Ervin contends the House version "invalidates all acts of Congress and all state laws making any distinctions between men and women, including a multitude of laws which are reasonably designed to afford necessary protection to women."

He said these include laws making a husband primarily responsible for the support of his wife and children, securing dowery and other property rights to women, barring women from hazardous jobs, and requiring separate restrooms and segregation of men and women in jails.

Senator ERVIN. We have two distinguished witnesses today, and despite the fact that it might offend, to some slight degree, the Housepassed equal rights amendment, I am going to extend to the lady who is present the opportunity of testifying before the gentlemen, so I will now call on Mrs. Myra Wolfgang, vice president, Hotel & Restaurant Employees, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, as our first witness, and Mrs. Wolfgang, we are delighted to welcome you to the committee.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MYRA WOLFGANG, DETROIT, VICE PRESIDENT, HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES, MICHIGAN, OHIO, KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA; SECRETARY-TREASURER, DETROIT HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES; MICHIGAN WOMEN'S COMMISSION

Mrs. WOLFGANG. Thank you, Senator.

My name is Myra K. Wolfgang. I reside in the city of Detroit, State of Michigan, and am represented in this body by Senator Philip Hart. I am sorry he isn't here. I am the vice president of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFLCIO, and secretary-treasurer of its Detroit Local No. 705. I am a member of the Michigan State Minimum Wage Board and I have served on the mayor's committee of human relations. I am, presently, a member of the Michigan Women's Commission (the Governor's Commission on the Status of Women), the first such State commission to be organized, and I have been appointed commissioner by the past three Governors of our State. I agree these credentials aren't as imposing as the judge from North Carolina. I am not a legal expert. I certainly can't interpret the law as would Paul Freund, but I think my credentials do qualify me to speak on behalf of the working women of America.

I am opposed to the enactment of the equal rights amendment to our Constitution. I state my position after long and careful consideration, in spite of the fact that we find sex prejudice parading in the cloth of tradition everywhere. We are aware that it is tailored to the patterns of ignorance and special interest.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is being violated throughout the breadth and length of this Nation. Women are being discriminated against unjustly in hiring and in promotion. Our social security laws remain discriminatory. Equal access to our educational institutions is still denied women. Qualified women are, in the main, excluded from the policymaking bodies of this Nation from the Cabinet down to our county institutions.

Fully aware of all of the inequities visited upon the women of America, I still appear here today to oppose the equal rights amend

ment. I believe that the amendment is not only undemocratic and its effect will bring frustration and tragedy, but that it will accomplish the exact opposite its proponents claim it will do.

I think it can be safely stated that any law which adversely affects the majority of the people of this country is undemocratic in concept and should not be adopted. The equal rights amendment in its Housepassed form, now under your consideration as Senate Joint Resolution 61, should be defeated or the adverse effects removed from its provisions before passage. A simple enough syllogism from which my testimony will flow.

My major premise includes not just the concept of women being the majority of this country, as indeed we are, it includes in that concept, the vast majority of men, our counterparts in their roles as fellow human beings and citizens, husbands and fathers, fellow workers and associates. Their welfare is so intricately tied up with what adversely affects the women of America in matters of this character, we are all indivisible. I intend to discuss the undemocratic concept of the amendment itself, its philosophy and the damage its passage would create. As to my minor premise, my testimony is directed at proving the adverse effects of the passage of the amendment, covering not only the sociological field, but the economic and political fields as well. The conclusion is inescapable.

