Thank you, Shirley Howard for that wonderful
introduction. And thank you and Mike DiMario and to the Federal
Women's Program Advisory Committee for inviting me to GPO today.
It's great to be with you this morning at GPO to help celebrate
National Women's History Month. I am delighted to speak with
a group concerned about the role of women and women's history
in society.
I have had a long-term interest in both
politics and in women's issues throughout my life. Several years
ago I worked as a legislative analyst for the National Advisory
Council of Women's Educational Programs. I have also consulted
with the Women's Initiative of the American Association
of Retired Persons (AARP).
Through this experience, I know first-hand
the critical importance of women, and women leaders, in society.
By the way, I am also a member of the Association of American
University Women, the League of Women Voters, and
the Women's National Democratic Club.
I want to mention here that I have several
women that I very much admire. These include Rosa Parks, Mother
Thresa, Anita Hill, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In addition, as Mike DiMario just mentioned, I also want to salute
those women in the Administration.
The way I see it, there is no more important
work that American women can do, and there is no work more important
for America's future, than to fulfill women's leadership potential,
in government, business, in the professions, and in our communities.
This is why I am delighted to be with you this morning at your
celebration of National Womens' History Month and to share some
recollections and observations with you.
My own professional career is closely related
to my life-long interest in politics - Democratic politics. I
was born in Chicago, Illinois. I grew up on the North Shore with
a strong Irish-Catholic, Democratic family in the era of Mayor
Daley and FDR. My father, Ira W. Hurley, a lawyer who was active
in local Democratic circles, predicted before his death in early
1951 that Adlai Stevenson would be the Democratic candidate for
president in 1952.
As some of you may remember, Adlai Stevenson
did not win the 1952 nomination. Nevertheless, my life-long involvement
in politics would have pleased my Dad. How I wish that my father
could have celebrated with my two brothers and mother my election
victory in 1956. I was elected to the Illinois General Assembly
as State Representative for the Seventh District. And how I wish
he could have met State Representative Paul Simon from Madison
County, the man I married in 1960.
Paul and I and our two children, Sheila
and Martin, share a love of public service and make it an integral
part of our lives. When Paul made his first statewide race for
lieutenant governor (of Illinois) in 1968, our kids -- then seven
and four -- wore sweatshirts that said "Vote for my Daddy."
We made every election a family effort and enjoyed each one.
All these primaries and elections (that included one major loss)
climaxed in the year of our lives that started April 9, 1987,
and ended April 7, 1988. This was the campaign for President
of the United States.
This campaign differed from all previous
political campaigns, but the Simons were ready for it in many
ways, once we made the decision to enter the race. When we made
that decision, I realized this would be a unique experience for
all of us. It is not an experience that is shared by many families
in the Untied States, and there is a very small group of women
who have been privileged to take part in this process with their
husbands. As one of this group, with a good background in politics,
I was able to judge persons and events with a sense of history.
My view then, of the presidential campaign
of 1988, was one of a candidate's wife, a person between the candidate
and staff, who took an active part in the campaign, most of the
time on my own, not accompanying Paul.
My experiences as a woman involved with
a presidential campaign will, I hope, provide some insight for
your celebration of Women's History Month here at GPO. As a candidate's
wife and as a candidate myself at the state level, I knew how
hard the candidate works. The "wife of", as they usually
referred to me in introductions, sees and does things with a lot
less glamour and attention than the candidate.
Early on, I learned that a sense of humor
is essential. Coping with schedules that were really jammed,
the problems of laundry and dry cleaning (I frequently had dry
cleaning in three states), trying to remember the names of all
the people along the way and, most of all, trying to look like
and sound like a believable occupant of the White House -- all
of this called for a supreme effort. But it was FUN.
Not long ago, the wives of presidential
candidates traveled with their mates all the time and confined
their campaign activities to wearing a large white orchid and
responding to the inevitable introduction "...and in back
of every successful man, there is a helpful wife..."
with a smile and a wave. Their passive role or decorative one
gave the candidate an opportunity to show himself as a fine family
man. This is not the case today. In fact, women are no longer
behind their candidate-husbands. Often, women are alongside --
and frequently a step ahead.
With the increasing number of women office
holders, professional and working women, the advocacy role of
many women's groups, and the candidacy of Geraldine Ferraro on
the Democratic Ticket in 1984, the electorate not only wanted
to see the candidates' wives but to hear them as well.
It was in response to a question from an
NBC reporter (Carol Martin) that I first articulated my feelings
about the term "First Lady." She asked how I felt about
the prospect of being the "First Lady," and I frankly
stated that while I looked forward to the White House for Paul
and me, I did not care for the term "First Lady."
"It seems to be decorative and a put-down
of other women, and I would simply like to be known as the president's
wife," I said. She looked startled. For the rest of the
campaign, almost every time I was interviewed and the term "First
Lady" was used, I gave the same reply.
In the David Frost interview in September
at our home in Makanda (IL), I explained that the "First
Lady" title appeared to be a hold-over from colonial days
and our British ancestors, that if I wanted a title, I would earn
it, as I had my law degree and my seat in the Illinois General
Assembly. He looked startled as well. I wanted to make it clear
from the start that my role in the campaign for the nomination
and, if it were to happen, my role as wife of the president, would
be an active one, not ceremonial, speaking to the issues in a
forthright way that women in America would understand and appreciate.
It is possible to be a totally supportive
wife and still be an individual, even in the heady atmosphere
of a presidential campaign. The women that I met during that
campaign understood what I was saying and frequently nodded in
approval. But some reporters, in a condescending way, often inquired
what my "big project" would be if I were the First Lady.
There were to be no recipe books mentioned!
