bernie sanders and senator elizabeth warren speak before clark county democrats. on sunday live at 5 p.m. eastern jill biden, pete buttigieg, senator amy klobuchar and tom steyer speak at a forum on infrastructure. live coverage on c-span. i joined event at c-span.org and listen and listen on the go on the c-span radio app. >> joining us from new york city is copresident and ceo carol jenkins joining us to talk with us about era and efforts to revive the era at and passing , equal rights amendment. give our viewers a brief history of its passage and why its current now. >> well, thanks so much for having me again. i love coming under program to talk with you and your viewers about this extremely essential amendment that we need to place

in our constitution. the constitution needs to be fixed one more time. it's been amended 27 times. the era would be the 28th amendment and it would effectively say that you cannot prohibit -- it would would, in, put into the constitution prohibiting discrimination by sex, which is a major advancement in our constitution as justice scalia has said. does that as it exists now prohibit discrimination so that's why we needed. the effect of it would be to put women in the constitution. because as it was written in its inception it did not include women. women were deliberately leftme out. yesterday we had a future date in the w house of representativ. the delegates, the representatives passed a bill by jackie speier from california that would dissolve the time limit that was imposed on the era bill when it was passed by congress in 1972.

where we are now with the equal rights amendment, originally proposed by owl is a ball in 1923, so we've been working on this for almost 100 years. 50 years since congress passed it by two-thirds of the representatives, and now just as of a couple of weeks ago ratified by 38 states across the country. what has happened is that after a long time what people consider stalling or no visible action with tremendous action. we have, in fact, met the requirement outlined in the constitution in article v for amending the constitution. we have two-thirdss vote, the 38 states, so the next step is just to certify it by the archivist and make it happen. that would give millions of girls and women in this country

rights and privileges that they do not have to trim and you pointed out the passage in u.s. house of the measure extending the time fun. "usais a headline in today." the house breathes life into the equal rights amendment but it faces the challenge in the u.s. senate. has to pass the senate, correct? >> guest: it does indeed. i do wantes to say it's not a matter of extending the deadline. it's a matter of dissolving, remove m it completely a time limit that was imposed. we don't use the word deadline because it was never in the amendment itself that the states voted on. it was a joint resolution or the introduction, what some call the preamble. it was nothing the state voted on and so we believe it can be and should be removed. and yes, it does have to go to the senate and we have a built there. the house-senateav right over to the senators have bipartisan

bill thatt already has 44 cosponsors, and we hope you will be moving forward in the u.s. senate. >> host: tell us about the state level. the state of virginia has passed the era but haven't a number states also in turn rescinded their previous passage of the era? >> guest: i think they have indicated that they would like to, but our legal task force doesn't believe that will work, that they have the right to. it simply a matter of you cannot have successive legislative bodies undoing what earlier bodies have done. it would just bring chaos into everything we try to do in the country legally. but there is obviously a lot to be determined as we move forward in trying to get the amendment totally accepted, place as a

28th amendment to the constitution. >> host: carol jenkins is a guest joining us from new york talking about the equal rights amendment, the effort to pass it certainly successful, the measure that passed in the house yesterday and a challenge ahead and u.s. senate as you mentioned moments ago. we welcome your calls and comments. we will get to your calls in a a moment. i did want to(2 play the commens of justice ruth bader ginsburg and 80 that we covered in washington, some of the coverage of that from fox, just dealt a fatal blow to the equal rights amendment. her comments were used in that floor debate in the house yesterday. here's what the justice said. >> there is a distinction between equal protection clause and then having an actual amendment that lays it out.

years ago i was involved in some litigation involving the extension of a deadline on the rights amendment and would recently had virginia passing equal rights committed. soir leaving aside whether any deadlines could be extended, what's your prognosis on when we will get an equal rights amendment on the federal level? >> i t would like to see a new beginning, start over. there's too much controversy about latecomers long after the deadline passed, plus a number of states have withdrawn the ratification. so if you count a late comer on the plus side how can you disregard states that said we've changed? >> host: what you think when you heard her say i'd like to see a a new beginning? >> guest: well, that time they

could've it little bit better. it doesn't come as a complete surprise to us because she actually has said that before. what we do know is she is a fervent supporter of the equal rights amendment, and what we believe is we can start over. we support every session, carolyn maloney bill to do exactly that. it has enough cosponsors to go to the floor and to be acted on. while we have this other activity that we've been working on, this amendment bill that we've been working for almost 100 years, we do not want to dishonor the work of 100 years, 50 years for some people who are still with us. alice ball from 1923. so we are prepared to complete this movement to xfinity we believe we can get this

amendment ratified and placed on the constitution. if we don't, come where compled want to start all over again. so we don't scare that easily. we understand, we get it, but yesterday, for instance, in the house of representatives, we were in the gallery, i took my 10-year-old-year-old granddaughter with me who has been working on the era since she was seven. i wanted her to see the good results of the work that she did in accompanying me to representatives offices trying to get them to support, to be cosponsors for the amendment. of this bill to remove the deadline. i have a photograph of her sitting next to -- has been working on this for 50 years, founder of the feminist majority, the two of them to the conversation they were having was that if we succeed now in this effort, her 50 years would

surpass a varese so for three years. but if we don't and if you have to start all s over again, it is entirely possible that our legacy will be 50 50 or 60 yean the future of trying to do that because remember, , it's gettina two-thirds agreement in congress and getting 38 states. that's a tough i order we can do it if we have to start all over again. i would rather honor her 50 years of whichat is put in at rather than task my granddaughter to get these kinds of rights4girls in our country. do we really have to wait another two or three or four generations before girls have the same rights as men, boys, in this country? >> host: , we have a number of calls waiting. gretchen in new york first. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was so happy. i watched it on c-span yesterday.

i admit allie smeal in the '70s. i been working as long as her but i saw that movie on hbo about ruth bader ginsburg, andnd she made the comment that the word woman is not used one time in the constitution. so ladies, we're going to do it. we're doing it and thank you so much. you made my day. >> guest: great. thank you for calling in. yes, we will do it hopefully now but we are determined to get this done. thank you for your work. >> host: california, democrat's line, go ahead. >> caller: hello. have you read -- [inaudible] >> host: we didn't catch the headline. go ahead. >> caller: i said have you read the brilliant matilda joslyn gage? >> guest: i know of her work.

[inaudible] she was a personal secretary. >> guest: right, right. is that a favorite source of yours? i know of her work. i have not read or i do know people who are working on her legacy, which is extremely important trend what is your comment on that? >> caller: she was a brilliant writer, and like ruth bader ginsburg sometimes you have to change the words of what you're trying to get to because if you can't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say and you can't get what you want. and i think women don't want equality. they want equivalent rights as men. they see men are of the women working in a different category as them doing the same work they do and getting paid significantly less because you are not in the same category. but the people right next to them, the men right next to them is making equal pay as they do but they are not getting the equal pay as the people in different category.

if they're doing equivalent work you should get equivalent pay. >> host: we'll will get a resp. carol jenkins? >> guest: wee. agree. so i think so much of the research demonstrates that women, the way we say are the cheap labor of our country and that is result in magnificent proselyte for some of the corporations and even small companies. there consistently underpaid for the same equipment, for the same work. even some of the good guys who think and say great things about equal pay and if our support of the art of women with action go and look at their books, they discovered they are truly paying the women less than the pay them into these are the good guys. we recently had major corporations call press converses and had releases saying guess what we can now say without any quibbling that we

pay the women what with our men. of course we had to make adjustments to do that, and that means cost them billions ofus dollars to do that. but i think it's one of the things that will change america. america, we think of it as this great democracy and it's one of the great ones, but it does not treat its women well. it will not until women are in the constitution. we tried everything else. we tried the pipeline. we spent trillions of dollars trying to equal thinks up and it hasn't worked because women are still the poor of our country, the underpaid, underemployed. the only thing that is going to change that we believe is era. >> host: let's go to michael, fayette alabama. >> caller: good morning. this is my first time calling c-spann in several months, so please forgive me if i sound nervous. ms. jenkins, before i ask my

question, let me as a born again saved christian let me apologize thoroughly for all those white males out there, some black ministers, who say they love women so much but but in opposg not only era also some of the radical ones such things as e-mail governors, they constantlyte quote, say they loe women. they constantly quote first corinthians chapter 11, first timothy chapter two and first peter chapter three, all of which i mean, they interpret these literally for the 20s, 21st century i want to apologize about that. my concern, however, is it with a i'm a political liberal when it comes too washington this policy, gun owners responsibilities and foreign policy based on human rights, i

am a little concerned about wonder whether not conservative conservatives, religious conservatives are correct about possible side effects if the era were passed come such things as people filing, who want unisex bathrooms, same-sex bathrooms, filing lawsuits or like one incident, i think in the state of oregon, claiming male cross dressers leading children in storytime at a public library. would you address those concerns for undecided american voters? thanks soo much. i will hang up and listen. >> guest: thank you so much for your call today. you raised some very important issues. we do want to say that we literally respect personal beliefs, those of us working for the equal rights amendment. none of us want that to interfere with anyone's private

personal beliefs. the equal rights amendment essentially is about giving girls and women equality, and that is what we are working for. i know about all of the site issues that are brought up, but this is not the forum we believe to decide and debate and even debate those personal beliefs. this is a question about constitutional equality. do you believe women should have equal rights in this country? that's a very straightforward question that really can be answered yes or no. if youou do, then the equal rigs and then is the way forward for you. if you don't, then object. we disagree with people on all kinds of things and we respect the disagreement, the ability to. but if you believe in equality for women, and most americans

do, our research has demonstrated that 94% of all americans do want constitutional equality for women. 99% of theme millennials, the young people want equality for women. there are people out there who would say no, we don't. but in 2020 we consider that to be mystifying to us, but your right to believe that it is absolutely yours. i hope i answered some of your questions. >> host: back to the process again that passed in the house, the deadline, extending the deadline edification, removing that deadline, going on to the senate now. say it does pass congress. a number of legal experts have cast doubt on whether that removal of that deadline can be applied retroactively. what could be ahead fory. the ea and the courts?a. could this wind up being a supreme court decision?

>> guest: yes, indeed it could. many say most likely will. the archivist whose job it is, for all of the activity, legal activity we have had the route distance runs the era lately, this poor head library, i'm sure he never dreamed this would be a state that he would be sued alabama and two of the states and by the three ratifying states, and by people in massachusetts all kinds of lawsuits all aimed at the archivist either demanding that he not certify virginia and, therefore, complete the requirements and put -- make the era the 28th amendment, or that he do it. we have definitely entered the legal face of this, the court room face of it. the archivist has said that there is a department of justice memo which also declares the equal rights amendment dead.

fortunately for us, the executive branch has no authority in amending the constitution so it really is an opinion come as theyin say thisa memo and not anything that is solid inal terms of determining the outcome. butf the archivist has said tht he will not do anything. that's his boss, the department of justice. the archivist says he will not do anything until there is a final court order, and we assume that he means the supreme court. this likely could go to the supreme court and we are ready for that. >> host: we will hear from louisville, kentucky. thanks for waiting. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to talk about what i was reading online this morning what happened in connecticut about two young men who identify as women that are competing against the women in a track and field event. if we're wanting equal rights for women, the lady on your

panel, she knows in her heart and anybody would know in their heart that women are not going to be able to compete against a biological male in in the spor. my daughter was a swimmer and i'll get to do is look at the times, the competition times of the men against the women and you can see there's the way that women can compete -- if you're looking at sports across the board, how in the world can anyone say that women are being treated equally when they are allowing biological males to compete against them in the exact same sport? , we would get a response from carol jenkins. thank you. >> guest: again we think that's a matter that is best decided in the courts and not having much to do with the equal rights amendment so that we have to separate all of the things that people may object to, but i

think those things are handled best in the courts and i believe the supreme court is taking up cases that will resolve so much ofe the gender problems, controversy for us. >> host: how many states have made an equal rights amendment orde similar language part of their state constitution? >> guest: we think there are about 25 states, which is a hefty number. i think as this equal rights amendment movement continues, there will be more. we work with and ratified to states working on the federal level. we have a call every other week we get on the phone and talk about strategy. states share things that have worked and have not come with virginia is our store because they did s such a magnificent jb again on the federal level your new york statete is consideringn

equal rights amendment that we've been working on as well, and that is slightly different. that is expanded exclusive era that would take into effect at f the groups have been left out, the disabled. it doesn't deal with race. with the gender. so that i think moving along new york state would be the first to do that kind of inclusive era, and the governor is now supporting that. the senate passed it 62-zero the last session, and the assembly is about to take it up. i think as we move forward in this country wee will be looking at all kinds of constitutional inclusion that has created persistent problems for us, even though we have some laws that have worked very well for us we can look around at our country

and know that there still discrimination, there is still a huge gap, wealth gap, all kinds of gaps in terms of opportunities in our country. one of the ways of fixing that is by amendment. >> host: will hear from palm springs california next. bill on our democratics line. >> guest: good morning c-span and thank you very much, missed jenkins, and happy valentine's day and big hugs all around. i was watching yesterday and what is it with the self summative white republicans? why do they hate women? why are they afraid of women? the divisiveness in this country, i happen to be gay, and we just, a a month and after jt past transgender remembrance day. idea with a lot of people in palm springs, one of the gayest places on earth. it's like why can't we all just get along? the last segment talking aboutut the economy, the other night

downtown, was a lady on the street in a wheelchair. she must'vee been 70 and homeless. i used to work, i work at the palm springs, one of the food banks here, and the senior center, 300 people a00 week week go through there forgo food. at our food bank of over 140 140 people are hurting. this economy is a mess. it's not benefiting anybody but the rich. >> host: we will: let you go. passable off the topic but thanks for calling in. carol jenkins let me ask that pushback from the conservative eagle forum in a statement by the era. they say it will not give women any more rights than they currently have. women already have claim to equal rights to the 14th 14th amendment section one as was rumors of the laws in virtually all areas of american life, employment including equal pay, education, credit eligible to come housing, , public accommodations et cetera. the supreme court has already applied the 14th amendment to

women's issues. that from the eagle forum. >> guest: yes, and there has been a great deal of progress, it really if you look at america and you look at its women, it is not been able to fix the kinds of deep-seated, systemic problems that exist in our country. i have great-s admiration for te organization, the lawyers who use the 14th amendment to get recourse for women, but so many things are not covered by the 14th amendment. and i think that we just have to take a look, the previous caller was talking about food insecurity, , about food banks d hunger in our country. i i respect his bringing that up because most of the hungry in this country are women. most of the homeless in this country are women, trying to

house and feed their children and have not been able to do that, in domestic violence and aggression in the workplace, have not been able to get sufficient recourse. we believe the equal rights amendment will give constitution constitutional federal recourse women in these issues. all praises to the 14th amendment. >> host: a reminder, the language of the proposed equal rights amendment, equality of rights under themi law shall not be denied or abridged by the use or any state on account of sex. i don't have my constitution front of me but that must be among the shortest in language of anydm of the amendments to te constitution, or in this case a proposed amendment. >> guest: that's right, right. a little mystifying to all of us working so hardll on it why thee would be such objections to it. but mostly it's because we are

trying to fix that and so many other issues aside from equality for women in this one amendment. so i think we just would have to ask ourselves, this is why i took my granddaughter to washington for the vote. i said i want you to see the faces of people who are courageous enough, brave enough to do the right thing. they are doing this for you. back nancy pelosi said to my granddaughter, this is all about you. it's all about the future generations of girls. that do t not need to live in a substandard environment for the rest of their life. we can get this done now, let's see if we get a call or two more for you before you go. lawrence next from maryland. republican line. >> caller: thank you so much for c-span, and carol, i want to express to you the idea that the

era is not and should not be a republican or democratic issue. it should wholeheartedly be an i american issue. there is an excellent piece that was put just a moment ago, some indicating the 14th amendment somehow negates the need for the era. however, if you look historically back i don't think that argument can be sustained. it was in 1920, about 60 years after we had the passage of the 14th amendment equal protection clause that we had to have the passage of the 19th the military guaranty right to vote. i guess my concern is, with this now being back between house and senate, it is the time for all people republic with the democrats to stand, particularly people like moscow who have appointed so many judges that

are going to stand in the way i believe in terms of the judicial process of fortifying some of the gains that it been made for. again this is not a republican or democratic issue. this is a matter for all of us to stand up for our mothers, our daughters, our children, our grandmothers, to stand up united and -- >> host: we will get a from carol jenkins. >> guest: thank you so much. it is a human rights issue, i agree. we agree. our research demonstrates as well when you go across the country asking people, they all say yes. we just have to get it done. thank you so much for your impassioned support. >> host: here's paula next up in the nation's capital, democrat's line. >> caller: yes, good morning, c-span. thank you so much. i just had two thoughts. the first thought is i have been a federal government worker for a long time, and one of the

things that the federal government i think, there is a false equivalency as far as women advancing in the federal government where there are women now impositions, i work in human resources as the director, where we are in leadership positions. but over time these positions have been reduced in the level of i the work, how they are classified, i should say, with government speak, and where they remain in these positions 20 years ago that were executives, wewe are now over all in the lor level rankings but still running the same kind of programs. you look at it as women advancing but it really isn't an advance if the positions are

reduced and where earning less money. that's the first thing. the second thing i would ask of you is, how do you feel that the equal rights amendment can affect, or can it affect the right to choose? i'm not well versed in it so this may be a question that's already been answered, where is that connection? >> guest:t: thank you. good news for you because the equal rights amendment will affect the u.s. government and discrimination there, and discrimination in state government. two things. first, once it is ratified as a two-year waiting. and then it applies to federal and state governments, initially. but culturally the impact of it

will change our country dramatically. as for the choice issue, i think that, as i said before, there's another format for roe v. wade, is the law of the land, decided by the supreme court. and we believe the courts are the place to debate those kinds of issues and not to put that on the back of equality for women. .. a againstrk women in the workpla. title ix prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in schools. title vii in particular, why

hasn't that been enough to equalize both pay and treatmento in the workplace for women? >> well, i think in so many cases it is a person by person, case-by-case approach. you have to go to court and you have to have a lawyer. you have to pay thousands of dollars in so many instances to get your due course. that is all the money that's been donated,, given to times u, to provide lawyers for women who feel they have been discriminated against. it is a time consuming, money consuming approach to inequality and we believe that era would assist those. we are not talking about replacing that or talking about diminishing the effect or the value of that. keep that at that era. this enhances his push for

equality for women and gives it a fundamental cases. so many cases go all the way to the supreme court. justice will decide there is no ground for it here. it is rejected out of hand. this would permanently be for the rights of girls and women in the constitution. that is what we need. again, i say just look around. look at women who are being pregnant are still being fired in this country because they are considered a handicap to whatever workplace they may be in. while adjustments are being made, in many cases, for the men who may have a bad back or, you know, some legal thing that would keep them from working. i think that, all that we have to do is look at the evidence of the status of women in america and we know that it is substandard and we believe the only way of fixing it, we have

tried everything else during this century of working for tha. era and it has not worked. nowhere near the equal status that women and girls deserve in this country. it requires something big and fundamental. that is what the era as. >> about 10 more minutes with our guest carol jenkins who is a co-president and ceoeo of the ea coalition. joining us from new york. removing the deadline for the equal rights amendment. we welcome your calls and comments. democrats 2,024,888,000. for independence and others 2,047,088,002. >> i will plate you the comments of a republican in missouri during the debate yesterday. i want to get your thoughts. >> today'sat legislation is problematic on several fronts.

first, the lead solution is on constitution. the time to pass the era expired decades ago. congress cannot go back and remove the deadline for previous constitutional initiative. 1972 era expired and the department of justice issued a ruling saying congress may not revise a proposed amendment after deadline if it has expired. pretending that we can remove the time limit for passage both futile and deceptive. secondly, if the time limit s could be extended, the era wod not bring women any more rights than they currently have right now. but it would entrench the legality of abortion. we know this from listening to those that have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion on demand. in 19 -- 1998 they ruled that

the equal rights in their state constitution required state funding of abortion.de federal courts are likely to do the same. >> carol jenkins, a number of points in yesterday's debate. feel free to respond to any one of them. >> well, i will say the department of justice memo, opinion, has no effect other than having -- from doing his job momentarily.hi there are lawsuits with the three attorneys, general of the most recent states ratified a few weeks ago, nevada, illinois and virginia who are insisting he does his job. the executive branch has nothing to say about amendments. itit has moved to the courts. that is where it ultimately will be decided. i think, you know, we have covered so many of the outside

as she was that have been placed on the back of this one amendment to give women equality in this country and i would say, you know, it gives the impression -- i don't believe that is the case. we are so fixed on the fact that women can just put up with not being in the constitution. not having equal rights forever. they've done it so far. why should it change. it should change because it has two. the will of the people says that it must. even when we only had 35 states to ratify, i think about that and i said, how remarkable was that. 70% of the country. now we have 38 states and we are working on a 50 state goal for the equal era coalition, we work every day to get the other 12

states that have not ratified to ratify. that, you know, we are moving forward. we intend to finish this. women should have equality in this country. >> hearing from joe in maine next. >> thank you appeared c-span taking my call. an amount of women who pay minimum wage. if this senate will not up the minimum wage, how are they ever going to take care of women or men they are leaving them in poverty. forty hours times the $8, whatever you get for minimum wage. how can you live on that. my second point is the senators and congressmen, it is my understanding that senators and congressmen,