measure time precisely. The electric motor came into being in the last two. Almost every thing we use in daily life belongs to the final 800.

The real story of Toffler's book is that people have simply let technology happen without adequate preparation or compensation for it in our society. It is a sound premise. There is no better example of backwardness than the reluctance to recognize that women are a part of the 20th century too. The future belongs to those who seize its opportunities. We want to do just that, and to participate as equals. Going back to Dolly Madison, Abigail Adams, Socrates, and the Bible, to deny women first-class citizenship is unrealistic in 1970. We live in a changing world and we must change with it or we wind up hugging the corpse.

The political logic of the case for the amendment is impressive. With the exception of the Armed Forces there are 7 million more women of voting age in the United States than there are men. Women, unfortunately, have never used this strength. Once given the right to vote, the 19th amendment was considered an end in itself, which it was not. But now the mood is changing. The proliferation of women's activist groups across the Nation speaks eloquently and often stridently for itself. Approaches vary widely, but the goal is the sameequal rights and protection under the law-spelled out in the Constitution.

It is unthinkable, in my opininon, that in this 20th century, when we have countless examples of women's capacity to undertake any assignment and complete it with distinction, we have not recognized in the basic laws of this Nation the simple fact of equality. We urge you to recommend passage of House Joint Resolution 264 without change or amendment.

We do not have organized influence, funds, or lobbyists. Most of the women appearing here came at their own expense and at considerable personal sacrifice. However, we trust that pressure is unnecessary for this distinguished committee to recognize the justice and fairness of this appeal.

There could be no clearer summation of our objectives than the slogan of those early proponents of women's suffrage: "Principles, not policy; justice, not favor; men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less."

Senator Cook. Thank you very much, Mrs. O'Donnell. We appreciate it, and to show that I am not showing any partiality I wonder if Mrs. Harriet Cipriani is here?

Mrs. O'DONNELL. May I say one thing more?

Senator Cook. Yes, indeed.

Mrs. O'DONNELL. I would like to leave with you to be included in the record the joint statement signed by Mrs. Nelly Peterson for the Republican Party. Mrs. Cipriani is vice president of the Democratic Party.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much. We are delighted to have it.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN

A JOINT STATEMENT ON EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

As representatives of large organizations of women approving the Equal Rights Amendment as it was passed by the House of Representatives in House Joint Resolution No. 264, we urge passage in the Senate of the same Resolution without change and without amendments.

1. Our position was not assumed lightly, abrasively, nor frivolously. Both constitutional amendments and federal legislation have failed to be recognized by the Supreme Court as establishing equality for women, or even to apply to women. We feel that the Equal Rights Amendment now before the United States Senate is the one unequivocal, enduring method of establishing women as equals before the law, and providing equal opportunity within our society.

2. Because of superficial arguments being advanced in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment we reject the notion that either state or federal laws, subject to court interpretation, can remedy the injustices at issue, and we reject as spurious the idea that equality will endanger our "health, safety, privacy, education, or economic welfare," or diminish our capabilities as "homemakers and mothers."

3. The Equal Rights Amendment is not new. It has been before Congress for 47 years. It is supported by the largest and most responsible women's organizations in the United States. We are not Johnny-come-latelys to this struggle but for years have worked diligently and constructively for justice and equality. We have no desire and no intent to disturb marriage and the family, which are the foundations of Western Civilization. We are proud to be American women. ELLY PETERSON,

Assistant Chairman, Republican National Committee.
GLADYS O'DONNELL,

President, National Federation of Republican Women.

MARY LOU BURG,

Vice Chairman, Democratic National Committee.
HARRIET CIPRIANI,

Deputy Vice Chairman, Democratic National Committee.

Senator Cook. I might say that Mrs. Cipriani called us. She is vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee and she asked if she might appear and we obviously said she could, and I assume that she is not here.

Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Sister Margaret Traxler, National Coalition of American Nuns. Is she here?

