Page images

from North Carolina [Mr. KORNEGAY] for his hard fight to secure the adoption of this most vital amendment. Bless you, my dear friend. Your support on this fight was most convincing.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment.


The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is withdrawn. There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

The amendment was agreed to.

[ocr errors][merged small]

EDITORS' NOTE: The introduction by Congressman Smith (D., Va.) of an amendment prohibiting discrimination in employment because of sex--as well race, color, religion, or national origin--led to "ladies" afternoon in the House. Generally speaking the amendment wasn't opposed in principle but on the ground that it "cluttered up" a bill designed primarily to protect the rights of Negroes. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 168 to 133 and appears in Title VII of the law.




pp. 2577-2584


Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SMITH of Virginia: On page 68, line 23, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

On page 69, line 10, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

On page 69, line 17, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

On page 70, line 1, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

On page 71, line 5, after the word "religion," insert the word "sex."

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.

Now, I am very serious about this amendment. It has been offered several times before, but it was offered at inappropriate places in the bill. Now, this is the appropriate place for this amendment to come in. I do not think it can do any harm to this legislation; maybe it can do some good. I think it will do some good for the minority sex.

I think we all recognize and it is indisputable fact that all throughout industry women are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment.

That is about all I have to say about it except, to get off of this subject for Just a moment but to show you how some of the ladies feel about discrimination against them, I want to read you an extract from a letter that I received the other day. This lady has a real grievance on behalf of the minority sex. She said that she had seen that I was going to present an amendment to protect the most important sex, and she says:

I suggest that you might also favor an amendment or a bill to correct the present "imbalance" which exists between males and females in the United States.

Then she goes on to say-and she has her statistics, which is the reason why I am reading it to you, because this is serious

The census of 1960 shows that we had 88,331,000 males living in this country, and 90,992,000 females, which leaves the country with an "imbalance" of 2,661,000 females.

Now another paragraph:

Just why the Creator would set up such an Imbalance of spinsters, shutting off the "right" of every female to have a husband of her own, is, of course, known only to nature. But I am sure you will agree that this is a grave injustice—

And I do agree, and I am reading you the letter because I want all the rest of you to agree, you of the majority

But I am sure you will agree that this is a grave injustice to womankind and something the Congress and President Johnson should take immediate steps to correct—

And you interrupted me just now before I could finish reading the sentence, which continues on:

immediate steps to correct, especially in this election year.

Now, I just want to remind you here that in this election year it is pretty nearly half of the voters in this country that are affected, so you had better sit up and take notice.

She also says this, and this is a very cogent argument, too:

Up until now, instead of assisting these poor unfortunate females in obtaining their "right" to happiness, the Government has on several occasions engaged in wars which killed off a large number of eligible males, creating an "imbalance" in our male and female population that was even worse than before.

Would you have any suggestions as to what course our Government might pursue to protect our spinster friends in their "right" to a nice husband and family?

I read that letter just to illustrate that women have some real grievances and some real rights to be protected. I am serious about this thing. I just hope that the committee will accept it. Now, what harm can you do this bill that was so perfect yesterday and is so imperfect today-what harm will this do to the condition of the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Oh, no. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I heard with a great deal of interest the statement of the gentleman from Virginia that women are in the minority. Not in my house. I can say as a result of 49 years of experience and I celebrate my 50th wedding anniversary next year-that women, indeed, are not in the minority in my house. As a matter of fact, the reason I would suggest that we have been living in such harmony, such delightful accord for almost half a century is that I usually have the last two words, and those words are, "Yes, dear." Of course, we all remember the famous play by George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman"; and man was not the superman, the other sex was.

I received a letter this morning from the U.S. Department of Labor which reads as follows:


Washington, February 7, 1964. This is in response to your inquiry about the reaction of the Women's Bureau to suggestions that the civil rights bill be amended to prohibit job discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race, creed, color, or national origin.

Assistant Secretary of Labor Esther Peterson who is in charge of the Women's Bureau has replied to requests for support of such an amendment in the following way:

"This question of broadening civil rights legislation to prohibit discriminations based on sex has arisen previously. The President's Commission on the Status of Women gave this matter careful consideration in its discussion of Executive Order 10925 which now prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin in employment under Federal contracts. Its conclusion is stated on page 30 of its report. "American Women," as follows:

"'We are aware that this order could be expanded to forbid discrimination based on sex. But discrimination based on sex, the Commission believes, involves problems sufciently different from discrimination based on the other factors listed to make separate treatment preferable.'

"In view of this policy conclusion reached by representatives from a variety of women's organizations and private and public agencies to attack discriminations based on sex separately, we are of the opinion that to attempt to so amend H.R. 7152 would not be to the best advantage of women at this time."

