CONTENTS Als, Mrs. Ida B., National Association of Women Lawyers_ Anderson, Mary, Washington, D. C.......... Andrews, Dr. Ella F., American Women's Medical Association__. Barrett, Hon. Frank A., a United States Senator from Wyoming. Biemiller, Andrew J., legislative representative, A. F. of L.-C. I. O.. Cooney, Catherine, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Washington, D. C.. Harris, Patricia, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, Malone, Hon. George M., a United States Senator from Nevada_ Miller, Mrs. Emma Guffey, chairman, National Women's Party- Oslund, Genevieve H., assistant to the legislative chairman, General Ottenberg, Mrs. Louis, National Council of Jewish Women. St. George, Hon. Katharine, a Representative in Congress from the 28th Congressional District of the State of New York. Spinks, Mrs. Dorothy, Alpha Iota sorority... Stitt, Louise, member, national board, National Consumers League, Werner, Ella C., chairman, equal rights amendment committee, American Federation of Soroptimist Clubs__. Worrell, Mrs. Margaret Hopkins, president-general, The Wheel of Progress, and Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic_____ Hon. Edward Martin, a United States Senator from Pennsylvania___ National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.. Hon. Carl Hayden, a United States Senator from Arizona_ Letter dated April 11, 1956, to Hon. Estes Kefauver from Isabella J. Jones, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Letters submitted by Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller: Letter dated December 10, 1955, to Mrs. Nina Price from Gerald D. Morgan, special counsel to President Eisenhower.. Letter dated November 4, 1955, to Mrs. Price from Hon. John W. Letter dated May 4, 1945, to Miss Anita Pollitzer from James A. Statement of Adlai E. Stevenson to National Women's Party, Letter dated April, 1944, to Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller from List of women's groups endorsing the equal rights amendment, sub- Editorial, "Life of the Party," from the Daily Worker, March 9, 1950. Sponsors of the equal rights amendment amongst Members of Cong- Two sets of resolutions adopted by chapters of the DAR. Letter dated February 18, 1955, to James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor with Mr. Mitchell's reply to Miss Irma Piepho, National Council of Catholic Women, Washington, D. C.... Letter dated April 17, 1956, addressed to Hon. James O. Eastland from Mrs. Minier Hostetler, president, Woman's National Democratic Club__ American Nurses Association, Inc., letter dated April 16, 1956, from Agnes Ohlson, president, tó Hon. James O. Eastland, with attached Telegram to Hon. Estes Kefauver from Esther C. Stamats, director, Christian social relations, United Church Women.. Telegram to Hon. Estes Kefauver from Lilace Reid Barnes, president, national board Young Women's Christian Association of the U. S. A....... Telegram to Hon. Estes Kefauver from Margaret Mealey, executive secretary, National Council of Catholic Women Telegram to Hon. Estes Kefauver from Mrs. William T. Mason, National Letter dated April 19, 1956, from M. Jane Dickman, national legislative Telegram to Hon. William Langer from R. Grace Hinds, president, Ameri- Letter dated April 13, 1956, from William G. Carr, executive secretary, Statement on legal implications of proposed equal rights amendment, as Letter dated April 18, 1956, to Hon. William Langer from the Massa- chusetts Committee for the Equal Rights Amendment_ _ _ Letter dated July 18, 1955, from Nancy Cross, Las Lomitas, Calif.. Women's Joint Congressional Committee, member organizations and other American Medical Women's Association, New York, N. Y____ Women's Joint Legislative Committee for Equal Rights Amendment, EQUAL RIGHTS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 39. Present: Senators Kefauver, Langer and Dirksen. Also present: Senators George W. Malone, and Spessard L. Holland. Wayne H. Smithey, member, professional staff. Senator KEFAUVER. We will now take up Senate Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 39 is as follows:) [S. J. Res. 39, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: "ARTICLE "SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress and the several States shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "SEC. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. "SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect one year after the date of ratification." Senator KEFAUVER. Our first witness is Senator Malone. Will you proceed, Senator Malone. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE W. MALONE, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator MALONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short statement now, and ask permission to extend it. Senator KEFAUVER. Permission is granted for you to revise and extend your statement within 1 week. Senator MALONE. Mr. Chairman, Senate Joint Resolution 39 is an equal rights joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women. 1 Mr. Chairman, I have joined in the introduction of this Senate Joint Resolution No. 39 because I believe in the principle of equal rights for men and women. On two prior occasions I have joined in the introduction of such legislation: 1. Senate Joint Resolution No. 25, 81st Congress. Introduced on January 13, 1949. Passed the Senate on January 25, 1950. 2. Senate Joint Resolution No. 49. Introduced on February 25, 1953. Passed the Senate on August 16, 1953. In each case, Mr. Chairman, the legislation failed of passage in the House. Mr. Chairman, the present proposed legislation was introduced on February 8, 1955, and it is my hope that it may pass both Houses at this session and be signed by the President and be submitted to the States for ratification. Mr. Chairman, on July 16, 1953, there ensued a debate on the Senate floor during which most of the troublesome questions were raised and thoroughly discussed and I made my position on this important proposed legislation. Since I have not changed my position, Mr. Chairman, I request permission to make that debate a part of the record as a part of my testimony on this resolution. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be accepted as a part of your statement. (The debate above referred to is as follows:) THE EQUAL-RIGHTS AMENDMENT Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona in regard to Senate Joint Resolution 49. SPECIAL LEGISLATION During the debate there has been discussion of such matters as alimony, child custody, and special State laws for the benefit of women. I call attention to the fact that all these matters relate to special legislation. For example, in the State of Nevada, it is contrary to State law for women to work underground in the mines. However, if the constitutional amendment called for by Senate Joint Resolution 49 were to be adopted, such State laws would of course be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, women still could not get jobs working underground in the mines in Nevada, simply because the mine operators would not hire women to work underground in those mines. In the first place, the miners would quit since they think it is bad luck for a woman to work underground. Much of this special legislation has grown up because of the fact that there is no such equal rights constitutional provision. The same type of changes in State laws were made necessary by the woman's suffrage amendment to the Constitution. EQUAL RIGHTS Mr. President, I listened with close attention to the statement that men are better able to make a living for a family than are the women. There are many exceptions. Of course it is customary for the man to actually hold the job that supports the family; but custom would not necessarily change following the adoption of a constitutional amendment for equal rights. So we are not talking about granting additional rights or about granting special rights. We are talking about equal rights. The joint resolution provides, in part, that— "The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: "ARTICLE "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.' EQUITIES NOT DISTURBED I see nothing in the amendment to prevent a court from deciding a family matter in accordance with the equities-which of course is exactly what is contemplated. I read further from the joint resolution: "The Congress and the several States have the power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "This article shall take effect 1 year after the date of its ratification.” WOMEN IN THE ARMED SERVICES Mr. President, in speaking of the drafting of men and women into the armed services, let me point out that in World War I there were no women in our Armed Forces, with the exception of nurses. Those women did a magnificent job; that is well known by all of us who served in foreign countries, including France and other European countries, during that war. TIME MOVES ON But time moves on. In World War II, women were very active in serving in various capacities for which they were fitted. Now women are established. They have taken their regular places in the armed services. That is so, regardless of whether you, Mr. President, or I believe women should serve in such capacities. That evolution has occurred. It is an established fact. EQUAL SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FITNESS Mr. President, I have listened to the argument that if the constitutional amendment called for in Senate Joint Resolution 49 were adopted, then in time of war an equal number of men and women would have to serve in the frontlines, or a man who wished to be exempted from service in the frontlines would have a legitimate ground of complaint. I call attention to the action taken by Congress in making special provision for the service of doctors in the Armed Forces and special provision for the service in particular positions in the Armed Forces of men having certain physical defects. In time of war, we do not send men to serve where they are not fitted, and we would not require that women serve where they are not fitted. Mr. President, once before I joined in sponsoring this measure. At that time the Senate accepted the amendment of the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona. We know the subject is controversial. Of course, letters, telegrams, and much other evidence could be read to the Senate all afternoon, but that would only serve to prevent passage of the joint resolution. In the humble opinion of the junior Senator from Nevada the States and the courts will take care of the details, within the limitation of the proposed amendment, once it becomes a part of the Constitution. It therefore only remains for the Congress of the United States to make up its mind whether or not it wants women to have equal rights with men. Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I am very happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. WELKER. I am very much interested in the remarks being made by my distinguished friend from Nevada, and I believe I understand some of the reasons which prompt him to make them. I believe I am in sympathy with the general purpose of the joint resolution, though I fear that I must be persuaded as to a part of it, as do a great many other Senators. I wish my colleague would tell me what effect the joint resolution would have upon the community-property statute of the State of Idaho, which, for example, at this time gives the husband control and management of community property within that State. I refer particularly to the language on page 2, line 2, which reads: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." That languages gives me some concern, and I should like to have it discussed by the Senator. |