Mr. DRINAN. I thank you. I vield back the balance of my time. Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the witness, too. for helpful testimony. I might say I disagree with you very strongly that this committee and its chairman has been unfair to either side. We had requests from dozens of witnesses from all over the country and we made the decision to call witnesses carefully, and with every assurance that both sides would be fairly represented. As a matter of fact, at the earlier hearings we had with constitutional experts, we solicited constitutional experts, from every part of the country. We didn't know how they felt on the ERA, or whether or not they were for the extension. As it turned out, of the seven witnesses, four were in favor of the extension, two said it would take two-thirds; three said they were against the extension, and one witness we found was against the extension 100 percent. It was merely a 50-50 proposition and I might say in this series of hearings, again, we are evenhanded. Those who are opposed to the extension have just about 50 percent of the time, and those who are in favor, have about 50 percent. Mr. McCLORY. Will the chairman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. Mr. McCLORY. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to say that we have provided a forum and opportunity for the principal opponent of ratification of ERA and a most articulate opponent of the extension of the time for ratification of ERA. So I do not think that there is any lack of balance as far as the testimony and evidence before this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mrs. Schlafly. We will now take a 10-minute recess in order to rotate the spectators. Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Recess.] Mr. EDWARDS. On the record. Mr. Butler? Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had a delightful young lady from Virginia, a member of our house of delegates, who testified. In order to balance the record, I have received a communication from two other ladies who are members of the Virginia General Assembly. I ask that their correspondence, a letter from Hon. Eva Scott, from the 31st district, and Hon. Bonnie Paul, from the 16th district, be filed and printed in the record at this point in the proceeding. Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, it is so ordered. [The documents follows:] COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Hon. M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUTLER: As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, you will be deciding on the proposal to extend the March 1979 deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. I am an opponent of the amendment and I have served through three sessions of the Virginia General Assembly in which the ERA has been lobbied and debated and fought. Over the past six years, I believe that the amendment has been adequately considered. Too much money, time, and energy has now gone into the fight for and against passage, while other issues of more practical importance to women go neglected. I believe that it is time to put this divisive measure to rest, and allow time for leadership in other areas. Thank you for this consideration. Sincerely, BONNIE L. PAUL. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Congressman DON EDWARDS, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, GENTLEMEN: I sincerely urge you to recommend against and Congress to defeat the extension of time for ERA ratification. (1) Additional time does not change the wording of the Amendment; thus there could be no new arguments proposed to justify a request or for granting a precedent-setting extension of time for the ERA ratification. (2) Changing the Constitutional ratification process is serious. If there is some overriding reason known to Congress warranting extension of time for this process; then it should be considered on the merits or demerits of changing the time frame of future Constitutional Amendments and not in the midst of controversy over a specific amendment. (3) I think extension of the ERA is a disservice to the people of the country and the effective operation of the state legislatures; for the future years of controversy could be better spent on equitable issues meriting majority agreement. I feel my statement should properly end here with these arguments about the question before you, that of the time extension. I feel, however an obligation to briefly explain the Virginia position on ERA. I believe Virginia was somewhat unique in her early study of the issue by a Blue Ribbon Task Force, composed of Virginia's leading Constitutional and legal authorities. The report called the "Virginia Task Force Report" could only be described as comprehensive and well documented and probably been responsible for ERA's defeat in the Virginia Legislature, for it really did not support Virginia ratification. Virginia had also adopted a non-discriminatory clause in our revised Constitution passed in 1971, which contained the clarifying phrase that the "mere separation of the sexes would not be deemed discriminatory". Virginia also has a State Equal Pay Act and Equal Credit Act. I appreciate Virginia's progressiveness in supporting equity for women, but I also appreciate the respect shown for women. ERA has been defeated in a full vote of the Senate. Various rule changes and moves to discharge the Privilege and Elections Committee have failed on the House floor. ERA has failed in Virginia not because the General Assembly members have not taken it seriously but because no case has been made for its ratification. I can honestly say grass roots opposition in Virginia has increased. The largest crowd, approx. 