the two of us, that we never see each other. But this is a great occasion. Relative to the airplane, I have an 11:20 flight to Chicago, where I have to make a connecting flight at 1:30 to Springfield, to try to get to the end of my session. But I think that we're going to have to delay the 11:20 flight. I may be able to get something else.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.

Senator EGAN. I know that you wanted, I think, the three legislators of the States together.

Mr. EDWARDS. We had hoped that all four of the State legislators could be questioned at the same time. It would be helpful.

Senator EGAN. I'm willing to do that, in spite of the fact that the session may last longer than I expected. I'll call and ask that they delay it somewhat.

Gentlemen, I am from the northwest side of the city of Chicago. My district is comprised mostly of the northwest side of the city, but I do have some suburban towns in my district. There are three congressional overlapping districts within my legislative district, and to give you some idea of the divergence of those three congressional districts, one of my congressional Members is Representative Hyde; the other is Representative Frank Annunzio; and the third is Representative Abner Mikva. So there is a divergence of philosophy, of course, expressed in those overlapping districts.

But principally, my district is comprised of Frank Annunzio's congressional district.

Since the equal rights resolution was adopted by Congress March 22, 1972, we, in Illinois, have been wrestling with the problem each year. As a matter of fact, Illinois has spent more time with the equal rights amendment ratification than any other State in the Union. And this is the last, 7th, year, and it is still there, and it is still very obvious that it is there.

I voted in favor of the ratification on the equal rights amendment after very careful and thoughtful consideration. I am fully supportive of the concept of nondiscrimination between the sexes, and in fact, voted for the ratification of our 1970 Illinois constitution, which contains a very strong nondiscrimination clause.

It's interesting to note that we in Illinois have also passed a lot of legislation last year, in particular, which is antidiscrimination legislation. We have the antidiscrimination clause in our bill of rights in the State constitution, and I am supportive of those. I would like to see, however, more litigation where it is needed, and the absence of litigation in many of these areas indicates to me that we are somewhat comfortable in Illinois with the existence of the law as it is there now. In spite of that comfort, and in spite of the fact that the House Members, all of the House Members from my district voted negatively, and one of the former representatives in the 16th legislative district is the now-Congressman Hyde. He was in my district. I did, in fact, support the ERA. But ever since the ERA issue was initially put to the Illinois General Assembly, demonstrations for and against it have been held throughout Illinois, particularly in the capital building in Springfield and the surrounding lawn. And it is there that we see the demonstrations when we are in session.

In addition to the scores of demonstrations, there have been literally thousands of letters received by most, if not all, of us, in both the

House and the Senate. Each letter requires that it be answered, and that the answer be typed, and typed on paper that we have to buy. We have to dictate many of the answers because of the particular nature of the letter. There are mailing expenses which are incurred, and then phone calls each week, sometimes daily, sometimes more often. Even at home, I have visitors come to my home relative to this issue. In a typical legislative week, the capitol building is besieged on Mondays by hundreds of proponents to the amendment, and on Tuesday there are hundreds of opponents to the amendment. And this is not unusual. This is rather typical.

Really, I do not mean to demean in any way the sincerity, the dedication, of these participants. They are quite properly exercising their fundamental right to petition and express their sentiments and wishes in the matter. And they must be accommodated. And I think that that becomes the problem. They must be accommodated.

Now, we find that economic boycotting is being utilized in an attempt to achieve passage of the resolution. I myself have been threatened on more than one occasion by both proponents and opponents with retaliation on this single issue in the ballot poll. But I think that at this time a 7-year extesion would, in my opinion, seriously impede the orderly processes of State government in Illinois. I think that we face, presently-and it continues, if worse-a shortage of time to consider the major issues and problems confronting our State, issues involving education, mental health, environmental concerns, highway needs, and of course, a precarious financial crisis. Time is something that we're losing.

There is a shortage of time to deliberate on all of these issues, and the decisions made by the General Assembly affect every corner of the State and every citizen. Our legislative activities affect county and city governments, from metropolitan areas like Rockford and Chicago to little villages with names like Mounds and Rosebud and Dongola to the south. And it is a divergence of attention that we must dedicate our time to, time which is running out.

And we need as much time as possible to attempt to balance the budget, while still meeting the increased demands for services, and a continuing, very strong antitax sentiment throughout the State. There is a problem with our school-aid formula in Illinois. It is not perfect, but the constitution requires that the State contribute more than half, more than 50 percent, to the budgeting, to the funding of education. So we have a formula. The formula tries to dole the money to the school districts as fairly as possible. It is not perfect and it needs a great deal of attention. We need a fair and equitable school aid formula. We have to relieve pressure from the overburdened real estate taxpayer in regard to the school-aid formula.

