY: DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PLACE: Sixth Annual Barbara Boggs Sigmund Symposium on Women and Poverty, Princeton University DATE: April 19, 1996
I knew Barbara. She was a hero who knew both success and adversity: an elected official, a member of one of America's great political families, a devoted wife, and mother of three sons.
When Barbara lost her eye to cancer, she made sure that she wore an eye patch that was bold and colorful -- and always perfectly coordinated with her clothing.
A woman of extraordinary humor, perspective and courage, she made history by becoming Princeton Borough's first woman mayor. She also understood history. Barbara understood that women's history has been a march of progress -- as year by year, in many different ways, we have climbed new mountains -- and secured new rights. Voting rights. Reproductive freedom. Economic security. Employment opportunities. And political power.
Yes, women's history has been a march of progress -- from the playing fields to the dean's office, and from the boardrooms to the State House. If Barbara were here today -- this exceptional woman of politics and history would tell us that our work is far from done.
She would tell us that to create a women's agenda for the 21st century, we must tackle one of our nation's greatest tragedies: women in poverty. Why? Because poverty hurts our families and children. It weakens our economy. And it touches all of us -- rich and poor, women and men.
Today the dimming light of poverty is the life story of 14 million American women over 18; the life story of 1 in 5 children; and the life story of 60 percent of African American and Latino female-headed households.
For these citizens, poverty is a descent into the shadow of the American dream. Our obligation is to turn that descent into an ascent -- to bring the light of hope and independence to poor women and their children -- and keep it there.
But, I want to be clear: there is nothing more demanding, more time-consuming, or more important than the work parents do raising and nurturing their children. Raising children is work. It's hard work -- but it's not the only kind of work women must perform today.
We believe we need to fight poverty in America with comprehensive policies that reflect 21st century realities and values: Social values that acknowledge that most women work outside the home. Economic values that make work pay. And family values that say children need the emotional and financial support of both their parents.
Yet, too often policies aimed at poor women and children have been mere echoes of the past -- grounded in assumptions that no longer reflect where we are and where we must go.
Today, I want to talk about where we've been and where we believe we must go.
In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act -- and created the Aid to Dependent Children Program -- the precursor to today's federal welfare system. Originally, ADC went mostly to widows and orphans -- who were considered "deserving poor."
Reflecting the values of the time, its purpose was to enable women to stay home with their children. And most did. In the early part of this century, women were told that: domestic responsibilities should be the centerpiece of their personal fulfillment, and that women with children shouldn't work for pay outside the home.
In the 1930s, only 24% -- or 12 million women -- worked for pay -- usually because they had no other choice. That's in part because of what my friend, Professor Linda Gordon, calls the "family wage myth" -- the myth that only men should be employed, and that their earnings are enough to support a wife and children.
Today, more than 58 million women -- a full 56% of women over 16 -- are employed full or part time outside the home. Roughly two-thirds of mothers with young children work at least part time. And a recent study showed that 99% of women will work for pay sometime in their lives.
There are a lot of reasons for this dramatic change.
Some are economic: As wages in the 1970s began to stagnate, millions of women entered the workforce just to maintain their family's living standard.
Some are social: Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births have escalated -- creating more female-headed households -- and more poverty among women.
And, some are political: From the suffragettes to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the woman's movement has fundamentally altered the way women are viewed -- and how they view themselves.
The social and economic fabric our country has changed dramatically since 1935 -- and our public policies must reflect these trends.
There are some today who still preach the old gospel -- and refuse to believe that our federal welfare system must change. And, there are others who use the term welfare reform as a code word to totally eliminate the social safety net; unfairly attack poor women; and turn our backs on struggling families that could make it out of poverty with a little help. But, they are both wrong.
There is a third way -- a way that gets the values right. We must demand responsibility, but offer opportunity in return. We must strengthen families, create opportunities for women, and protect children. And, most important, the incentives we offer poor women should always point in one direction: work.
During World War II, the majority of working age men were sent overseas -- and women -- often at the urging of government -- flooded into the factories to build the armaments our soldiers needed. Enter Rosie the Riveter -- and millions like her -- who became employed -- often for the first time.
Encouraging Rosie to work was considered a matter of national security. Back then, it was in our national interest to give women the support they needed to move into the workplace. And, it is in our national interest to do so today.
As recently as the 1970s, many academics, activists, and elected officials were still arguing that work shouldn't be a part of welfare. But times -- and ideas -- have changed.
In the 1980s, my colleagues and I began to argue that working mothers had become the norm for families trying to stay off welfare. We argued that working families should not be expected to support nonworking families indefinitely -- and that lifetime unemployment was degrading for both women and men.
Since President Clinton took office, welfare caseloads have decreased by a full 10%, and a larger percentage of those still on welfare are engaged in work and related activities. Food stamp rolls are down. Teen birth rates are down. Child support collections are at an all time high. And we've granted waivers to 37 states that are now reforming welfare for more than 10 million parents and their children -- that's about 75 percent of all AFDC recipients.