So we have an expression of opinion from the Department of Labor to the effect that it will be ill advised to append to this bill the word "sex" and provide for discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, and sex as well. Of course, there has been before us for a considerable length of time, before the Judiciary Committee, an equal rights amendment. At first blush it seems fair, just, and equitable to grant these equal rights. But when you examine carefully what the import and repercussions are concerning equal rights throughout American life, and all facets of American life you run into a considerable amount of difficulty.

You will find that there are in the equality of sex that some people glibly assert, and without reason serious problems. I have been reluctant as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to give favorable consideration to that constitutional amendment.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

I think the French are right.

Imagine the upheaval that would result from adoption of blanket language requiring total equality. Would male citizens be justified in insisting that women share with them the burdens of compulsory military service? What would become of traditional family relationships? What about alimony? ร Who would have the obligation of supporting whom? Would fathers rank equally with mothers in the right of custody to children? What would become of the crimes of rape and statutory rape? Would the Mann Act be invalidated? Would the many State and local provisions regulating working conditions and hours of employment for women be struck down?

You know the biological differences between the sexes. In many States we' have laws favorable to women. Are you going to strike those laws down? This is the entering wedge, an amendment of this sort. The list of foreseeable consequences. I will say to the committee, is unlimited.

What is more, even conceding that some degree of discrimination against women obtains in the area of employment, it is contrary to the situation - with respect to civil rights for Negroes. Real and genuine progress is being made in discrimination against women. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, for example, which became law last June, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by prohibiting discrimination between employees on the basis of sex, with respect to wages for equal work on jobs requirting equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

It is a little surprising to find the gentleman from Virginia offering the language he does offer as an amendment to the pending measure. The House knows that this is the language of a proposed constitutional amendment introduced in the House.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. It is rather anomalous that two men of our age should be on the opposite sides of this question.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I am sure we are not. But I know the gentleman is under obligation not to submit any amendments other than those that are agreed upon between the coalition of the Republicans and Democrats that is controlling the movement of the committee. I wanted to ask the gentleman to clarify what he said. I did not exactly get what he stated about Negroes. He said he was surprised.

[blocks in formation]

chairman of the committee will permit me to ask a question, this letter he read from the Women's Bureau, was it signed by a man or a woman?

Mr. CELLER. It was signed by a man. Mr. DOWDY. I had an idea that would be true-the letter from the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor opposing this equal rights for women amendment was signed by a man. I think there is no need for me to say more. Even the Department set up by the U.S. Government for the benefit of women is opposed to equal rights in employment for women. I urge the adoption of this amendment, I would have offered it myself, but yielded the honor to my beloved colleague from Virginia [Mr. SMITH).

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is always perfectly delightful when some enchanting gentleman, from the South particularly, calls us the minority group. We used to be but we are not any more. I have just had the figures sent me. You males, as you seem to like to call yourselves, are 88,331,494. We females, as you like to call us, are 90,991,681. So I regret to state that we can no longer be the minority; indeed, we have not been for some time.

Also, I would like to suggest that to read the sports news about the winter games in Innsbruck, I think it was a woman who rather saved the United States situation?

I think that perhaps this particular motion of the gentleman from Virginia may be displaced. I do not know enough about parliamentary methods to be certain, and I have not studied it. But I do propose to submit an amendment in the 10th title, which I am told is germane there, and I shall present it at the appropriate time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BASS. With relation to her remarks and her amendment, I just got off an airplane.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. You did?

Mr. BASS. Yes, now what I was leading up to is this. A young lady works for an airline company. and she is worried about discrimination against married women because she is about to

get married. Then she will lose her job. So she wants something done to prevent discrimination against married women.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. May I suggest to the gentleman that married women get along very well because they usually, after they have had their children and brought them to a certain age, go back into business to really protect the family against too little money.

Mr. BASS. I am for all women, I want the record to show that I am for both the unmarried and the married women.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. If I understood the gentlewoman correctly, she said, I believe, that she would support this pending amendment that I have offered, but that you expect to offer an amendment to title X?

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Yes; that is title X, the miscellaneous title.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I do not like the idea here of it going in under "miscellaneous." I think women are entitled to more dignity than that.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. My colleague, may I suggest to you, that we are so used to being just "miscellaneous."

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. What I wanted to say is entirely in a cooperative spirit, but I suggest that the gentlewoman examine title X because I do not think there is any place there where it would be suitable and maybe it is not germane.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. We can take that up when I offer the amendment. I am so happy to have the gentleman's opinion in the matter.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I was just hoping that the good gentlewoman was going to give her full support to my amendment, and then we will talk about

her amendment.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I would also like to add at this moment when we have been victorious over there at Innsbruck, this statement: Even your bones harden long before our bones do-we live longer, we have more endurance.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I presume that if there had been any necessity to have pointed out that women were a second-class sex, the laughter would have proved it.

« PreviousContinue »