EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT EXTENSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1978 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building; the Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, Volkmer, Holtzman, Butler, McClory, and Railsback. Staff present: Thomas Breen, counsel; Catherine LeRoy and Janice Cooper, assistant counsel; and Roscoe B. Starek III, associate counsel. Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we are continuing our consideration of H.J. Res. 638, to extend the ratification period for the proposed equal rights amendment. The equal rights amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1923. It took nearly 50 years to win final congressional approval. But when it came, that approval was overwhelming: the amendment passed the House on October 12, 1971, by a vote of 354 to 24. It passed the Senate on March 22, 1972, by a vote of 84 to 8. Congressional approval of the amendment thus is not an issue here. That question has already been decided. The matter is now pending in the States. Since 1972, 35 States have ratified the amendment. Three more must ratify before the amendment can become a part of our Constitution. The current deadline for ratification is March 22, 1979, less than a year away. Last fall, this subcommittee began consideration of H.J. Res. 638, to extend the ratification period of the proposed equal rights amendment for an additional 7 years. At that time, we considered the threshold question of the authority of Congress under the Constitution to take such an unprecedented step. The consensus that emerged from the subcommittee's deliberations last fall was that an extension is within the power of Congress. But as I pointed out at the time, that is only the first step in the process. The harder question, the one before us now, is whether such a step would be an appropriate exercise of congressional power. Article V of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, seems to say that we can extend the ratification period if we think that the amendment remains a vital policy question on which public debate and State legislative consideration should be allowed to continue. Our job now is to assess the social, economic, and political factors surrounding the ERA and determine whether it would be reasonable to allow (159) further debate or whether in fact the debate has run its course. The purpose of this set of hearings is to enable us to make that assessment. Rarely has an issue received as much attention as this one. We have all received hundreds of cards, phone calls, telegrams, and letters from all over the country supporting and opposing extension. I hope we will all keep in mind that we are not here simply to count the numbers for and against the extension. We are here to obtain as much information. as possible about the situation in the States regarding the debate over the equal rights amendment. I would like to introduce our first witness. But before I do that, does the gentleman from Virginia have a statement to make? Mr. BUTLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that you covered it very well, but I would like to express our appreciation to the many people here who are attending this hearing and the interest they are expressing in this issue. This is the second in the series of hearings we have had on the question of an extension of time for ratification of the ERA. Our first series was primarily concerned with the constitutional issues presented. The witnesses were for the most part those people who live in kind of a never-never land. For want of a better word, we call them scholars. What they had to say is that Congress can do in this particular area basically what it determines to do. If we choose to extend the time for ratification of this amendment, we can get away with it. It is as pure a policy question as we shall ever have. If we grant this extension, it is going to be a significant break with precedent. It seems to me that that places a very heavy burden on those people who would suggest that the appropriate thing to do is extend it. What I would like to hear from the witnesses today is what are the reasons we should or should not, as a matter of policy, extend the time for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Butler. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you. On a technical point, I move that the subcommittee permit coverage of these hearings by radio and television, pursuant to committee rule 5. Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. McClory? Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the testimony we are about to receive. Briefly, I do want to say that during the earlier hearings the principal question that I raised was whether or not adoption of a resolution to extend the time for the ratification of ERA does, at the same time, provide a vehicle for rescission of existing ratifications, as well as for rescission of any subsequent ratifications that might occur. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that we might be setting if we do provide specifically for rescission. Therefore, I question the wisdom of contriving this mechanism in order to secure an opportunity for additional States to ratify it. I have reviewed the testimony presented at the earlier hearings. I am convinced that this proposal does provide the vehicle for an amendment, which would permit rescission. Therefore, I think it is important on the part of all of us here who support ERA to question whether we would not be better, at this time, to be devoting our best efforts toward securing ratification in the additional three States, rather than diverting our attention to the subject of extension of time. There is a strong possibility that our action may have an adverse effect on the ratification process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. Our first witness is from Austin, Tex. And the subcommittee takes great pleasure in asking our colleague from Austin, Tex., Jake Pickle, to introduce our first witness. Mr. Pickle, we welcome you. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's very kind of you to permit me this special privilege of introducing Liz Carpenter. Liz does not leave a small wake in her path. Usually she creates a tidal wave of some kind when she moves about the city, as she has for many, many years. With her this morning is her very able attorney, her daughter, Christian Carpenter, who is going to back her up on testimony. Liz was the press secretary for Lady Bird Johnson. That was her title, but her influence was known and felt in the east wing and in the west wing and in the kitchen and in weddings, in the choo-choo trains, and in all kinds of important meetings all over the city. Now, Liz is very much an advocate of the equal rights amendment. It was Liz who kind of got me committed to this cause at the beginning. She is part of my problem these days, but she is a great person and a great advocate for the rights of this movement. Now, Liz lives in Austin-now my constituency-and I'm proud to present her to you. To Mr. Butler, I say, I present to Liz the precedent-breaker. You'll be interested in that subject this morning. And to all of them, Liz, I say, sic 'em. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Pickle. Ms. Carpenter, you are recognized and may proceed. Please introduce your colleague. TESTIMONY OF LIZ CARPENTER, CO-CHAIRMAN OF ERAMERICA; AND MARGUERITE RAWALT, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS, CHAIRMAN, ERA RATIFICATION COMMITTEE Ms. CARPENTER. Thank you. I want to say, before my Congressman leaves, that whenever anybody asks me in the future, who the hell do you think you are, I'll say, go ask Jake Pickle. This is Marguerite Rawalt, who has long been a member of the effort to get the legal rights effort through, and is just going to back me up. She's with the National Association of Women Lawyers, and has been the president of it, has been here since 1933. I realize, looking around at these paintings, that I have too. I've been here as a reporter under three chairmen. I have been a wife and mother, and I have known the pain of widowhood. I spent over 34 years of my career life in Washington-from Franklin Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter-as a journalist and later in the Johnson administration, where I have seen politics from both inside and outside the process. Two years ago, I won a bout with Potomac fever and surfaced as a born-again Texan. I went home to Texas to spend the rest of my life writing and living a leisurely life-I thought. I can't retire-none of us who believe in the extension of full civil rights to all persons in this country can slow down-until the equal rights amendment is ratified. The demands for us to speak, to rally, to testify, have convinced me that ERA is more alive today than when it was overwhelmingly passed by the Congress in 1972. I am here today as co-chair of ERAmerica, the national alliance of over 200 organizations of men and women-from the American Bar Association to the Girl Scouts to the National Council of Senior Citizens who support ERA. I have attached a list of the groups supporting ERA to my testimony because I think you will recognize them. They are all from the mainstream of American life and are the groups which have supported most of the progressive measures enacted in this country. And ERA has been a part of both the Republican and Democratic platforms since 1940 and 1944. I come here also as one who has covered this noble Capitol for 16 years, one who watched the march for human rights across your stage and saw Congress fill in the gaps for civil rights legislation in the 1960's. I do not believe this Congress will now, or ever, let time run out on human rights. There must be no arbitrary barrier to ultimate justice. in America. And the clock on equal rights for women or for any citizen in this country poses an arbitrary barrier which must not end when the issue is very much alive. The opponents argue: "Don't change the rules in the middle of the game." Equality under the law for all Americans is not a game. It is a serious issue and deserves the most serious attention of the people of this Nation. We have been subjected to too many games in the legislatures where grown men often seem too embarrassed, too inhibited, too impatient to discuss the matter of simple justice for the women of this country. But the people in this country are just now beginning to inquire and ask for more information. They have been dismayed by the noisy lies about ERA. That is why ERAmerica was created 2 years ago, and we have been racing ever since to catch up for the demand for speakers, meetings, debates. The momentum is at its highest crest now, and there is a high desperation level because Americans realize this is not a women's issue, not a feminist issue, but a simple extension of civil rights to the largest group left out in 1787. I, alone, get 10 or 12 speaking requests each week for the major groups in the unratified States. Such groups in the last 6 weeks as the Alabama Education Association-where political winds are obviously changing National Legislative Conference of the Communications Workers of America; the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors; Junior Leagues throughout the South, and rallies in Chicago, Little Rock, and Birmingham by our own coalitions. Multiply my itinerary with that of Judy Carter, Erma Bombeck, and my Republican colleagues Elly Peterson, Jill Ruckelshaus, and Maureen Reagan. Add in the itinerary of Phyllis Schlafly, and you know the debate is raging. This is not a dormant issue. |