But our work is far from done. Today as we look to national legislation, we believe that we can balance the budget and reform welfare the right way -- by encouraging work, demanding responsibility, rewarding education and marriage, and always, always, protecting vulnerable children.
But let me be clear: It's not real welfare reform unless it provides the right incentives to poor women with children.
For women who -- because of their disabilities -- or the disabilities of their children -- can't work, we should make exceptions. For those who refuse to work, assistance must first be reduced and then eliminated. But, for the vast majority of women who want to work -- we must empower them to do just that.
That means helping people become good parents and good workers. It means cracking down on child support enforcement. It means combining tough work requirements with resources for child care so that women can move to independence. And it means keeping our promise of food stamps and school lunches -- so that needy children don't go hungry.
In this country, we value education and we value marriage. Yet, our current welfare system allows unmarried teenage girls to set up their own independent households with welfare money; and it does not require them to finish high school -- and prepare to work and support their children.
Unlike some in Congress, our answer isn't to tell teenage mothers to sink or swim. Our answer is to throw them a life jacket -- and insist that they stay in school, live with a responsible adult, and give their children a better life.
That's the right way -- the balanced way -- to reform our welfare system.
But, that's not all we must do. The key question is, how do we help people get off -- and stay off welfare? Or -- better yet -- how do we prevent them from slipping into it in the first place?
In the Cleveland neighborhood of my childhood, everyone was considered working class. No one was well off, but very few families were on welfare. I had a working class childhood in the traditional sense of the word: everybody worked, played by the rules, and taught their children to do the same.
Children -- then and now -- need to see adults working. They need to see work as an inherent part of citizenship and responsible adulthood.
Once again, we need to get the values right: By making work pay. By creating the right incentives so that going to work is a more rational choice than staying on welfare. And, that's exactly what we have worked to do.
In 1993, we took an enormous step toward making work pay -- for both one and two-earner families -- by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit by $22 billion dollars. This credit gives a tax refund to the working poor -- which means millions of female-headed households.
The result? In 1995, over 500,000 low income families in New Jersey -- a full 13% of taxpayers -- had more money in their pockets. And, in 1996, our EITC expansion means that over 20 million workers and their families will have their taxes cut, on average, by $1400.
Making work pay is why we want to raise the minimum wage to make it a living wage. Perhaps the opponents of a higher minimum wage could keep their children out of poverty on $4.25 an hour -- but I doubt it.
Our proposal to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 would help 10 million Americans -- 5.8 million of whom are women. That's because while women today account for 47% of the workforce, they are 59% of all minimum wage earners. A 90 cent increase in the minimum wage means $1800 a year for a full time worker. What can the average family buy with $1800? For starters, seven months of groceries, or four months rent, or nine months of utility bills.
Making work pay is why the President signed the Family and Medical Leave Act -- so when children are seriously ill, their parents can take care of them without fear of losing their jobs.
And, making work pay is why we've fought for increases in Head Start and child care every single year.
Thanks to scholars like Donna Pavetti, David Ellwood and Mary Jo Bane, our Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, we know that 90% of those on welfare leave within 5 years. But we also know that the majority return -- often because their low paying jobs do not come with the child care and health care necessary to make entry-level jobs the springboard to independence.
In fact, the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin estimates that for 40% of the mothers on AFDC in Wisconsin, the cost of child care will consume more than half their earnings if they leave AFDC for jobs paying $6.00 an hour.
It's a rational decision for mothers to choose the path that will provide their children with health insurance and safe child care. Ask any woman -- whether or not she's on welfare -- and she'll tell you the same thing: "I can't go to work if I don't have a safe place to leave my children. And I can't afford to work if child care costs are too high."
For these women, access to safe, affordable child care is often the only difference between waiting for a welfare check and earning a paycheck.
And, it's the same with health care. Too many poor working women are just one health care bill away from joining the welfare rolls. And, let's face it, women with children will not go to work -- if work means going without health insurance. That's the biggest disincentive of all.
That's why we must enact the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill -- so that Americans will not lose their health insurance when they change jobs or have a pre-existing condition.
And, that's why we must reform Medicaid the right way. Under Medicaid waivers we've already granted, we're increasing flexibility for states, cutting costs, and providing health insurance for 2.2 million more working Americans and their children.
There are 36 million Medicaid recipients, and over 17 million of them are children -- many from poor working families.
The truth is, Medicaid has transformed what it means to be a poor child or pregnant woman in America. And, we cannot turn our backs on that contract with our citizens.
That's why we have said: We will not replace Medicaid's historic guarantee of health care with an ill-conceived, underfunded, block grant. We will not do it.
We must knock down the enormous barriers to good health that poor women face in America. For example, every day, 220 women lose their lives to breast cancer. Yet, a 1993 survey showed that women with family incomes under $7500 were about half as likely to have had a mammogram as women with family incomes over $50,000.
