ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

ADDITIONA MATERIAL

Paul, Hon. Bonnie L., member, Virginia House of Delegates, letter dated
May 15, 1978, to Hon. M. Caldwell Butler-

Page

256

Scott, Hon. Eva, member, Virginia House of Delegates, letter dated May 18, 1978, to Hon. Don Edwards_.

257

Smeal, Eleanor Cutri, president, National Organization for Women, Inc., letter dated May 18, 1978, to Hon. Don Edwards

260

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT EXTENSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1977

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The hearing was convened at 2:05 p.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, Volkmer, Beilenson, Butler, and McClory.

Also present: Thomas P. Breen, counsel; Catherine LeRoy, assistant counsel; Janice Cooper, assistant counsel; and Roscoe B. Starek III, associate counsel.

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary permit coverage of the hearing, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any of such methods of coverage pursuant to Commission rule V.

I move the adoption of this.

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there objection?

[No response.]

Mr. EDWARDS. Hearing none, the motion is adopted. [Calls of "can't hear."]

Mr. McCLORY. Will the chairman yield?

Can you hear me?

Mr. EDWARDS. Today we begin hearings on House Joint Resolution 638, which would extend the ratification period for the proposed equal rights amendment for an additional 7 years.

This subcommittee has a history of involvement with the equal rights amendment which goes back many years. Many of us struggled long and hard to secure passage of the amendment, a goal we finally achieved in the 92d Congress. We had hoped to see the amendment ratified quickly and have continued to devote our efforts to that end.

It is no secret that I support the equal rights amendment, and that I am committed to its ratification. I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights is among the ERA's oldest and best of friends here in Congress. But it must be remembered throughout this hearing and the ones

(1)

that are to follow that the implications of the proposal before us go far beyond the immediate question of support for the equal rights amendment. It is important for all of us-those who support the equal rights amendment as well as those who oppose it-to keep in mind that the questions raised by House Joint Resolution 638 apply to all constitutional amendments, to the role of the Congress in proposing them, and to the role of the States in ratifying them.

Indeed, consideration of House Joint Resolution 638 raises an issue no less significant than that of the extent of the power of Congress under article V of the Constitution-an issue on which there appears to be little or no authority.

In order to assist the subcommittee in its deliberations, we have asked for guidance from a number of constitutional scholars, in addition to those who have agreed to appear as witnesses. So far, one of the few areas of agreement among them is that there is no history or legal precedent for what is being proposed here today.

Some would say that this lack of precedent makes our job easy. I disagree; the fact that this is a novel question only makes our responsibility greater. For that reason, the subcommittee plans to consider carefully all the views presented to us over the next few days.

I want to take this opportunity to express the subcommittee's gratitude to all of our witnesses and to those individuals who have offered us their advice and counsel. Their statements will be made a part of a permanent record of these proceedings.

Finally, the questions we discuss in this set of hearings are merely the first in a series of questions which the subcommittee will have to resolve. Not only will we have to determine whether an extension is constitutionally permissible, we also will have to decide whether such a step would be an appropriate exercise of congressional power. That, in the end, may be the most difficult question of all.

Now, I will yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking Republican, Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am afraid that the moment of truth in my life is about to arrive. Prior to becoming a member of the Congress of the United States, I was member of the General Assembly of Virginia.

Mr. EDWARDS. They can't hear.

Mr. BUTLER. But the Congress in its wisdom

[Calls of "can't hear."]

Mr. BUTLER. If anyone in the back is unable to hear me, I want to assure you, you have not missed anything very important.

I was about to say that prior to my election to the Congress, the Congress in its wisdom chose to submit the equal rights amendment to the States.

Fortunately for me, it arrived in the Commonwealth of Virginia after I had left the general assembly. Thus, I have been able to tell my friends in Virginia that I never had to vote on the equal rights amendment in the general assembly. I have been able to tell my colleagues in the Congress that this action was taken before I arrived. But now the moment of truth is almost here. I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to review the witnesses' opinions today. I think we are going to find, though, that the decision which is before us will be a political question.

The question which we will ultimately have to resolve will be a political question. I am hoping the witnesses before us will tell us what the responsibility of the Congress is when a political question comes before us.