When I mentioned that I had several concerns,
including passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the health
and safety of coal miners, adult literacy, extension of library
service to small communities, pay equity for women, quality child
care with federal standards, and the reunification of families
agreed to by the Soviet Union in the Helsinki Accord but never
carried out, they seemed disappointed that I was not going to
concentrate on one item. Maybe I should have talked about recipes.
Actually, the feedback that I received
to my involvement in Paul's 1988 presidential campaign did include
some extremely positive support. Columnist David Broder wrote
in April 1987 that there is a new breed of candidates' spouses
"who are likely to redefine the concept of the candidate's
wife in 1988 and of first lady in 1989." Mentioning Tipper
Gore, Liddy Dole, and Kitty Dukakis as women of accomplishment
and experience in government he went on to say:
"Jeanne Simon was an Illinois legislator when she married her husband, Paul, now Senator from Illinois and a Democratic presidential hopeful. She is also an author, an activist on issues from arms control to library funding, and almost last year's Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor.
Well, despite such complimentary press,
we all know the results of the 1988 presidential campaign. However,
it is interesting to speculate about the "what if's"
if the Democratic candidate were to have been different. I find
it hard to believe that Paul Simon would have allowed negative
advertising that demeaned him or his patriotism to pass unnoticed.
In an election characterized by thirty-second
sound bites, negative advertising, little or no discussion of
national issues, abbreviated debates, and media more interested
in the "horse race" than in the candidates' positions
on issues, Paul could have risen above the pettiness and attracted
a broad spectrum of people concerned about the quality of life
for their children and grandchildren.
The question I am most often asked is,
"Would you do it again?" I have to admit I don't want
to repeat that experience. But if anyone asks if I regret taking
a year to campaign and then lose, I can honestly say I have no
regrets. Tough and demanding as it was to be on the hustings,
it was also the experience of a lifetime that very few people
are privileged to have.
Our lives, and those of our children, were
enriched by working for Paul's nomination. We worked as a team
for a goal that turned out to be unobtainable, but we gained a
knowledge of the needs of Americans that we will never forget.
I will always remember the conditions at Pine Ridge reservation
we visited in South Dakota. It was there I discovered the problems
of our Native American communities.
Earlier, I mentioned my life-long involvement
with politics and women's issues. My other long-standing commitment,
as if you haven't guessed, is to libraries. And it is with libraries
and information issues that I have been most concerned in the
past several years.
President Clinton designated me to be Chairperson
of the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS) in November, 1993 following my confirmation by the Senate
as a member of the Commission. My appointment was no accident.
I worked to be on the National Commission because I believe that
this group plays a critical role in assuring a healthy and vibrant
future for America.
The Commission plays a key role in recommending
policies to the President and the Congress related to libraries
and information. And it is in the area of information policy
that NCLIS addresses issues related to the power of information
and the empowering nature of access to information.
Since coming to the Commission, I have
sought to develop a proactive, powerful, and dynamic agenda
in addressing opportunities and challenges of an increasingly
critical magnitude. High on my list of the challenges we face
is the prospect of a growing "informational underclass".
The gap between the information "haves"
and the information"have-nots", to use Vice President
Gore's words, presents barriers to those who lack access to the
technology, the educational opportunity, and to the information
resources required to be successful in the next century.
The Vice President referred to this point in speaking to a Forum on Telecommunications Policy held at UCLA in January, 1994. He said:
"We cannot tolerate -- nor in the long run can this nation afford -- a society in which some children become fully educated and others do not; in which some adults have access to training and lifelong education, and others do not."
Along with David Gordon, who writes in Presstime in December 1993, I believe that:
"It is time to expand the traditional "marketplace of ideas" concept to make it a marketplace of both ideas and information; to ensure everyone some opportunity to participate in that marketplace; and to let them share the potential benefits of access to a variety of information services."
The National Commission has concentrated
attention over the past year on the role of libraries in the emerging
"information superhighway" or the National Information
Infrastructure, or what is more popularly known as the Internet.
We believe that libraries provide a way for all parts of a community
to gain access to new electronic information resources and services.
Libraries offer a means of assuring "information equity"
for all people of the nation. And the work that the GPO has done
by providing online access to government information in electronic
format provides an example for the nation.
Let me share the results of a meeting last
June that was planned by Joan R. Challinor, who was nominated
to NCLIS in December 1994. Joan helped organize a conference
a the Radcliffe College on "Women, Information, and the Future".
The conference involved 218 women participants from 46 countries.
It resulted in an information statement that reads, in part,
as follows:
"Recognizing that the advancement of women in their struggle for equal human rights and for sustainable human development depends on access to information essential to their own political, social, economic and physical well-being, and to their families' health and social and economic betterment....We encourage the participants in the in the United Nations Third World Conference on Women in Beijing to urge their governments
1.) to make women's access to information and the means of dissemination a priority of public policy;
2.) to expand their collection, dissemination, and preservation of data and documents on women;
3.) to take advantage of new technologies and assure women's equitable access to them;
4.) to utilize the skills of women in creating and maintaining networks."
Joan Challinor's statement at the "Women,
Information, and the Future" conference included the following
statement:
"Women need information which is clear and widely disseminated in order to take their rightful place in the affairs of the world....Women's information networks should be encouraged to foster reciprocity and cooperation and to ease communication across geographic and national boundaries. Networks promote the ability to think creatively and to work collaboratively. In the world of tomorrow, communication will be the means by which women will take their rightful place in the world. Close cooperation between women's networks and women's movements will be necessary if we are to prepare for the 21st century, already called the 'information century'."
We must work for a better, brighter, and
more promising future for our daughters and our grandaughters.
Thank you for the opportunity of sharing
these thoughts. And my very best wishes for your celebration
of National Women's History Month. Truly, we do have "Promises
to keep" in honor of the women who came before us, for those
women of America who will follow us.