And just this month, a panel of NIH experts concluded that almost all of the 5,000 deaths from cervical cancer that occur each year are preventable with Pap smears and safe sex. This in a country where only 49 percent of women with family incomes between $7500 and $15,000 got a Pap smear -- that's a full 28 percent less than women in families earning more than $50,000.
We must end these disparities once and for all. And to do that we must make prevention - - not the emergency room -- the first line of defense in the fight for good health .
How? By making sure that all women have access to reproductive health care -- especially family planning and pre-natal care. By giving all children get the right start in life with quality Head Start, timely immunizations, and proper nutrition. And by empowering all parents to help their children bypass the dangerous minefields of adolescence -- like tobacco, drugs, and AIDS -- and make safe passages to young adulthood.
Then there's the horror of domestic violence -- which Barbara Boggs Sigmund, through her creation of Womanspace -- worked tirelessly to prevent. No woman -- especially a woman with children -- should have to choose between the tragedy of homelessness and the terror of an abusive relationship. But too many women do.
The Europeans have a slogan for their domestic violence campaign -- which is, "We all have a right to be safe all of the time." Listen very carefully to these words: "All of the time." That is our challenge -- to make America's homes and neighborhoods safe for all women and their children -- all of the time. And, that's exactly what we've fought to do.
We're creating a seamless system of protection so that no woman or child -- rich or poor -- falls through the cracks of domestic violence. With tougher penalties for abusers. Better training for police, prosecutors, judges and health care professionals. More community policing and prevention. And now, to tie all the pieces together, a national hotline that women all over America can call for help 24 hours a day -- every day of the year.
In a symposium about women and poverty, it might seem out of place to talk about fathers. But nothing could be further from the truth. Today, almost 1 in 4 families are headed by single mothers -- and the consequences are nothing less than tragic.
Compared to children in two-parent homes, children in single-parent families are: Twice as likely to drop out of high school. Twice as likely to have a child before age 20. And, more than twice as likely to live in poverty.
I think it's so sad that many children are growing up without both parents to teach them life's early -- and sometimes painful -- lessons. It's a terrible cultural loss for all Americans -- and an even deeper loss for our children.
But let me be clear: I'm not saying that people should stay in unhappy -- or worse yet -- abusive relationships. And I'm not saying that we should shy away from demanding financial responsibility from both parents.
So, yes, we need to continue to increase child support collections and paternity establishments. And, yes, we need to crack down on deadbeat parents who walk away from their obligations to their children and their families.
But, when we talk about the role of fathers -- whether or not they live with their children -- and especially when they don't -- we need to look beyond the checkbook to the heart. We need to counter the sometimes unconscious message that children don't need fathers -- that mothers are the only nurturers -- and fathers are a bonus, but hardly a necessity.
There are millions of single women -- many of them poor -- who are climbing hurdles every day; giving blood, sweat and tears; and providing their children with a loving home, strong values, and a good education. These women are heroes -- and I would never downplay their accomplishments.
Too often women -- and women alone -- are blamed for the tragedy of children on welfare. They're expected to be the only caretakers, nurturers, breadwinners and parents. But women should not have to be both parents.
Children need both parents to teach them right from wrong. Both parents to walk them to school and meet with their teachers. And both parents to love and guide them through the rough waters of adolescence.
That's why our Administration has taken strong steps to support families and strengthen the role of fathers: By making the involvement of fathers -- not just mothers -- a critical part of our Head Start program. By improving economic opportunities for fathers. By giving states latitude to extend welfare to struggling couples -- and end the perverse incentive for young fathers to live apart from the mother of their children. By implementing a new Fatherhood Initiative led by Vice President Gore -- to make sure that all our programs take into account the role fathers play in raising and nurturing their children. And by sending a clear message that respect for women -- taking care of your children -- is the real test of masculinity.
Because government action -- whether it's at the state, local, or federal level -- will never meet this or any other challenge alone.
Every one of us must recognize the extraordinary contributions that fathers make in this country -- and enlist them to broaden their influence inside and outside the home. And, every one of us must heed the words of Eleanor Roosevelt who said: "Our own success, to be real, must contribute to the success of others."
So, even as we demand that all parents take responsibility for their lives, and the lives of their children. As a community, we must also demand more of ourselves. We must, in the words of Saint Benedict, "give the strong something to strive after, and the weak nothing to fear."
It's been more than 60 years since President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today -- to make good on the promises of that landmark Act -- we must be willing to change -- so that our policies reflect where we are as a country and where we must go.
Today, there are many strong, brave women -- fighting poverty, fighting to raise healthy children, fighting for independence. There are many men who desperately want to do the right thing for the families they've helped create.
Our challenge is -- together -- to ignite the American dream for these parents and their children. Let them see it. Offer them hope. Demand responsibility. And give them the tools they need to grab this dream for themselves.
Then America will be for all families what our founding mothers and fathers believed it should be -- what Barbara Boggs Sigmund believed and worked for in her remarkable life:
Thank you.