MS. CARPENTER. We have a program on all of it. We're in the process of doing that now. In this ballot, there's an argument over which strategy is the best to get it through, and some of us have worked so hard to get it through that we're going to go down to the wire. That's where our priority is. There are others who think that it is very necessary to say to the opponents that ERA is not going to go

away.

I don't see anything wrong, Mr. Butler, with Congress reviewing, at certain interludes, whether debate is still active, whether feeling is still intense on an issue, because it seems to me that the worst thing you want to do is drop the guillotine while life is in the body.

Mr. BUTLER. Of course you would not want to drop the guillotine if the life was left in the body.

I judge that you are so wrapped up in securing the ratification of the ERA that you have not zeroed in on the policy considerations of extension. Do you have a strong view as to whether or not we ought to extend?

Ms. CARPENTER. I have a very strong view, personally, that it must be extended. I personally am expending my time answering the demands to go out and rally. You've been in politics a long time, and you know that often votes are very close, and that's what we're up against in these 15 States. We have been bartered and betrayed so many times that we are terribly afraid that it's still happening, and I do think that a lot of wool has been pulled over the eyes of some of the members on what ERA means.

And let me just say, Mr. Butler, we've had a very hard time getting attention from male legislators for more than about 60 seconds. Now it's grown to about 3 minutes now on the women's issue. But for some reason, they would just like to sweep it under the rug and wish it went away. Well, it's not going to go away.

But you're the ones who will decide that, whether you want to call a halt on the human rights issue.

Mr. BUTLER. Well, I do not believe it is a question of halting. Even if we do not extend, there is the option of reopening the question by resubmitting the proposed amendment to the States. What is your view of how we should consider the States who have rescinded their ratification? Do you think we should acknowledge that they have a right to rescind or not?

Ms. CARPENTER. Well, all precedents-and I know that's very strong with you-have never allowed rescission. And the Madison principle was to allow States that-that it was counted when they voted yes in tota and in full effect. I'm not an authority on that, and I don't think that's involved at all in whether you extend it. It's a separate issue.

Mr. BUTLER. It is a separate issue, but if we do not extend and three additional States ratify, the question comes to Congress as to whether the wishes of those States who have said they want to rescind their earlier ratification will be respected. Since you obviously believe in protecting the rights and free expression and full participation, is it consistent with your philosophy that we should deny the States the right to rescind their prior ratification?

Ms. CARPENTER. Well, I would stand on the precedent.
Mr. BUTLER. But not principle?

Ms. CARPENTER. Yes.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. I have no further questions.

Mr. EDWARDS. The House is in session today at 10 o'clock. And from time to time we'll be interrupted. At this time, since there's a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, we will recess for 10 minutes. [Recess.]

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join in welcoming my long-time friend, Liz Carpenter, for whom I have the greatest respect. She not only presents a very controversial testimony but has been very entertaining as well.

I am trying to persuade some members of the Illinois General Assembly who have voted against the ratification of ERA to vote for ERA. As I was listening to your testimony, I wondered which of the arguments could I use. I do not want to denominate them in the way that you have denominated some of the State lawmakers who have been against ERA.

Ms. CARPENTER. I think one of the most persuasive, as far as Illinois is concerned, is that it was one of the first States-it was the first State to ratify suffrage, and it is certainly in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Adlai Stevenson, a long line of statesmen before it. All your leadership out there is for it, the Republicans and the Democrats.

I think you probably have to point out this unusual barrier there and, I would hope, the history of how we were left out. So many people don't understand that we really were left out quite intentionally. Mr. MCCLORY. As I indicated, at the earlier hearings, I am not one of the cosponsors of this measure to extend time for ratification. I view it as strategically unwise. It seems to be defensive, admitting that we are unable to secure ratification between now and next March 22, which places us in a defensive posture and amounts to a defeatist attitude.

As you say, there is no time limit on extension of human rights. That would mean, however, that should States rescind during the next 7 years and we still did not have 38, then we would have to extend the time again.

Ms. CARPENTER. I don't see, Mr. McClory, how the rescission thing has anything to do with this, because the rescission method is-it's going to go off like minefields. And you know, it's used by the opponents as a tactic to stop it. You would never have had any amendments if you had not had the Madison principle.

Mr. MCCLORY. I agree with you on that; there never has been authority. The word "ratification" is included in article V, but not "rescission." Yet, I am fearful that if this measure goes from this committee to the floor of the House, it will serve as the vehicle for attaching an amendment to permit the States, during this extended period, to rescind. And I do not want to give the opponents that vehicle. I do not want to have that principle established.

Ms. CARPENTER. Don't you think it's appropriate that the Judiciary Committee review amendments as they are in their progress from time to time to see if the very questions that were put forth by-in the case of Coleman versus Miller, on whether they're still alive, whether they're still needed. It seems to me that's quite appropriate action for you, and this is a review at this time. And if you find out the debate still rages, the arguments are not dormant, and there are 15 States that are really being a blockade against the majority——

Mr. McCLORY. I do not think I am alone in the position that I take here. I note that 13 of the 15 nonratified States will still have legislative sessions this year or next year.

MS. CARPENTER. Some of them, though, sir, don't have legislative sessions until after April.

Mr. MCCLORY. Well, I'm looking at the list

Ms. CARPENTER. Florida, and if I'm not mistaken, Louisiana. Louisiana is still in session, but

Mr. McCLORY. Well, there are a substantial number. It would seem to me that we should be devoting our full efforts toward ratification in the additional three States. I think we are scattering our fire and diminishing our effect by going all out, as we seem to be doing, for this extension.