4,000, to assemble at the Capital in my memory, came to a coffee, not a well publicized rally, but a coffee this year by these opposing ERA. Polls taken may or may not be reliable depending upon how conducted. We we do know the ERA proponents would not support a resolution calling for an advisory referendum in Virginia. I hope there is recognition that since ERA has been studied, few states have ratified. This is very indicative because, as you gentlemen know, the natural posture is to be for things unless real questions arise. I know, in your fairness, you will give equal consideration to the equity of recission. I urge you not to recommend extension. Thank you. Very sincerely yours, Delegate EVA SCOTT, Virginia House of Delegates. Mr. EDWARDS. It is our pleasure to welcome for the introduction of our next witness the distinguished Congressman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walgren. Mr. WALGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to join with you, although not a member of this committee. And I am afraid that I take the opportunity more perhaps on myself than out of any need, because I wanted to introduce to you and welcome to Washington a constituent of mine, Eleanor Smeal, who is the president of the National Organization for Women. I feel like most Congressmen, sort of taking the opportunity people who need no introduction, but I wanted to give you thoughts in the introduction. I first met Ms. Smeal when my wife and I were somewhat active in Pittsburgh politics. And she was then active on the local level of the National Organization for Women. And I think in a real sense, her rise to a position of national leadership is an example of the fact that in this society, the strength of character that is required for national leadership is found on all levels of our society, and that that strength of character is there in every individual, and that therefore, they have the real potential to realize the fullest of lives, on this Earth. The second thought is: Her leadership in the National Organization for Women has been marked by a theme that is particularly true in the history of this country. That is, that the development of equality and the granting and realizing of equality for one group of individuals is absolutely essential to the fullness of life for all individuals. That applies to women, and the development and the granting of equal rights to women, being absolutely essential to the realization of the fullest of possible lives for the men in our society and for the children and others to come. I really take a great deal of pleasure in welcoming you to Washington, Ellie, and taking my congressional courtesy extended to me to introduce you to the committee. MS. SMEAL. Thank you very much. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Walgren. We welcome you, and you may proceed with your testimony. TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR SMEAL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, DR. MARJORIE BELL CHAMBERS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, AND MARIWYN HEATH, ERA COORDINATOR, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S FEDERATION Mr. EDWARDS. I believe that you will introduce your colleagues. MS. HEATH. Mariwyn Heath, ERA Coordinator for the Business and Professional Women's Federation. Dr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Majorie Chambers, president, American Association of University Women. Ms. SMEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the president of the National Organization for Women. On behalf of NOW, the largest feminist organization in the United States, with members and chapters throughout the Nation dedicated to achieving equality between women and men, I am testifying in support of House Joint Resolution 638, the proposal to extend the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment. We are grateful for this opportunity to address the subcommittee on the ERA extension resolution. We believe that NOW, which has been a leader in the ERA ratification drive and a major supporter of the proposed extension, is in a unique position to testify on this matter, especially in light of our leadership in the movement to eliminate sex discrimination in all spheres of our society. I would like, with the subcommittee's permission, to submit a legal memorandum for the record. We have been authorized to state it has been supported in its conclusions by seven esteemed constitutional authorities from universities throughout our country. I would also like to submit into the record NOW's official testimony, and I would like to summarize it and to highlight it in brief comments. Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, all documents will be made a part of the record. [The documents follow:] NATIONAL National Organization for Women, Inc. 425 13th Street, N.W Suite 1048 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 347-2279 May 18, 1978 Don Edwards, Chairman House Judiciary Subcommittee on U.S. House of Representatives 2137 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: Equal Rights Amendment Hearings Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Organization for Women is pleased to present for introduction into the record of the proceedings a Memorandum of Law relative to the extension of the seven-year period for ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. The Memorandum was commissioned by NOW and prepared by the law firm of Lippman & Hart, Washington, D.C., with the assistance of Phineas Indritz, Esq., Washington, D.C. We are authorized to state that the following distinguished scholars of Constitutional law have studied the Memorandum and approve its conclusions: |