lation? These are not States' rights; these are human rights. Should a woman be less equal in one State than in another? Should the majority of United States citizens be subjected to the whimsies of local custom and prejudice in such important matters as those affecting marriage and the family, divorce, property rights and political rights? It sounds strangely primitive and tribal in 1970 to make such an argument. Indeed, since our Constitution guarantees equality of treatment under law to all citizens, the existence of this argument and the laws it represents are simply a proof of the inequality of females or the lack of protection of women. Even if one accepted this argument as valid, one would have to conclude that all the States will have their opportunity to express their opinions on the amendment; it is not the business of the Congress to decide in advance to kill legislation because it won't be accepted by the States.

The various forms of discrimination commonly practiced against women in employment and education have been too well documented to need detailing here. It is sufficient to note that women receive less pay for the same work and lower annual salaries than men; that women have very little opportunity for promotion; that few women work in the professions or in executive positions. In education, women receive fewer scholarships, fellowships and other benefits and have less access to professional education (the finest schools, which pride themselves on training the "leaders" of the country, are either closed to women or limit women to a quota system). On the subject of education for women, we are treated to remarkably paradoxical views: on the one hand, we are told that marriage and caring for children are the noblest occupations to which women might apply themselves and appropriate education for these duties and tasks are the goals to which women should aspire; on the other hand, we are told that women don't need education; they're only going to get married and have babies and nature has already prepared them for that.

But there's little need to dwell on these puzzles here; the rights of women to education and employment are finally being recognized; even opponents of the amendment speak up for these basic rights.

But what of the issues that are still being disputed? Some opponents claim that they wish to "protect women," they are eager to save women from the draft; they wish to preserve certain laws which "protect women" either from deserting husbands or from the strain of hard labor. These honorable gentlemen blissfully ignore the fact that, although there may be laws regarding child support, they are not very well enforced; the answer to this problem is to cease forcing women to be completely dependent. Millions of women either support their families, including a husband, or contribute a major share of support. These women need the real protection of equal treatment under the law, not phony "protection" such as hour and weight limitations. Only a small segment of female workers are actually covered by these laws. And the largest number of women workers-housewives-are unpaid and unprotected. They may work around the clock without pay; they may work while sick; they may lift heavy weights (such as children, groceries, furniture, wet laundry; they may lift mattresses while cleaning the house, a far heavier type of labor than many men perform. Ironically, while American men have been insisting that they wish to

"protect" women from heavy work, they have been designing machinery to make their own work lighter so that many men now push levers and buttons instead of lifting weights.

But the housewife, whose appliances have been widely discussed as freeing her from burdensome work, is still lifting wet squirming children at bathtime (a tricky weight to handle, easily damaged if dropped) still carrying heavy bags of groceries, still lifting and moving furniture when cleaning. If men are so concerned about protecting women from heavy work, why haven't they started a crash program to provide male muscle for these jobs? The answer is simple: that glorified occupation which is supposed to fulfill women, that uncounted contribution to the GNP-housekeeping-remains unpaid and unprotected and apparently of no interest. But, when there's a paycheck involved, women must be protected. So much for the gallant male's protective instinct.

As for the horrors of the draft, those solicitous protectors conveniently forget the many women who have voluntarily entered their country's service and made a fine record which ought to be honored instead of ignored. These gentlemen further neglect to mention that, in saving women from the draft, they are also saving them from access to free education and training, free food, housing and health services, insurance and other benefits. One must conclude that discussion of the draft is a thinly veiled threat intended to scare women into silence and submission.

Among the vociferous defenders of women, one finds members of the labor movement who appear to be united against the equal rights amendment. But a few questions might be directed to the unions: How many women are in their leadership? How many women helped to make the decision to oppose the equal rights amendment? How many female workers of the more than 31 million in the labor force are actually protected? How recently have any of these laws been passed or reviewed for their relevance to today's conditions? Data and opinion from years ago, from lawyers and other male experts, are dragged in repeatedly in the effort to "prove" female weakness and physical inability to perform well on the job.

The competent performance of women is never allowed to dispel old myths. No matter what the individual woman accomplishes, her achievement never paves the way for other women; achieving women are considered exceptions or freaks; old assumptions about women as class persist.

But if these attitudes continue to persist; if males in power insist on ignoring the valid demands of women for equal opportunity; if the Congress continues to delay, then the patience and tolerance of women will be exhausted. No home in the United States will escape the effects of the resulting turmoil.