Ms. CARPENTER. There are enough of us to do both.

Mr. McCLORY. What would be your position if we extended the time for an additional 7 years, and it is not ratified at the end of the additional 7-year period?

Ms. CARPENTER. I think you ought to review and see if it's still alive. I'd love to see you just lift the lid.

Mr. EDWARDS. If the gentleman would suspend a minute.

This is a committee hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. We would appreciate the lack of applause. Thank you.

Mr. McCLORY. We both appreciate it, but I agree with the chairman. When we had the equal rights amendment before this committee, the principal opponents were the organized labor groups. I might say Marge Rawalt, sitting beside you, is one of the principal proponents of this measure and was one of the most persuasive elements in convincing this subcommittee to report ERA. It went out by a 3 to 4 vote, as she may recall.

It went to the full committee and was decided decisively on the floor of the House and then in the Senate. Organized labor is finally beginning to line up behind you now and support this. This is important in Illinois, particularly to the representatives in the house and senate from the city of Chicago.

Ms. CARPENTER. Yes; organized labor is committed to the ERA. It wasn't for a long time, but when they came around, Ohio came around and some of the industrial States. The sad thing in Illinois is that the AFL-CIO, in their first requirements for guidelines for what they would suggest on voting for people in the legislature, it did not include ERA as an issue. This was our greatest disappointment. We called it to the attention of Mr. Meany, and he has tried to call it to the attention of people there. But the whole thing gets down to the fact that we simply have to have some men in power to help us on this because we are up against some-there are those who consider this is a worthy issue, and I think it's a worthy issue.

It is truly an extension of civil rights, and we're the biggest group left out, spending all this time getting the attention of the legislature. We're there and we're not going to let the legislation die.

Mr. McCLORY. I guess my time is up. I certainly hope you can get the three States.

Ms. CARPENTER. You can certainly help us, with four Republican senators from the Republican side of Illinois.

Mr. McCLORY. Senator Egan and I will do our best.

Ms. CARPENTER. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. The principal author of this resolution, Ms. Holtzman, is also a member of the House Judiciary, although, unfortunately, not a member of the subcommittee.

Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to address the witness.

I'd like to thank Ms. Carpenter for appearing and for giving us the benefit of her views on the need for the extension. I would just like to clarify a few matters.

Could you tell me how many States will have legislative sessions, of the unratified States, between now and, let's say, the end of 1978, in which the issue of ratification could be considered?

Ms. CARPENTER. I think that-there are not very many. Illinois is in session now. We hope to get it up for a favorable vote in May. Louisiana has been fooling around with it for a long time, but I don't think there's much hope it's going to come up there. I just don't-I don't know that number. I haven't made a count on it.

Do you know it?

Florida is the only other one.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. So there are only two States that could even consider the issue of ratification between now and January 1, 1979?

MS. CARPENTER. Right.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, I think that fact is something that the members of the committee ought to take very seriously.

I know you've described some of the State legislators opposing this issue very succinctly, but could you explain and account for why this roadblock has taken place in the unratified States? What is the nature of the opposition? Why is this taking place, and what would an extension allow? What difference would an extension make?

Ms. CARPENTER. Well, I think it's a waking up, to answer the second part of your question. There's a waking up all over the country. It's moved into the population from the proponents and opponents, and there's real curiosity. And I see that in the steady stream of comments telling us about it. But I think one thing is the States where-the big block of States where no action is taken are the Southern States where suffrage has not been ratified until very recently, as an afterthought, most of them in the 70s.

So there has always been foot dragging on civil rights issues. "That's one of our problems. In the far West, the Mormon Church has influenced-has strong influences. You'll be hearing from Senator Carlson later today, who has a strong Mormon constituency, and she is an opponent. Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, the opposition of the Mormon Church has been harmful there. I think that human rights issues have always been won with great travail. It's not unusual to have amendments have trouble.

In fact, Virginia, which furnished the writers of the Constitution, was the ninth State to ratify the Constitution itself, and they had written most of it. New York, it only squeaked through by three votes, the Constitution ratification itself.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would you attribute some of the roadblocks to the nature of the literature and the statements that have been made about ERA?

Ms. CARPENTER. It's very severe. We've seen things reprinted and misrepresented as coming from IWC official catalog, when indeed they

were not. The stamp was put on them illegally. They have made accusations, using the most inflammatory language about coed bathrooms, when all of these things are ridiculous.

I cited the case of Senator Dan Evans of the State of Washington, and the Governors of Maryland, Hawaii, Wyoming, New Mexico, Connecticut, and Alaska have all written us letters saying none of those things happened.

So there's been an effort to intimidate and make women terribly fearful. Women have never really had any power except in the nursery. Some of them are frightened to come out of it. That's the only place they really have had power through the centuries, and so it's easy to prey on women as a result of that. And that's exactly what they've been doing.

In fact, one of the benefits of equal rights is going to be, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, which now has a study going on on the stress on families, the fact that it will have a real helpful attitude on the depressed state of women, the fact that they're equal, almost overnight.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I think those comments are very helpful.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Ms. Carpenter, Ms. Rawalt, for your very helpful testimony.

MS. CARPENTER. Thank you, sir, for your memory of me. [The prepared statement of Ms. Carpenter follows:]

STATEMENT BY LIZ CARPENTER

I am Liz Carpenter of Austin, Texas. 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 of human rights across your stage and saw Congress fill in the gaps for civil rights legislation in the 60s. 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 of 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.