Mrs. Griffiths and Mrs. Hart have long lectured their respective husbands with respect to the incredible loss to our society over the years because of the blindness of men as to the potential of women. Hicks Griffiths is a convert. So am I.

I remember and this is the story-some years ago it was discovered that the American space program discriminated against women, and Mrs. Hart was then a skilled flier and she and a number of women pilots began to agitate to correct this. Lyndon Johnson as Vice President was responsible overall for the space program and one day he said to me that he had seen my wife and some other ladies and couldn't do much about it. He had sent them over to Mr. Webb at the NASA. And I learned when I got home that night that their visit with Mr. Webb had not been very productive. And then some weeks later I learned that somehow or other they had hornswaggled the House Space Committee into giving them a hearing. And the evening of the day of the hearing I got home and I said, "Janie, how did it go?" She looked at me and she said, "You know how it went." And I said, "No, I certainly didn't go over and I didn't call anybody." Pausing a moment and with earthy language that I will omit she said, "If they could do anything about it, half of those so and so's wouldn't let us drive cars. That is how it went."

Very shortly, after that the Russians did put a woman up in space who wasn't even a qualified pilot, just a parachute jumper.

That is a dramatic example of what we have been wasting and which in part ratification of this amendment would insure we no longer waste.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. This amendment is directed against governments, not against private employers, but against governments. That is one of the things that Professor White apparently forgot, that it was directed against governments.

I might say that Senator Ervin also seemed to be very worried about the rules of construction of the Supreme Court.

When I was at Michigan Law School I studied pleading as I am sure Phil did under Professor Sunderland who was one of the most reknowned of common law pleaders and he told us a joke. When Mr. Angel, who was one of the great professors of that university had retired, he decided to do something of value for the community. So he decided he would sit on a jury, and Professor Sunderland was very interested in this.

The question that was before the jury was a contract that had been broken dealing with the sale of turkeys, and the question was when was the contract broken and what were the damages. And much testimony had been given, and, after the jury's verdict was in, Professor Sunderland happened to see Mr. Angel at a party and said, "Tell me, Professor Angel, which testimony did you consider to be the proper testimony? And what was the price of turkeys?" This distinguished president emeritus of the University of Michigan looked at the world's most reknowned common law pleader and said, "Edison, any damned fool knows the price of turkeys."

Now, I think that that is really just about what the construction rules of any decision are. I don't think that it really works out quite that way. You make your determinations on your own.

Thank you once again.

Senator Cook. I might say, Congresswoman, that I listened to that with a great deal of interest because when we came to the clear structure of a section of the Constitution in regard to the examples that were given the other day, I thought to myself if the 14th amendment had been that clear there wouldn't be more decisions under the 14th amendment than almost any other amendment of the Constitution. So I think that in itself gave to many of the people that were listening a clear indication of the dubious distinction that the 14th amendment gave to the women of this country all of the rights that at least the distinguished Senator from North Carolina felt they were entitled to. Let me ask you just one or two questions if I may.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Sure.

Senator Cook. I was delighted to hear you talk about the 40-hour week and about Mr. Woodcock who has been spending some sleepless nights, because Mrs. Wolfgang made it very clear in her analysis of a lady who was taken from a clerk's office and made to climb in and out of box cars as she put it, and I didn't really get a very good answer from her. But I asked her then in light of the fact that the railroad industry was about to go out whether this was one of the items that was about to be negotiated within the framework of the labor contract, and she said obviously that it was not. There was a little rapid discussion at that stage of the game and I really never got a chance to ask her why. But what interests me is that you are saying the same thing that I indicated at that time, that if they felt that this was something that ought to be negotiated for the benefit of the members of this union, they should have negotiated it.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Of course. I think that the question in that case really turns on the fact that those women were about to be laid off. They were not given a chance at other jobs. And their real objection was that the railroad was ignoring their seniority and putting them in these jobs where men with lesser seniority were not asked to do this. This was the real problem.

I might also say that the one that she quoted on the woman working for Dodge, the real question in that case was whether the agency that had said the 40-hour week for women is invalid really had that authority. And the court said no, it didn't have that authority. When the Attorney General said the 40-hour week was valid, no one as yet questioned his authority to do so.

Senator Cook. Let me ask you one other question in regard to my opening remarks because I indicated we have a letter from Louis Pollak, and let me read what he said in that letter and ask you to comment on it.

He said:

In advance of the hearings scheduled by the full Senate Judiciary Committee on the proposed equal rights amendment, I wish to bring to your attention that, as presently drafted, the proposed amendment contains what might turn out to be a very serious loophole.

-as he puts it.

I have in mind the second sentence of section 1 which provides, "Congress and the several States shall have power within their respective jurisdictions to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

He goes on to say:

If the proposed amendment becomes a part of the Constitution, it would be the only amendment which would confer upon the States any implementing power.

I suppose that it is possible that proponents of the amendment may think that the amendment may be fortified by visiting a power of implementation in the States as well as in Congress. But I think that this might in fact turn out to be a dangerous illusion.

Would you

like to comment on that?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Yes, I would, because obviously those who drafted the amendment intended that the Federal Government would not change the laws of the States nor the laws of the Congress. And I think that is really all it means.

Now, obviously, if the Federal Government doesn't draft its own laws correctly and I might say we have more that discriminate in the States then it certainly would be put on the Supreme Court. And this time I hope that that distinguished group wakes up and comes into 20th century with the rest of us before it is too late. The 20th century has almost ended.

But I think that all they intended was to direct the Federal Government to correct its own laws and the States to correct their own laws. And then, of course, this amendment will not repeal the Constitution. Whether or not the Federal Government has corrected its laws. And then, of course, this amendment will not repeal the Constitution. Whether or not the Federal Government has corrected its laws correctly or the States is still a matter of appeal to the Supreme Court as to whether or not you have been given rights within this amendment properly.