Women are so angry, so full of resentment at the blocking of their just demands that they can no longer sit back and passively hope that enlightenment will strike. They are likely to seek more active means of venting their rage and frustration, if only for temporary relief from the necessity of repressing the powerful emotions that oppression fosters. No emotion is more dangerous to the stability of society than the feeling of powerlessness in a large aroused segment of the population.

Moreover, there is serious doubt about the ability of a society to progress if it stifles the development of half its population.

We can no longer afford to channel women into the role of childbearer and career. Not only is this role too narrow, it is simply dangerous to the quality of life, to our resources and to our environment to confine women so that they will have too many children.

Overpopulation is no longer a shadow hovering in the distant future; it is a very real threat for our lifetime. Masses of people are demanding an ever higher standard of living; but we are faced with the possibility that our resources may not support even minimum standards for the numbers that unchecked population growth will produce. With an ever lengthening life span, a trend to smaller families, and an increasing interest in a lifelong career, today's women present a new challenge to the male-dominated society. Acceptance and encouragement of fully achieving women will enrich society, but thwarting the aspirations of half the population will lead to ever-increasing conflict.

Open the doors of opportunity a little. Pass the equal rights amendment-in its original form, without change or addition. Please do not create further delay by tying the amendment up with other legislation, such as the 18-year-old vote or direct presidential election.

Women have waited too long already. It is way past time to show American women that they can work within the system to achieve justice and full opportunity.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Cook. Thank you so much, Mrs. Faust. I appreciate it. I will not ask any questions, as I have stated, because I can only congratulate you for your statement.

Mrs. FAUST. Thank you.

Senator Cook. I wonder if Mary Lou Burg is here. Miss Burg is the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU BURG, VICE CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Miss BURG. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to present the

statement.

However, in deference to your time and to the time of the people in this room, may I just say that I am submitting my statement for the record.

I am wholeheartedly for the amendment as it stands, the House Joint Resolution 264, and I urge its passage.

Thank you very much.

(The statement follows:)

TESTIMONY OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL VICE CHAIRMAN MARY LOU BURG FOR THE U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Mr. Chairman, as Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee I have become increasingly aware that many of the women in this country, representing various women's liberation groups already have—or are in the process of losing faith in governmental processes and electoral politics as a method of achieving their goals and redressing their grievances. As a person committed to one political party-and dedicated to the concept of our two party governmental system, I am alarmed and distressed by this growing alienation. I believe that something less than militancy is effective . . . yet the voices of women's activist groups across the nation become more strident and suggest that an even more

rampant militancy might be the wave of the future if women's struggle for equality in a society based on liberty and enlightenment is denied.

The movement is here-the idea whose time has come is here. As a woman who chose a career of business and politics and who has pursued that career for almost 20 years, I know from first hand experience that if all people are created equal, some are created more equal than others. And that is what my statement is all about.

The legal, economic, educational, professional-and regrettably the political facts of life cry out from all sides that women are not treated as equals. We have, regardless of ability, talent, effort and determination, been the object of a colossal put-down.

The issue before this subcommittee is the Equal Rights Amendment. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this amendment, first introduced in the Congress of the United States in 1923 and again being debated now, 47 years later, is that women are still unequal to men in the eyes of the law. I find it ironic that 194 years after the Declaration of Independence stated "all men are created equal" I am here today to enter a plea for an amendment that is in effect a matter of simple justice. It's also strange that after stating the previous history, I, along with many, many others still encounter a "what's the hurry" reaction.

The desire to be recognized, accepted and treated as equals under the law should have no gestation period. It was a matter of simple justice then-it is a matter of simple justice now.

The backers of the Equal Rights Amendment are often called radical. Why? Certainly women of the United Automobile Workers aren't radical-or for that matter the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, or the Federation of Republican Women, or the National Council of Colored Women's Clubs, or the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Certainly Presidents Kennedy and Johnson didn't appoint radicals to high governmental positionsnor has President Nixon appointed radicals to the Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities and to the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Certainly Senator Smith is not a radical-or Congresswomen Griffiths and Dwyer.

What is the position of women radicals? The Communist Party of the United States has long opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and recently re-affirmed its opposition in a pamphlet called "Enter Fighting: Today's Women, A MarxistLeninist View" by Clara Colon, published in March, 1970.

