Mr. Stanley, do you have more time?

Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

Senator BAYH. Dr. Stanley, I listened to your testimony. I did not have a chance to question you at that time.

I sense a committed individual in you who feels very strongly about this. I have to confess to you, sir, that if I believed as strongly as you believed that the equal rights amendment will do what you think it is going to do, then I would be sitting where you are taking the same position.

I feel like Rip Van Winkle who slept for 25 years and woke up and could not recognize his own child, because the concerns you express are real concerns, I know. I do not think that they are relevant to what I think the ERA will do.

You seem to be very concerned about the constitutionality of what we are doing. Is that accurate?

Mr. STANLEY. Let me answer that this way.

When you said almost 7 years ago, "Here is what we are going to do"; now we come back before the 7 years are up and we say, "Here is what we want to do."

That bothers me because from my point of view you are not doing what you said you were going to do.

Let me express my feeling at this point.

If, when 7 years is up, and if it does not pass, then start all over again. That is the fair and honest thing to do.

I think most people would agree with that.

There are many people in disagreement with changing it now in order to get it done because it looks like it may not pass. It may pass and all of this may be a lot of unnecessary stuff.

However, why not, if it does not pass, start all over again and give everybody an equal chance again, whatever you vote to do, whether it is 7 years or 10 years or 20 years?

I will not discuss what I have heard discussed for 2 days about 7 years being long enough. It does not make any difference. You have already decided 7 years.

All I am saying is that you should stick with what you decided. If 7 years is up and it does not pass, then start all over again. If you feel like that is the proper thing to do, then do it.

Senator BAYH. You are not concerned about what the Constitution says is the way to handle it?

Mr. STANLEY. I am concerned.

Senator BAYH. I get the impression that you feel that if Congress believes, and if the court believes, then they will be the ones who would decide it.

If one looks at the reasonableness of the contemporaneous consensus doctrine, and if it is interpreted by the jurists, as they did in Coleman, it seems to me that you could make a very good case that Congress has the authority, having made an assessment that 7 years as a time limit is reasonable than given other circumstances described in some detail in the Coleman case.

If they say that Congress can determine that it takes more time to meet the reasonable doctrine, then why not?

Mr. STANLEY. Are there not people on both sides who have ample and reasonable reasons to disagree?

Senator BAYH. There certainly are people on both sides. We have experts on both sides. But I think numerically the proponderance of support is on the side of extending.

Mr. STANLEY. May I ask you a question?

Senator BAYH. Certainly.

Mr. STANLEY. Would you not agree that passing the amendment would give the Government much greater control and give the States less control?

Senator BAYH. Let us go to section 2; right?

Mr. STANLEY. That is right.

It says: "The Congress shall have the powers to enforce ***” Senator BAYH. I am sure you are as dedicated a witness as I have ever talked with. You make a very persuasive argument. I am sure you are a tremendous pastor. I am sure you can quote that scripture, chapter, and verse. I do not know how many times you have had a chance to read the Constitution.

Mr. STANLEY. I have read it. I am sure I do not know it as well as you do.

Senator BAYH. I am not sure that knowing it as well as I do is any criteria. We have talked with a lot of people who know it better than I do.

But when one goes to something like section 2: "Congress shall have the power to enforce by proper legislation the provisions of this article.", which Senator Ervin did and he knows the Constitution very well-then I wonder.

But I will ask you this. Can you name me one constitutional amendment that did not have an enforcing mechanism? Can you name me one constitutional amendment where the States alone were given this authority to enforce the U.S. Constitution?

Mr. STANLEY. I cannot, but let me answer that a little further, if you do not mind.

Senator BAYH. Certainly.

Mr. STANLEY. There was a concern about the way these things are interpreted afterward. I do not doubt in the slightest your sincerity and your genuine honesty and your commitment to what you are doing. I question the long-range effect of the interpretation of that. For example, let us look at this. You asked Mr. Merzel about Government interfering with the church or something of that degree.

I do not have a copy of it here, but I think you probably might recall it better than I. There are times when the Government has used church buildings, for example, where the Government will use it and they will take down all the religious pictures in there. That was reversed, of course, very quickly.

The whole problem with Christian schools today is there. I do not question the sincerity. It is the interpretation that you and I give. We do not know how far that is going.

My feeling is that the past has shown us that we are having more and more Government control. The Government is telling the small businessman more and more what he cannot do.

I, as a pastor, know that eventually that is going to get to the churches.

Senator BAYн. I must say that if there is one area where the court has been forthright, it has been in keeping that separation of church

and State to the extent that a lot of religious people who want more assistance to parochial schools to help keep them functioning have a different view.

I like to keep those parochial schools functioning because I think they are making a contribution. I have not gotten around those nine men and over there on this issue.

However, I just wanted to point this out.

You had the 13th, 14th, 15th, and the 19th and the 23rd amendments with the same language as secretary of the ERA.

Since the 13th amendment, we have had the categorical determination that it should be enforced by Congress. This is because we are talking about a national constitutional amendment. People get up tight and say: "Wait a minute. Let us not let Uncle Sam get in places where wo do not want him."

That has not been the case so far.

I think you have been very patient. I appreciated your thoughtful admonition.

Mr. STANLEY. I did that in the right spirit.

Senator BAYH. Yes; I mean that. I think we should do the right thing.

I would hope that you would let us have your prayers that we will do the right thing. I do not say that lightly.

Mr. STANLEY. There are 500 people who have been in Atlanta for the past 2 days praying for you by name, fasted and prayed that God would grant you the wisdom and courage to do what is right.

Senator BAYH. I appreciate that. I hope those folks will use the yardstick that I use after making my communion with my God and not the yardstick that they use when they go through the same motion.