STATEMENT OF SISTER MARGARET ELLEN TRAXLER, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FEDERATION OF JUSTICE, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COALITION OF AMERICAN NUNS

Sister TRAXLER. My statement will not be long but I would like to preface it with just a couple of remarks because women are stereotyped and I think that we as nuns suffer from a further stereotypical approach which people have and in order to lend some kind of weight to what I would like to say, I would like to briefly list some of the involvement which has been mine.

I am director of education at the National Conference of Federation of Justice. Over the past 8 years, it has been my privilege to develop programs countering white racism over the country. For example, in one of our projects we have what we call the university on wheels. On this faculty, which is affiliated with Loyola University in Chicago, we have 30 people all who hold doctorates in their respective disciplines and these people go out as teams and approach white racism or intergroup relations through their doctoral disciplines and through an interaction of these academicians, through practitioners, people of the poor on welfare, people here in the lower socioeconomic strata. We are able, we think, to approach the white middle class in a way which is more realistic.

Another program, we have an urban education which is involvement in theory in which we train people in connection with the urban training center for Christian mission. Eighty-four percent of the people working in the inner city have no special preparation for this kind of sensitive work. Through an urban involvement theory and practice course we are able to train people, largely women, for this kind of service. Third, I have been able to establish 38 schools for high school and junior high school dropouts over the country in the past 6 years. These have expanded into an adult literarcy program and this experience has given me much to listen to the voices of many people, particularly women, who I think have been spoken for and who have themselves spoken in these hearings, and I have followed closely the proceedings from the present, I am not going to duplicate any of the papers that have been presented but I ask myself what is the one basic argument which human beings following the western tradition of logic, I hope I don't oversimplify or give us too much credit, the one argument which I think would be most pursuasive, and so that is what I have tried to do in my simple statement.

And so, Senator, with your permission I would like to speak in favor of the proposed equal rights amendment as it was passed in the House Joint Resolution No. 264.

In the joint coalition of American nuns, there are 1,937 sisters. We have organized on a broad basis principally to study and speak out on human rights the cause of women in the modern world which we call the Universal Sisterhood, takes priority over any of the work that we hope to do. And if you will allow me, I would like to begin with a story about a French saint, Therese of Lisieux, sometimes known as the Little Flower, and I hope that doesn't turn anybody off.

Therese was celebrating her fourth birthday and her parents placed before her a choice of several possible gifts. "Which one of them will you choose?" her father asked. "Why, I'll take them all," replied the future saint.

We are precisely in this situation today. The human rights of women are set out before us. We are asked, "Which ones will you choose?”

Our answer is simple, is logical, is the only one possible for a reasonable choice: We will take them all. We want all of our human rights. We want our rights avowed by this Congress, women's equality expressed firmly and categorically into the language of the Constitution; and after that, we may speak of further legislation which may be necessary to safeguard and confirm these rights.

It is physiologically destructive to refuse categorical recognition of women's rights in the Constitution; and then to assure women that they are free and that so-called protective legislation is for their benefit. One would have to have the viewpoint of a woman in order to understand what it means to be denied a categorical statement of her human rights.

Human beings simply do not premise their freedom upon restrictive limitations and qualifications. Before I make the next remark, I would like to point out I do love men very much and one can now look upon the contrary scene and say male chauvinism governs our institutions. This may be unconscious on the part of many individual men, but

male chauvinism is the only way to describe male control of our institutions from family and school, to business, government, and churches. The late Prime Minister Nehru of India served a number of prison terms before achieving the leadership of his nation. His crime was to agitate for independence. During these periods, he wrote letters to his 13-year-old daughter Indira, who is, of course, the present Prime Minister. Nehru concluded one of the letters with this observation:

If the past has given us some part of truth, the future also hides many aspects of the truth and invites us to search for them, but often the past is jealous of the future, and holds us in a terrible grip and we have to struggle to get free and advance toward the future.