There is a drastic need for sweeping reform in our mental health situation, in the whole field, so that patients will receive the kind of care and protection that they need. We have drug abuse problems relative to the mental health situation. We have to have time to consider our $10 billion budget in Illinois. That's a larger budget than the majority of nations in the world. These are important things.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge this subcommittee recommend to the full Committee on the Judiciary that the request for extension

of the time limitation embodied in the original resolution be denied. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will thank you for the invitation, and I'd like to turn over the microphone. I think you would like us to come back at the end of the statements for questioning.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator Egan. If you could just please

remain at the table.

Our next witness is the Hon. Dona Carlson, distinguished member of the Arizona House of Representatives. Representative Carlson, we're pleased to have you here.

Without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record. [The prepared statement of Hon. Donna Carlson follows:]

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVE DONNA CARLSON, ARIZONA FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council and as a legislator from Arizona.

For the sake of brevity, I will not read the entire statement of the ALEC chairman, The Honorable Woody Jenkins of Louisiana. Mr. Jenkins' statement, along with a composite page of press comments on the extension, is in the form of a letter mailed to every State legislator on March 8, 1978 (Attachments A & B) In his letter, Mr. Jenkins states, "As a constitutional amendment, ERA deserved a fair hearing. But 7 years is a reasonable time. No other constitutional amendment in our history has ever taken more than four years. When speaking in support of the 7-year rule, ERA proponent, Senator Birch Bayh, told the U.S. Senate: "The 7-year time limitation assures that ratification reflects the contemporaneous views of the people."

Changing and extending the ratification time for a constitutional amendment is a dangerous precedent to set. Future constitutional amendments could be sent to the State legislatures for indefinite or continued periods of time.

In addition to the serious legal precedent, extending the time for the ERA will open up to legislative and court challenges all the past ratifications and recissions of ERA, because those states did so under the original seven-year limit established by Congress.

Whether or not it is legal to extend the time period to fourteen years, it seems grievously unfair to put the ERA monkey on the backs of state legislators for fourteen years. What would you think of a football coach who demanded a fifth quarter because his team was behind?

Speaking now as a legislator from Arizona, I would call your attention to the letters from several Arizona legislative leaders which are attached. They include a brief statement from:

The Honorable Frank Kelley, Speaker (Attachment C)

The Honorable Peter Kay, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Attachment D)

The Honorable Stanley Akers, Former Speaker and presently Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (Attachment E)

The Honorable Leo Corbet, Former Judiciary Committee Chairman and presently Minority Leader of the Senate (Attachment F)

The Honorable Bob Stump, Former Senate President and presently Congressman for Congressional District 3 (Attachment G)

The Honorable Trudy Camping, State Senator (Attachment H)

The Honorable Tom Goodwin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (Attachment I)

The Honorable Ed Sawyer, President of the Senate (Attachment J)

Mr. Chairman, these letters all have a common theme. They state that the amendment has had full and fair debate in the State of Arizona. They further state that extension of time limitation would be unfair, wrong and serve no useful purpose.

I would call your attention to the statement of our Speaker (Attachment C) which specifically speaks to the issue of extension. As you will note, there are two additional attachments to his letter. One is a copy of a substitute amendment to a memorial offered in Committee of the Whole on March 30, 1978. Second, is a

copy of the portion of the Journal of the House which deals with the amendment. The amendment, which was offered on a memorial to Congress dealing with the Orme Dam, substituted a memorial in favor of extension of the time limit on the ERA. The amendment failed by a vote of 13 ayes, 37 nays and 10 not voting. The sponsor, not willing to accept the 3 to 1 defeat in Committee of the Whole, then offered a substitute motion (to the Majority Leader's motion) which would amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to read that HCM 2004 be given a do pass recommendation with the floor amendment which had previously failed. A rollcall vote was requested and the substitute motion failed by a vote of 14 ayes, 44 nays and 2 not voting. As our Speaker stated, "This is a decisive indication that our legislators do not favor the extension."

In addition to the legislator's statements, I have submitted to you a memo which shows the history of all the hearings and committee meetings held specifically on the amendment (Attachment K). Our conservative estimate is 70 hours (exclusive of House floor debate) have been spent since 1973. Hearings were also held in the Senate in 1972 and those records are not reflected on the memo. This is a total of 14 hours per year and I can attest from personal knowledge that the backsides of many of our legislators have gone to sleep sitting and listening to hours and hours of testimony.

As the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated, "The only other issue that has taken up more time in the past six years . . . has been revision of the entire Criminal Code . . ."

Outside of the legislature, there has been a very spirited and continued debate on the issue. During 1975 when I served as Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I personally participated in 90 debates and “equal time" speeches on the ERA. I put a lot of mileage on both my car and myself that year, because the 90 unpaid public appearances included cities and towns throughout the entire state.

In the printed media, I would suspect the only local issue that has had more column inches would be the trial on the murder of Investigative Reporter Don Bolles. My aide interviewed Loyal Meek, Editor of the Phoenix Gazette, the largest afternoon paper in Arizona, and found that the Gazette had run a yearly average of 20 editorial and 9 syndicated columns. The morning paper, also owned by Pulliam Publishing, had run 47 editorials in 1975 alone and an average of 19 syndicated columns per year. On several occasions, many papers ran full-page articles on the pro and con of the ERA. I have reduced three samples and submitted them with this testimony (Attachments L, M, and N).

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I believe the information I have supplied shows that the proposed 27th Amendment has had full and fair debate in Arizona. We have, in the course of the controversy, examined our statutes and corrected inequities where they existed. We have determined by the flood of constituent letters and calls, that the people of Arizona do not favor ratification and feel that the issue of women's rights is being properly handled on the state and national legislative level. However, Mr. Chairman, we have many other issues that demand attention and the 14 hours per year that we have spent on the ERA could be used to address those issues in the future.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL,
Washington, D.C., March 1978.

DEAR LEGISLATOR: The Equal Rights Amendment has been a "hot potato" in state legislatures since March 22, 1972, when Congress sent it out to the states for ratification. At first it passed many states with little or no controversy. After the first year, however, it produced heated controversy, prolonged debates, redundant hearings, and emotional votes.

The ERA Joint Resolution passed by Congress on March 22, 1972, clearly states that the amendment will become part of the Constitution when "ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress."

In some states, 1978 is the seventh consecutive year that ERA has been discussed, debated and voted on. Some ERA proponents are now pressuring Congress to extend the ratification period to fourteen years, or until March 22, 1986. They recently had a demonstration on the U.S. Capitol to demand that Congress pass the ERA extension bill.

As a constitutional amend, ERA deserved a fair hearing. But seven years is a reasonable time. No other constitutional amendment in our history has ever taken more than four years. When speaking in support of the seven-year rule,

ERA proponent Senator Birch Bayh told the U.S. Senate: "The seven-year time limitation assures that ratification reflects the contemporaneous views of the people."

Changing and extending the ratification time for a constitutional amendment is a dangerous precedent to set. Future constitutional amendments could be sent to the state legislatures for indefinite or continued periods of time.

In addition to the serious legal precedent, extending the time for ERA will open up to legislative and court challenges all the past ratifications and rescissions of ERA, because those states did so under the original seven-year limit established by Congress.

Some states thought they would be rid of ERA by ratifying it. They have found to their dismay that ratification does not stop the controversy. In ratified states, ERA opponents are urging their legislature to rescind its ratification. Four states, Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Kentucky, have already rescinded ERA. In at least a dozen other states, the issue of rescission has become just as time-consuming and emotional as ratification.

Whether or not it is legal to extend the time period to fourteen years, it seems grievously unfair to put the ERA monkey on the backs of state legislators for fourteen years. What would you think of a football coach who demanded a fifth quarter because his team was behind?

If you are in a state that ratified early and where ERA has not been a big issue, just remember that extending the time will burst open the whole matter of rescission. Press comments all over the country indicate that elementary fairness will compel the consideration of rescissions if the time limit is extended. Since the ERA extension bill currently pending in Congress directly affects you and your state legislature, it would be to your benefit to let your Congressman and Senators know how you feel. You may want to consider sponsoring a resolution in your own legislature urging Congress not to extend the time for ERA ratification. I have enclosed such a sample resolution, for your consideration. Sincerely,

LOUIS E. "WOODY" JENKINS, Louisiana House of Representatives, Chairman, ALEC.

P.S. Extending the time on ERA has nothing to do with whether you are for or against the Equal Rights Amendment. Enclosed is a page of newspaper editorial reaction on the extension bill-mostly from newspapers that are strongly pro-ERA.