In less than 6 years, our country will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. In 1987, we will also celebrate the bicentennial anniversary of our Constitution. Quite a pair of documents. You, the Judiciary Committee of the highest legislative body, provided for by that Constitution, now sit to determine the fate of an amendment to that very Constitution. Your considerations are being made in one of the most tempestuous times in our 200-year history. Seldom, if ever, has a Judiciary Committee been presented with so difficult a decision. I am sure you are fully aware of the fact that it is our Constitution, the most precious document we possess, that you are being asked to change. Not that I am necessarily opposed to change, per se, but I would hesitate to change the orbit of our world in order to get rid of smog. That the proposed change in our Constitution is submitted on the grounds that the substantive nature of the amendment will expand the equality concept of that instrument makes it all the more serious. For the fabric of our democratic concept is stitched together with the thread of equality. The fact that you consider this matter in the tumult of sexual confrontation that reaches into the homes of every American, makes your decision of all the more import. It's not a pot that you are about to tinker with. It is the needs and the wants of the overwhelming portion of the women of America. This is their special stake in the Constitution.

Until last week, I had many grave misgivings about the outcome of this legislation. I had seen the equal rights amendment run through the House of Representatives like a herd of stampeding cattle on a discharge petition maneuver. Never have so few business and professional women been so effective and done such harm. The hysteria created by bra-burning and other freak antics is not a justification for the action taken by the House of Representatives, nor is the fear of political reprisal. Let me assure you the threat is not borne of

reality. It must have been this same type of hysteria that created the conditions for the passage of the Volstead Act. But now that the dust has settled and we begin to look around at the damaged past, the damaged present and the damaged future, more seasoned hands seem to be in the saddle.

Even though I appear here before you in by various capacities, capacities not usually associated by chauvinistic males with philosophical legislative considerations, I want you to know the women of America are not unaware of what Government is, what it means and what it should mean. We grow more aware daily. We know the theory around which our Constitution was conceived. Abigail Adams is not the only woman who had or has ideas about its structure, or about man's predilection for tyranny in designing laws. Molly Pitcher knew that we threw off the yoke of oppression with these words "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" comma, not period, for she knew that the Declaration of Independence continued on to further define equal with "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And Martha Wayles Jefferson knew that her husband in penning the Virginia Declaration of Rights had written "that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring safety."

Yes, Dolly Madison knew, as I know, that our Constitution was based upon the best of man's thinking down through the ages. We know that the very foundation of all government worth having, is predicated upon laws designed to protect the unequal, those who are smaller and less strong from those who are larger and stronger.

We know that this concept is as American as squash and chitlins. We know that the Book said "So God created man in His own image, male and female created He them." The Book also says "at the end of every 7 years thou shalt make a release." That debts shall be cancelled that men may be brought back to equal. That it says "if there be among you a poor man, thou shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need." That's the great legal equalizer. That all shall stand equal before God "from the least of them unto the greatest."

The primitive Israelite knew that all are created to be equal, that all are not of the same capacity, talent or ability, but that society shall make covenant and enact laws which shall protect those of lesser stature, no matter what the difference.

We know, as did Mrs. William Blount, and the wife of Hu Williamson know that John Locke had written that the rights of the individual was to liberty and equality. He reasoned in his second treatise on civil government that "When any number of men have, by their consent made a community, they have made that community one body with the power to act as one body, by the determination of the majority. They unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates." The goal of maintaining the concept of natural equality, was the prime internal function of that society.

The very basis of government is therefore to give equality by its laws and rules and regulations. John Rutledge and Patrick Henry repeatedly preached that the women in the drawing rooms of Phila

delphia heard from Ben Franklin how the Greek playwrights dramatized the development of the idea of equal rights to "protect the lesser from the greater" and how Pericles orated at Thermopylae that democracy's laws "afford equal justice to all in their private differences." How Socrates boasted that the Greeks were the best governed people because "we see that the principle of equity and equality had greater influence than elsewhere in the world."

One can trace the progress of government and indeed civilization through its increased concern and efforts to establish equality from inequality. Thomas Jefferson, 2 years before our Constitution was adopted, expressed real concern for ways to offset the inequality that he observed all over this country in his famous letter to Rev. James Madison.

Now, if one of the major and fundamental roles of government is this equalizing one, then the adoption of the so-called equal rights amendment will negate this same equalizing function under the guise of broadening it. The equal rights amendment will invalidate all the legislation, hundreds of pieces of it, which has been adopted over the last 100 years which were passed to permit a semblance of equality which had been denied women down through the ages.