Even a superficial acquaintance with the women's liberation movement would lead one to suspect that the revolutionary radicals of the movement would be opposed, since they believe the system is so corrupt that it must be torn down. Both the August issues of "It Ain't Me Babe," the Berkeley women's liberation paper, attacked the Equal Rights Amendment urging its amendment along the lines of the Hayden Rider, which nullifies the amendment. "Off Our Backs," the Washington, D.C. women's liberation paper, said when announcing the May hearings, "For those who still believe in the power of the Constitutional Amendment to change social conditions, the subcommittee will hold hearings, etc."

I don't want to imply that all the women in women's liberation groups take the same position on any subject or that all of them are revolutionary. There is no national structure and there are no national positions. The beliefs and tone vary widely from one group to another, but many are strongly under the influence of the more radical elements of the SDS, and I think it is fair to say as Eileen Shanahan did in her August 16th article in the New York Times "The Equal Rights Amendment has become a top priority issue with many women's groups, though not the most radical ones, such as Women's Liberation." I think it is important to note here that the women's liberation movement is a generic term and includes women aligned in groups plus women not specifically aligned at all, but who feel the spirit. Meanwhile "Women's Liberation is one specific group.

It must also be understood that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment are women and men, young. middle aged, and old-white and black, who are strongly committed to our Constitutional system, and who are seeking to strengthen it through the proper channels.

I am committed to this approach because I still believe in the system. I want it to work. I think it can. I know it must.

Forty-seven years, however, is a long time to wait for something that should be ours as a birthright. And now we're in yet another hearing-reviving all the old arguments-listening to all the familiar bromides-when the central point,

the heart of the matter is, and was, equality of rights under the law without regard to sex!

There is a special concern about the legislation already on the books protecting women. But is it protection or is it insulation? Insulating women from opportunity is not protection. Keeping us from higher wages and equal pay for equal work is not an advantage. Preventing faster promotion based on merit is no service. And denying us positions of leadership and policy making is denying this country the utilization of all its resources. We don't want this kind of protection. We don't want these favors. We want to be accepted as human beings, free, independent people with all the coinciding benefits-equal compensation, equal opportunity and a partnership of effort. For example, the State of Delaware repealed all of its state labor laws applying only to women in 1966. The Delaware Department of Labor and Industrial Relations reports no complaints or problems to date relative to this repeal.

Women will no longer be quiescent on this basic right. Our mood is changing. Our will has changed. Now I realize that many women are happy and feel complete as wives, mothers and homemakers. I have no quarrel with that. I don't want to change that nor do I want to disturb marriage and the family institution. They are the very foundations of western civilization. They're ennobling and enriching. I merely want recognition of the achievement potential of more than half the population of this country. I want this Amendment to reflect in a positive way an expression of national policy.

I hope this Congress does what the 5th, 14th and 19th Amendments-and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not-correct the void in our Constitution by ratifying us as first class citizens with equal rights under the law. And I urge passage in the United States Senate of the same resolution, House Joint Resolution No. 264, without change and without amendment.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much. We are delighted to have you and we are delighted to put your statement into the record in toto. We have a gentleman here who both Senator Cotton and Senator McIntyre have requested have an opportunity to speak to the committee.

We are delighted to have you, sir. Would you give your name to the reporter, please?

STATEMENT OF HENRY BAILEY STEVENS, DHL, DIRECTOR EMERITUS OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SECRETARY OF MEN'S LEAGUE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Mr. STEVENS. I am Henry B. Stevens. I have been director emeritus of the extension work at the University of New Hampshire for many

years.

I come here as a surviving member of the Young Men's League, which used to operate in the early teen years of this century and gave the women some help in getting their vote. I cut down my testimony to 3 minutes, but I will file that and simply say that in this Men's League of the old days, the men were not concerned just in getting the vote help, to get the vote for women, they were greatly imbued with a need to have equality across the board.

Miss Paul has been urging me to develop now a men's league for equal rights. I think that as I look over the great majority which the amendment received in the House and the commitment of all of so many of the Senators here in the 91st Congress is pretty much a men's league anyway.

I would say that as a textbook this 800-page report of the committee of the hearings last May is full of confirming evidence that this bill should be passed, and I want to compliment you on your patience, sir, and I will take no more of your time.