Now, in my judgement this amendment is intended to write women into the fifth and 14th amendments. It is really intended to say that "persons" within those amendments means male or female. And I think it is amazing that this late in history a court which directed the admission of Negroes to the University of Missouri in 1938 would deny the same rights to women in Texas to a State-supported school in 1960. To me it is incredible.

Now, there is some way out of one. Frankfurter in the Goesaert v. Cleary case, which I want to point out once again in my judgment, is as close to obscene writing as the Supreme Court ever came, said "the Constitution does not require a legislature to reflect sociological insight or shifting social standards any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards. But Murphy, Rutledge and Douglas said

While the equal protection clause does not require a legislature to achieve abstract symmetry or to classify with mathematical nicety, that clause does require lawmakers to refrain from invidious distinctions of the sort drawn by the statute challenged in this case.

And that statute was the bartender statute. Now, the Supreme Court of Wyoming has just this year held that statute invalid under the Constitution. So that obviously courts, legislatures and everybody else do react to sociological situations and to the time. But the Supreme Court has been slower than anyone else has been. This fight is with the Supreme Court. Congress has attempted to correct the laws, and the State legislatures have done wonderful jobs. They really have worked on it. But not that Court.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Congresswoman Griffiths, very much. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Thank you very much.

Senator Cook. I appreciate your coming.

Our next witness is Miss Ruth Miller, national representative for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

Go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF RUTH MILLER, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY JANE O'GRADY, WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

Miss MILLER. Senator Cook, I should like to introduce Miss Jane O'Grady, who is on my left and who is the Washington Legislative Representative of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Senator Cook. Go right ahead.

Miss MILLER. Yes, sir.

Within the past several decades rapid and revolutionary changes have taken place in many aspects of the lives of the people of this Nation.

Among the significant changes is that of the role of women. A century ago, one could predict with reasonable accuracy the life pattern of a girl child. That is no longer so.

And the changes have not halted-they continue on a daily basis, often perceptibly. There remains much to be done before the female side of the population can take its place with a feeling of full partnership and equality of opportunity.

These hearings and the whole subject of area of the equal rights amendment for women are, in my view, an effort-even if a confused one to keep pace with those changes within the framework of national needs.

We could probably agree that it is our goal to enable each person to develop to the extent of his or her ability and contribute to the limits of individual potential.

I make these statements to indicate an attitude toward people and to say that it is within the context of those basic assumptions that I appear today to voice objection to the adoption of the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. I do so as a representative of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, a labor organization of close to 400,000 workers employed in the men's apparel and allied industries. Its membership is more than 75 percent female. Its representatives are, therefore, continuously dealing with the daily and longterm problems of women workers. I would like also to draw on my experience as chairman of the California Advisory Commission on the Status of Women for the years 1965-67.

The press and airways have been filled in recent years with "women's rights," "equality," "women's liberation." The hue and cry has brought forthy myriad suggestions and effects: some serious, others not so serious, a few humorous and several detrimental.

None of this is accidental. It all relates to the problems and process of change. The primary concern of my organization is the pivotal area of the problems of women in the work force. The underlying thought is that change must be wrought with logic and reason and with the least possible harm to the greatest number.

It is interesting to note that in most of the present political activity concerning women, and particularly by those who support this amend

ment, the "forgotten majority" are the workingwomen, these millions of women employed in the factories, fields, and service industries of the Nation. And this is where the effect of passage of this amendment would be most sorely felt.

It is quite apparent that the leadership in support of the amendment is composed mainly of middle-class professional and semiprofessional women, an infinitesmal percentage of the more than 30 million in the work force. Most of this huge work force is unskilled and semiskilled work.

Since the turn of the century, a 70-year period, most States, including my own State of California, have enacted statutes designed to benefit working people.

In essence, these laws and regulations were based on humane considerations. The primary concern was protection of health, safety, and general welfare of the people affected. Thus, we have had limitations on hours of work, minimum pay, restrictions on weightlifting, plus provisions for good lighting, seating, ventilation, rest periods and the like. The thrust has always been an attempt to remove extremes of possible exploitation in the areas of low wages, long hours, and other substandard working conditions.

These State regulations largely apply to women.

Justification for passage of these laws for one sex was found in the amply demonstrated fact that women lent themselves more readily to the extremes of exploitation.

The proponents of the equal rights amendment claim these labor standards have outlived their usefulness, and the effect of the removal of protective labor standards would virtually be nil.

I would like to examine those assertions in the light of California law and on the advice of attorneys that the passage of the proposed amendment would, in one fell swoop, nullify those standards.

California regulations with regard to the employment of women flow from two sources: the State labor code and the 14 wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission of the Industrial Relations Department. Each of the 14 wage and working conditions orders provides, among other standards, for a $1.65 minimum wage per hour. This, of course, means every woman whether employed in interstate or intrastate commerce is protected by this minimum, close to 2 million people. Should the equal rights amendment prevail and nullify the orders, women employed in interstate commerce in low-paying jobs, could immediately suffer the threat of a 5-cent-per-hour reduction in earnings. This particularly poignant figure at that wage level and the danger is compounded by the added problem of a 6.2 percent unemployment rate in the State today. But worse than that is the plight of the girl employed in intrastate industry who would be completely at the mercy of her employer in the absence of the orders.

Even more dramatic would be the plight of farmworkers-and California has a tremendous agricultural industry. Farmworker women, too, after much struggle, won the $1.65 minimum wage. The Federal minimum under the 1966 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act brought farmworkers to the level of $1.30 per hour beginning February 1, 1969. There are well over 100,000 women farmworkers in California. They earn close to the minimum wage; only