There are various kinds of protection for women workers provided by State laws and regulations: (1) minimum wage; (2) overtime compensation; (3) hours of work, meal and rest period; (4) equal pay (5) industrial homework; (6) employment before and after childbirth (7) occupational limitations; and (8) other standards, such as seating and washroom facilities and weight-lifting limitations. It would be desirable for some of these laws to be extended to men, but the practical fact is that an equal rights amendment is likely to destroy the laws altogether rather than bring about coverage for both sexes. Those State laws that are outmoded or discriminatory, should be repealed or amended and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

I am appalled by leaders of social institutions working hand in glove with industry leaders who wish to repeal the above-mentioned laws. I warn the women of America who seek equality without repression to reject the old saw "You can't have your cake and eat it too." That admonition comes with a hollow ring, especially from those who enjoy their having a housekeeper, wife-mother, and breadwinner combined at their disposal.

The chief conflict between those who support the equal rights amendment and those of us who oppose it is not whether women should be discriminated against, but what constitutes a discrimination. We, who want equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work and equal status for women, know that frequently we obtain real equality through a difference in treatment, rather than identity in treatment. We think that democratic concept is an important part of our Constitution.

We believe that orderly legislative revision is the practical way to erase such "specific bills for specific ills." I oppose adoption of the equal rights amendment since I believe that the adoption of the amendment would jeopardize existing labor laws and standards that apply to women; that it would create endless confusion in the wide field of laws relating to property, personal status, and marriage.

This will adversely affect the women of America and their families. Equality of opportunity for men and women must be achieved without impairing the social legislation which promotes true equality for safeguarding the health, safety, and economic welfare of all.

For an example, the passage of an hours limitation law for women provided them with a shield against obligatory overtime to permit them to carry on their life at home as wives and mothers. While all overtime should be optional for both men and women, it is absolutely mandatory that overtime for women be regulated because of her double role in our society.

At the time that State protective legislation was initiated, there were relatively few women in the labor force, yet society recognized the need to protect women workers. At present, there are more than 30 million women in the labor force. Almost 60 percent of them are married and living with their husbands. Working mothers constitute 38 percent of all working women. Obviously, the majority of women workers have domestic responsibilities, and a very substantial number of them, almost 11 million have children under the age of 18 years. Even with the 40-hour workweek, such women-between their paid employment and their many hours of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care and other household duties-work arduously long hours. While "the double income economy" has forced millions of women winners for their families, it has not released them from home and into the labor force, millions more to be the sole or major breadwinners for their families, it has not released them from home and family responsibilities.

To deprive women of protective legislation, for as long as 1 second, frustrates their basic constitutional right to safety and the pursuit of happiness and denies to them the fundamental reason for their participation in a government of law.

You must understand that the overwhelming portion of women who work, need to work. They need their job and the income it produces. Where women are unorganized, and that means 85 percent or more of them, they depend solely upon their employer's understanding of their home responsibilities. In most cases, he is a man more concerned with meeting production standards than he is for his female workers' children's safety and well-being. The records are replete with his answer posted on the bulletin board: "Beginning Monday, the new schedule will be 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Saturday"-maybe even Sunday. That's how the auto plants in Detroit did it, when our hours law was temporarily repealed. The woman is then presented with the alternative of "If you can't work, quit." Fortunately, for the vast majority of waitresses, maids, kitchen employees, that we represent, their union contracts make all overtime optional for both sexes.

In Michigan, however, only 25,000 employees are organized and covered by such provisions out of the 150,000 hospitality workers. The "take it or leave it" attitude of most of the employers on this matter is notorious. To permit this attitude to prevail, will adversely affect the welfare and safety of the women of America. This is especially true during periods of recession and a shrinking labor market. With unemployment on the increase, labor standards are under attack. The person who glibly states that on one has to work overtime, if they don't want to, does not understand that when there are not enough