It is awfully important. I do not want to quote scripture to you, but is there not some verse that says: "Judge not lest you be judged"? I think we need to be careful because some people tend to impune motives just because the results of the process turn out differently than they might prefer.

Mr. STANLEY. Let me ask you one more question, if I may.

I am sure you know these also better than I do insofar as the bills and so forth that have been passed, which relate to sex discrimination. I will not name them.

In 1963 and 1964 when all those bills regarding education, civil rights, and equal pay and so forth were passed are the ones I mean. If we have all of these and we are saying that the problem is they are not being enforced, therefore we have to have an equal rights amendment, then who says that the equal rights amendment is going to be enforced anymore effectively than these that you have already passed?

I have a problem because it seems to me that it is almost an admission that we cannot do what we decided we were going to do, so now we are going to do something else. That is an honest problem that I have.

Senator BAYH. That is an understandable problem. The passage of this constitutional amendment is not going to automatically resolve the problems of sex discrimination.

It is going to be a long tortuous process.

I find that argument comes around and catches itself. You talk about the amendments that have passed, and yet we are unwilling to put something in the Constitution to make it impossible to change those laws.

If we have no objections to laws that say equal pay for equal work and equal scholarships for our daughters as well as our sons, and those kinds of things, then do we have objection to putting it in the bedrock law of the Constitution?

I think this will be like the 14th amendment, which took 100 years, and we still have not resolved that.

But I think what will happen will be this. If this country makes a national commitment to making the effort to stop discriminating on the basis of sex, then people will be a little more sensitive and make a little more progress and the courts will take a little different look at it.

We will make progress.

There will be voluntary action, I think. Take the area of employment. I think the passage of a constitutional amendment is going to reiterate the commitment of our Government and of people generally. It takes three-fourths of the legislature to amend the Constitution and two-thirds of the Congress. It is a serious venture of lawmaking. I think there are some employers out there who may have been fighting it and saying they will take it to the court. Well, let us see if we cannot do it because it is now in the Constitution.

As I see it, that is the caps dome of an effort that has made some progress.

When I started out, I had to be convinced that the 14th amendment did not cover women, because when I read "person" it says "person." By the time I got through reading a lot of these cases I found out that the Supreme Court did not exactly read "women" as "persons" insofar as discrimination is concerned.

Black persons is what they were talking about.

You have been very patient. I would ask you and your friends to pray for us, not only on this, but on other items because we need all the help we can get in a wide variety of fields.

Thank you for taking the time to come here.

Mr. STANLEY. I appreciate your hearing me. I appreciate your being so gracious. Thank you very much.

[The resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention and submitted by Mr. Stanley follows:]

A RESOLUTION TO PRESERVE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE AMENDING PROCESS

Whereas, if Congress changes the time period for ratification of the equal rights amendment millions of Americans will consider this an illegal attempt to tamper with our sacred U.S. Constitution, and

Whereas, if Congress extends the time once, then why not twice or indefinitely; thereby in effect destroying the amendment process, and

Whereas, if any part of the ERA resolution is subject to amendment all of it should be subject to amendment and the whole subject considered "de novo" (begin again), and

Whereas, the ERA extension bill amounts to a misuse of the democratic proc ess and violates the fundamental principles of contract law, and

Whereas, 7 years is the traditional period allowed for ratification of constitutional amendments and none has ever taken more than 4 years, and

Whereas, the right of States to rescind ERA should be part of any ERA extension bill (there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, any Federal statute or any U.S. Supreme Court holding that denies a State the right to rescind its ratification of a constitutional amendment, now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Southern Baptist Convention in conference in Atlanta, Ga., June 13-15, 1978, be on record as opposing the ERA extension bills now pending in the Congress of the United States and any amendment or any substitute bills which would provide for extension of the time for States to ratify the ERA: Be it further

Resolved, That the clearly stated right of States to rescind the ERA prior to ratification by three-fourths of the States must be part of any ERA time extension bill.

Senator BAYH. We next will have two witnesses, Mildred Jeffrey, chairperson, National Women's Political Caucus, and Dorothy Height, president, National Council of Negro Women.

We want to thank you for being with us.

TESTIMONY OF MILDRED JEFFREY, NATIONAL CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL WOMEN'S POLITICAL CAUCUS

MS. JEFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I say first that I am delighted to be here with Ms. Dorothy Height, whose record of leadership and performance among black women in this country is unexcelled.

I am delighted to be appearing with her.

Senator BAYH. It is nice to have both of you here with us. It is a compliment to our committee that as busy as you are you would take time to let us have your thoughts on this important issue.

Why do you not proceed?

Ms. JEFFREY. May I quickly say, Senator, that we are deeply grateful to you for your patience-perhaps I should say enduranceand the depth of your commitment to what, to us as women, is a principal issue of justice in our country for this time and for how ever long it takes.

My name is Mildred Jeffrey. I am pleased to present to the Subcommittee on the Constitution a statement in support of Senate Joint Resolution 134, a resolution to extend the ratification period of the equal rights amendment.

I am appearing here today as chair of the National Women's Political Caucus, a multipartisan organization of 35,000 members and contributors.

Our members include Republican and Democratic activists, elected officials, women and men from all walks of life who share a common concern for issues of importance to women. Our long-range goal is to bring women into active and signficant participation in American politics.

Passage of the equal rights amendment has been our priority issue since our inception in 1971, for we believe that ERA is necessary to provide a legal and moral foundation to eradicate sex discrimination in this country.

NWPC's strategy for achieving ratification is to elect pro-ERA State legislators and to unseat legislators who have consistently voted against constitutional equality for women and men.