Because we are imprisoned in the past, and beclouded by the present, our insight into the future suffers a myopic vision of the future. Some concepts, however, become quite clear, and the fact is that no group possessing power gives up that power unless forced to do so. It is very interesting, when I sent out a ballot to a coalition of American nuns asking them to vote on what stand we would take on the equal rights amendment, we received ballots back from all but 24 members. There were only two dissenting votes. I still can't account for the two dissenting votes, but some of the younger sisters had said, "Tell us when to appear in Lafayette Park."

Oliva Coolidge in her book "Women's Rights" tells the history of the suffrage movement in America from 1848-1920. From 1848, when the Women's Rights Convention was held in Seneca Falls, N.Y., until the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920, every heroic fast, picket, protest, march, jailing of the 71 years of women's vigil awaiting suffrage is a sign of the oppression of predaceous men who selfishly held the power.

What women ask for in the equal rights amendment is in fact already the right of women. We have no right to limit them morally or legally. Pope John XXIII of blessed memory reminded in Pacem in Terris that those who have rights have the duty to ask for them. Our rights are in fact not anyone's gift to give, but ours inherently. We have the moral obligation to fight for them.

The false objections regarding State laws, protective legislation, et cetera, should be studied in a White House level convocation in which top legal advisers, both men and women, would elucidate socalled problems and then, in a positive legislative-building document, outline the necessary clarifying ramifications.

Over the past several years I have had the privilege to participate in a number of White House conferences; for example, the White House Conference on Civil Rights. The one on education that is coming in December is the one on dependent children. Why cannot there be a top-level consultation on the subject of equal rights for women? Not to delay the giving of equal rights or its recognition, but to give the top attention of the lawmakers to what is necessary for the responsible passage of this amendment.

Or, in good faith, this committee could implement and set into immediate action the NAACP Board's recommendation to its commitment to and practice of equal rights for women. The convention sponsored by NAACP noted these six recommendations:

That all Federal programs include an equitable number of women. and men in their staff and in the participants;

That the Office of Federal Contract Compliance guidelines on sex discrimination be expanded to include goals and timetables;

That to the extent not already done, data collected by the Federal Government include collection, tabulation, and publication of economic data by sex;

That women receive equal pay for equal work;

That the Fair Labor Standards Act be extended to cover every job within reach of Federal authority ***. All employees, including domestic workers and all other workers in the United States should be paid not less than the Federal minimum wage; the equal pay provisions should be extended to executive, administrative, and professional employees;

That title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be amended to include sex (regarding public accommodations).

Finally, I should like to remind the committee that further delay and subterfuge are simply intolerable. We accept your good faith only when the Constitution declares women free. Only when we are assured by our Constitution that there will be no discrimination based on race, or creed, or sex, can we believe in the good faith of men of America. Until that day, we are forced to doubt.

Thank you.

I am particularly grateful to you, Senator, for allowing those of us who favor this amendment to come in in the second round of hearings to present our convictions.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much, Sister Margaret. I might say to you that probably under section V of the 14th amendment we have passed equal protection laws now. But if you have listened, and I know that you have, you realize that if we take this route, we find the nebulous process of making every legal determination, rather than the establishment of constitutional principle. I appreciate your remarks very much and we are delighted to have you before the committee.

Sister TRAXLER. Thank you.

Senator Cook. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mrs. J. T. Grace, of Chevy Chase.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LYNNE S. GRACE, HOUSEWIFE, OF CHEVY CHASE, MD.

Senator Cook. Mrs. Grace, go right ahead.

Mrs. GRACE. Thank you. I didn't know that you weren't going to give me qualifications for being here and I haven't got them listed in my head right now.

Senator Cook. I have here Mrs. J. T. Grace, housewife, Chevy Chase, Md.

Mrs. GRACE. Actually, the listings that I had given, which is really the reason why I am here, I think depends to a large degree on the experience I have had in a number of different jobs and some excursions I have made to England. I would like to begin by saying when I was 15 I had a job tending horses and later that year, after completing a modeling course, I was a fashion model for a length of time. When the school year started, I was able through relatives to take a hat-check job to help me earn some money during the year.