The debate will not cease. It will not cease with the passage of time. We are still trying to wrestle with some interpretations of, certainly, the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

The Constitution brought to fruition and continues to govern this democratic republic.

The ideals of liberty and equalty and justice were spoken very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, but it took the Constitution to give it some structure. And I would say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, rather than us continuing to shout about all men and women being created equal in a natural state or under law, that we have somehow got to transpose this into the fundamental law of this country-which is the Constitution of the United States.

I favor the equal rights amendment; I always have. I favor extending the time limit for ratification. Congress can do this. Some have already said that we can do it by a simple majority. I believe that we can, and I agree with that.

This is a political question, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. You don't have to be a very thoughtful constitutional expert to recognize that this is a political question; and it is one on which you will make a political judgment. But it is a political question which runs to the heart, the core, the absolute essence of what this republic is supposed to be about, with all people having equal names and faces, and equal opportunities to improve or to fail as they so desire.

I don't think you ought to sidestep on the issue of whether the extension of time will give greater time for rescission of ratification; that is not an issue before you. I would hope that you would hope that you would recognize that that is a separate issue; that the matter of an extension of date is a procedural detail which only we in the Congress

can answer.

The amendment process is important to the entire constructionthe way the Constitution was constructed. Madison thought the amendment process as set out in the Constitution-"... to be stamped with every mark of propriety. Certainly, you will do that. It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and the extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

It was a member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention who made this statement: "There is an apprehension that the liberties of the people are in danger." There are people who feel that this equal rights amendment says that the liberties of the people are in danger. Women believe we believe that we are due this expression of our equality.

We feel that as strongly as you gentlemen who are already there. And we want this country to speak with a final voice. And I want this committee to give the country time to speak with a final voice.

I know that this committee will not be misled by arguments which have nothing to do with the substance of the equal rights amendment. I know that you will not allow this simple amendment to become so weighted with arguments which have nothing to do with it that it destroys the opportunities for this country to speak in a loud and clear voice.

Change the rules in the middle of the game? It is no "game," Mr.

Chairman. We are talking about the rights of living, breathing, viable working human beings, individuals. We are talking about the Constitution of the United States, something which needs to be done to make it still more perfect.

It is no game. There is no game board here.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the committee to support this resolution because it deserves your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Ms. Jordan.
[Applause.]

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan.
Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congresswoman Jordan, I commend you upon your statement. First, taking care of a technical matter, Mr. Chairman, I move that the subcommittee permit coverage of the hearing by television, radio broadcast, and photography, pursuant to committee rule 5.

Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. DRINAN. You are, as usual, Ms. Jordan, very eloquent and persuasive. Would you sum up, or mention the strongest argument on the other side, and give some reflections on it?

What, if any, argument do they have?

Ms. JORDAN. That is a question that I really can't answer, because the argument on the other side is so hollow and empty that I have difficulty-[pause-laughter]—all right.

The strongest argument on the other side, in all seriousness: The people on the other side, the people of the United States of America and of the ratified States, expected that when the Congress said, in the initial submission of the Constitution to the States, when it said: This amendment shall be effective upon the ratification of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years, that the Congress meant what it said; and that it was in reliance on that 7 years that other States went ahead and did it. And that to extend that date would be unfair to those who felt that they had only that time period.

I think that is the strongest argument. Countering that, there is nothing in the Constitution, or its history, that says once the Congress sets a deadline, that that is involate; that you can't change it. There is nothing which says that. If we want to make sure that we are reflecting the contemporaneous expression of the people's approval, then it would make more sense for, not the Congress which submits the amendment, but for the Congress which is in session at the point of ratification to define whether this amendment reflects the consensus or "contemporaneous expression of approval of the people" at that time.

Mr. DRINAN. Would you expand a bit on the right to rescission? Because there are some members of this subcommittee, and I am certain of the House, who would feel that the Congress, if we enact 14 years instead of 7, is in fact changing the nature of the "contemporaneous” period.

Consequently, if we give it a different contemporaneous period, we should simultaneously give the right to rescind.

Ms. JORDAN. I know that that is an argument which has been raised. I just give it short shrift in my testimony, because I don't feel that

that is essential to the issue, or related to the issue. But the fact is— and, Congressman Drinan, you and I know that neither of us can sit here and state, as a flat constitutional matter, when a State can rescind, when it cannot rescind; whether extension of the time will allow greater opportunity for rescission. All we can state are what the facts

now are.

And that is that this resolution has nothing to do with rescission; that rescission has been a constitutional puzzle for as long as we have been a country; that article V, the amendment article, is the one which tells us the way we should amend the Constitution, but is absolutely silent on rescission; and that nothing we do here in this resolution can affect the state of the law-as confusing and puzzling as it is now. Mr. DRINAN. That is a very fine statement. I thank you. Your testimony has been extraordinarily helpful. Thank you.

Ms. JORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure that we can agree as to the eloquence of the gentlelady from Texas who has delivered a most forceful and persuasive statement here this morning.

I would like to ask a couple of questions. I will ask you a couple of questions all at once, if you don't mind, and then you can comment on them all in your response.

My first question would be: With 12, at least, of the 15 States not ratified, having sessions either this year or next year before-with ample time-March 2 next year, don't you believe that we can achieve ratification by that date?

My second question doesn't relate to the subject of rescission. I am against granting rescission, I might say, because I do not think that was contemplated by the Founding Fathers, as you yourself indicated in your testimony. We have testimony that this measure now pending before us can be amended at the time we grant the extension to provide for rescission during that same period. That definitely will be an issue on the floors of the House of Representatives and the Senate, should this measure go that far.

I am wondering if you do not think, the subject of ratification is diluted by devoting attention to this? Also would you agree that we are providing a vehicle for rescission which both you and I oppose? Ms. JORDAN. Is that the conclusion of your dual question?

Mr. McCLORY. Yes.

Ms. JORDAN. Let's deal with the first one, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Please proceed.

Ms. JORDAN. There is a possibility that this amendment could be ratified by March 22, 1979. There is that possibility. It is not assured. But it is highly unlikely.

If you can assure me that the State of Illinois is going to somehow revert from its careless ways and become champions of human rights

Mr. MCCLORY. I will try.

Ms. JORDAN. I know you will try, but try harder. [Laughter and applause.]

Of course, I know that the gentleman from Illinois is a supporter of the equal rights amendment. I know that you have problems with

JL.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to join in welcoming a very distinguished leader, one that we do not always agree with, but one who has strong opinions and who enunciates them very clearly and articulately. She has appeared frequently on the CBS Radio Perspective with points of view which she composes and articulates very well.

She is a charming person, too, and I am happy to welcome her here this morning.

Mr. EDWARDS. We welcome you. You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF "STOP ERA," CHICAGO, ILL.

Mrs. SCHLAFLY. I would like to thank the distinguished Congressmen from the State of Illinois for the generous statements, and to return the compliment.

I am Phyllis Schlafly, the national chairman of "STOP ERA," the organization that has led the opposition to the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

I am very grateful to the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for hearing our reasons for opposing the bill to extend the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment.

Our reasons for opposing the bill have nothing to do with the arguments for or against ERA, and I will address myself solely to the issue of extension.

If Congress now changes the time period for ratification of the equal rights amendment, which was positively set at 7 years in House Joint Resolution 208, passed by the 92d Congress on March 22, 1972, regretfully, millions of Americans will look upon this as an unfair attempt to tamper with the U.S. Constitution.

"Tamper" is the word used by the New York Times. The Washington Post calls it "tinkering." The New Republic predicts that people will feel that ERA has been "snuck through." Dean Erwin Griswold calls it "a breach of faith." These words are only symptomatic of the intuitive feeling of the American people that the ERA proponents are trying to change our Constitution in an unfair way because they can't win if they obey the law.

The last few years have not exactly been good ones for public confidence in the institutions of our Government. Many Americans have been disillusioned by unfortunate acts of some persons in the executive branch and in the Congress, and by some decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. But one institution of our Government has remained sacred: the U.S. Constitution.

If millions of Americans believe that the Constitution too has been tarnished, the fallout will be worse than that from Watergate. No amount of legal verbiage will be able to justify something that the American people feel is fundamentally unfair.

Not only is the move to change the ERA time period unfair, but some of the arguments presented to this subcommittee are dishonest. On November 1, 1977, Assistant Attorney General John N. Harmon, appeared before this subcommittee to present a 51-page Justice De

the State legislative bodies feel that way-some of them, not all of them.

Ms. JORDAN. I disagree with those State legislative members and I say that they are wrong.

Mr. VOLKMER. The next thing that I would like to ask: In the event that we do have this joint resolution before the House and the Senate, do you feel that it is only necessary for a majority of the members to vote? Or two-thirds?

Ms. JORDAN. That is the way I feel, that only a majority would be necessary.

Mr. VOLKMER. Now also, in the event that we did not extend by March 22, 1979, do you have an opinion as to whether or not thereafter the Congress could open it up again for ratification?

Ms. JORDAN. Without extending the deadline? Without the passage of this resolution, could Congress wait awhile after March 1979Mr. VOLKMER. Let's say we passed one in 1979 and it goes into effect in September or October.

Ms. JORDAN. Congressman Volkmer, the time will have expired for that resolution and I do not feel that would be a viable issue for consideration by the Congress because the resolution would, for all intents and purposes, be dead.

Mr. VOLKMER. Are we then supposing, then, that this resolution— is this resolution a law? Or is this resolution part of the Constitution— 638?

Ms. JORDAN. I do not feel it is a part of the Constitution. It is a joint resolution of the House and Senate to extend time.

Mr. VOLKMER. It does not have to be signed by the President?

Ms. JORDAN. No; that is what the authorities say.

Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you very much.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Beilensen.

Mr. BEILENSEN. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I agree with everything, generally, that has been said.

Mr. EDWARDS. There is a quorum call before the House.

The committee will recess for 10 minutes.

Ms. Jordan, we thank you very much for your splendid testimony. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.] [Recess.]

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order for the privilege of introducing our next witness. I have the honor of recognizing the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Phyllis, I do not always agree with you on every issue but I must say that you have been, in my opinion, active in a constructive manner in support of your beliefs. I think you have been a very articulate spokeswoman for many causes that have really been a major concern to our country. [Laughter.]

I am proud that you are from Illinois, and I am proud to introduce you to the subcommittee.

Mr. EDWARDS. For the second introducer, we will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.