Would this give us license to do whatever we want to do; or does that impose upon us a heavier than ordinary obligation to respect the Constitution and the amending process? We know that the ultimate decision rests with us; there is no review in the courts. The review will take place in every Members' conscience and in the Congress itself.

I am anxious to hear what the witnesses will tell us about the nature of the decision we will be asked to make; particularly, its effect on the process and in terms of the precedents what our response to the options will be. Will we establish good precedents or bad precedents once we take a particular view?

I know that ultimately the witnesses will be very helpful to us because it is not a question of the merits of the equal rights amendment, but rather a matter of how the Congress will function this time and with similar problems which will undoubtedly arise in the future. Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. I have no comments at this time, Mr. Chairman, except to say this is obviously a very serious problem and that I am glad we are considering it.

The States have not ratified the amendment. Three more States are necessary. I look forward to these hearings to see if somehow this question can be resolved.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.
Mr. McCLORY. I do have a brief statement.

As an original sponsor of the equal rights amendment, and, as you know, the principal proponent on the Republican side of the aisle when it gained overwhelming approval in the House of Representatives in 1972, I am, nevertheless, unhappy about the convening of this meeting to consider the proposals to extend the time within which the States might ratify the equal rights amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my support of ERA has not diminished. I have exerted every possible influence to encourage ratification of the equal rights amendment by members of the Illinois General Assembly. I do not have any reason to question the constitutionality of the Congress to act on the subject of extending the time for States to ratify. For that matter, there is probably no question that the Congress could express iself legislatively on the question of rescission once ratification has occurred.

However, I feel on both of these subjects it is a strategic mistake to consider legislation to extend the time beyond the traditional 7 yearsas set forth in the original resolution adopted by the House and the Senate.

In addition, on the question of rescission-whether we should specifically authorize, or contrariwise, deny that the States have any such right-action of either type could have only an adverse effect on the question of ultimate ratification of ERA.

Mr. Chairman, let me laud those original supporters of the equal rights amendment who supported the measure before our committee. in 1972. They were a very stable and courageous group who sought only to assure that men and women in our Nation have equal constitutional

rights. Some subsequent supporters of the equal rights amendment have unfortunately confused this simple constitutional issue with subjects which I would regard as wholly irrelevant and highly prejudicial to the equal rights movement.

It seems to me that lately we have come to realize that some of these irrelevant issues have interfered with the logical and, in my view, necessary adoption of the constitutional change which is implicit in the equal rights amendment.

If these hearings could result in a reaffirmation of our support for ERA, then they would serve a useful purpose. If in urging an extension of the time for the States to ratify we acknowledge a weakness in our commitment, then the effort here will have been in vain, and the result will be contrary to that anticipated by the sponsors.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I have declined to sponsor this legislation. I would prefer that it remain dormant as an issue for the simple reason that, in my view, the measure, if acted upon, will do more harm than good to the cause of assuring equal constitutional rights to men and women in our Nation. [Applause.]

Mr. EDWARDS. Please stop. This a congressional hearing.

We are pleased to have with us, sitting with the subcommittee today, a distinguished lawyer and member of the full Judiciary Committee, although not a member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And I thank the members of the subcommittee for their graciousness in inviting me here.

VOICE. It is very difficult for us to hear the lady.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for your graciousness

VOICE. It is still not good.

Mr. BUTLER. There is a seat on the front row.

VOICE. I am not that deaf.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee I wish to thank you for your graciousness and your courtesy in inviting me to sit with you today.

On behalf of the 20 other persons who have cosponsored House Joint Resolution 638, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of this matter and for holding hearings on it.

The cosponsors of this resolution have every hope that the equal rights amendment will be ratified before March 22, 1979, but do believe there might be need for an insurance policy to assure that the deadline will not arbitrarily end all debate on the ERA.

Although the question of equal rights for women is just as vital and alive today as it was in 1972 and the need for the amendment is just as great as it ever was, all of us recognize that the amendment has generated substantial interest in the public, but, unfortunately, some misinformation as well. It is precisely for this reason that we think that there ought to be ample opportunity for State legislatures to consider the ERA thoroughly and to conduct an informed debate about it. Indeed, the introduction of this resolution is simply to assist Congress in its commitment to assure a full and informed and knowledgeable debate in the State legislatures on this matter.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »