tv Washington Journal Carol Jenkins CSPAN November 25, 2019 7:31pm-8:01pm EST
7:31 pm
go shopping and see what is available at the c-span online store, including our new campaign 2020 t-shirts, sweatshirts and hats. browse ourn.org and products. host: at our table, carol jenkins, copresident and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition. what is the equal rights amendment? guest: what is the equal rights amendment? it is what should be the 28th amendment to our constitution which simply says that equality is for everyone in this country. you cannot discriminate based on sex. that is all it is. a few words, that is it. nothing controversial. we live in a country that should provide equal rights equal , protections to all, and when the constitution was written, women were deliberately left out and we believe that because of that they have been paying for
7:32 pm
discrimination in terms of rights, protections, and recourse that they needed in the courts should anything happen to them. host: you said it should be the 28th amendment, why isn't it? guest: we have been working on this for 100 years, a century. first proposed by alice paul who gave us the women's vote and we are celebrating and so happy about. after she did that she thought there needed to be one more thing added, and that was to put this clause that said we cannot discriminate based on sex. we have been working on that for 100 years. congress passed it in 1972, quite a while ago. and people have been working, and we needed to get 38 states. when the time limit expired, we only got to 35. miraculously, in recent days, in
7:33 pm
2017, nevada ratified the e.r.a. and in 2018, illinois ratified your the e.r.a. and all of us sitting in the office were like, what is going on? does that count? we were told by our legal scholars that it does count. we had such an extraordinary week last week. the election on tuesday in virginia, pro-e.r.a. legislators swept in, so we expect virginia to become the 38th state in january. business taken up as soon as they are in session. tomorrow we have a markup in house judiciary of a removal of the time limit. a big week for the e.r.a. after 100 years of working for it. host: why do 38 states need to ratify this? guest: it was stipulated that 2/3 ofcongress and states have to pass and ratify any amendment so that we will
7:34 pm
have achieved that when january comes around and virginia legislators vote to ratify the e.r.a. host: what happened after congress passed it in the initial weeks, and why was a deadline put on ratification by the states? guest: we think of it as a time limit, and it was really not in the amendment itself. alice paul, i am told, was very upset when she heard this because it would create the impression that there really was a deadline when in the preamble it only stated that there should happen within seven years when it went out to the states that they should bring it back within seven years. it was nothing that the states themselves voted on so it is not a part of the amendment. it went out and it was this huge
7:35 pm
excitement and many states signed it right away. hawaii was the first. and then it began to stall. i think that it just took too long. it is hard to keep the attention on something even as important as equality for that period of time. between 1972 and 1984 when all of the time limit periods has expired, we only had 35 states, but then two more added recently, so we think that we are on the way. host: what about the public relations campaign against the amendment after the 35 states ratified? guest: sure. there was. it cannot be denied that there was a great deal of people saying we did not need it, that it would cause harm to women. what we have discovered is that many of the arguments used were not valid then and are not valid now. it was also a big business protest, big businesses stood to
7:36 pm
lose money if they had to give women equal pay, providing equality to women in this country. it was an economic issue as well. what we see is that after #metoo and all the progress that women made, can we truly say that we are not willing to give women equal rights? i do not think we can do that. we can become the leader in the world in terms of recognizing that everyone deserves this fairness and justice. host: "the new york times" reports that a source of confusion is that legislators in five states, idaho, kentucky, nebraska, and tennessee, voted to rescind their ratification. guest: our legal scholars, we have a legal task force that has some of the leading scholars in the country tell us that they cannot do it. of course, that does not mean that there will not be for future discussion in courts on that.
7:37 pm
but that successive states cannot undo what has been done. that seems to be the courts' thinking so far. we are pretty certain. we are also going for a full 50 state ratification, as soon this election took place on tuesday, we started concentrating on florida, arizona, north carolina, we are going for 50 states and we will have our 38 states. host: virginia likely becomes the 38th state. they voted on this before, did not pass and it only failed in one vote in the senate. guest: it did not get out on committee by one vote. if it had gone out onto the floor, we would've had the 38th state in january this year. this transition, by voting in more pro-e.r.a. legislators, makes all the difference. it was such a huge campaign.
7:38 pm
the advocates on the ground, our coalition member who did most of this had postcards, texting, and phone banking from all 50 states because they understood what was happening. it did not just affect virginia, it would affect women across the country. host: before we get to our viewers thoughts on the equal rights amendment, do your lawyers think that after virginia passes it that there are court challenges that hold it up? guest: we have word that there will be court challenges. whether or not it holds up is the question. we have a feeling that this will be discussed for some years to come and we will crack the full 100 year mark before it is done and finished, and accepted. we are certain that we have the votes in the house, so when that goes and when speaker pelosi gives us a full floor vote, it will go through the time limit
7:39 pm
removal. in the senate, there is a bipartisan bill there. senator ben cardin and lisa murkowski, miraculously working together two by two procedure so they will not add a republican until a democrat comes on. we are hoping that that bill will move forward. host: this would remove the deadline? guest: the time limit. host: john, texas, a republican, you are up first. caller: good morning. here in texas i am for what you are doing, my wife has tried to apply for jobs, she has a masters degree in investor management. in east texas if you are a woman in this area, men believe a woman's job is in the office only. it is so hard for a woman to move up the ladder and i am fed up and tired of it because women
7:40 pm
are smart just like men, if not smarter in most cases. i think here in texas, when it comes to the forefront of what businesses are doing, i would like to see businesses have to open their books up and show who they are hiring as women in what positions and expose them for what they really are. guest: thank you. transparency is absolutely essential in figuring out. if we say we will give you -- should give equality, even what we call the good guys, companies that believe they are paying their women and men equally, when they actually looked at the books were shocked to learn they were not and had to spend millions of dollars making up the difference. it is a systemic belief that women are not as valuable as men, and we think it comes from this lack of recognition in the constitution. from that minute when women were deliberately left out, it set up a thinking system that somehow
7:41 pm
you could get away with paying women less than men and women did not need the money as much as the men did to support their families, and that has lasted for far too long. i agree with our caller, a republican from texas, it was great. host: we want to hear from others. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. what are your thoughts on the equal rights amendment? let me read this to you. "equality of rights under the law should not be denied or abridged by the u.s. or any state on account of sex." how will these words impact women and john's wife in texas that they would be able to get a job just because this is added to the constitution? guest: because it is so simple.
7:42 pm
discrimination is illegal in the united states of america. we have never been free of discrimination because of that. we know so many other people were left out of the constitution the disabled, gay, , religious beliefs, you go on and on. that is why the constitution has been amended 27 times. we think what is the big deal? why has it taken a century to recognize women? as you stated, it refers in the first instance to the united states government and states. it is state action that will be affected. there will also be a two year waiting period for america to adjust to this equality, and then i think what will happen is that the cultural impact of this will be tremendous. private companies will not be able to continue this
7:43 pm
discriminatory action, so i think that, while in the first instance it has to do with united states government and states, it will reverberate. host: what will companies have to do? will they have to show that they are paying men and women equally? guest: i think we will get to that, because i think it is the only way. i was just hearing statistics with our yesterday about the extraordinary gap for women of color in the news industry, for instance are being paid $50,000 , less than their male colleagues doing exactly the same work. it was only when "the washington post" released its transparencies and looked at what they were paying people that they saw that there was this tremendous difference. you might say, we would not look at them and say you are a racist and intended to discriminate, but that is really so much a part of the defense of it, did you intend to discriminate or did this just happen?
7:44 pm
and you will remember the walmart case with betty dukes where there was a class action suit where all of the women were being paid less than the men, but the courts decided that there was no intent to do that so the women had no recourse. if this equal rights amendment goes into effect they will have recourse in the constitution. host: what kind of court cases do you see coming due to this being ratified and put into the constitution? guest: i think there will be the effort to not move to transparency, because that will cost some companies millions or billions of dollars. there will be revisions where we are confident those will not take effect. that those who have voted for the equal rights amendment, that that will stand. but there will still be those who will seek to resolve that in court. host: we want to get your thoughts before the next call on this headline.
7:45 pm
amy klobuchar says that women with mayor pete buttigieg's record would not be allowed to be in these presidential debates. here's what she is arguing, that she said complained against gender bias between voters and the media were given pete -- giving rival pete buttigieg more support and attention because he is a man. a woman with a similar resume she argued would not be taken seriously enough to make the debate stage. host: it is hard to argue that, but i will say that mayor pete's campaign was the first to reach out to the e.r.a. coalition presenting his women's agenda and supporting the e.r.a. there is that, i totally understand her point, point, there is not much argument against that. host: let us look at the map where the e.r.a. has been ratified. states in green have ratified the amendment. the ones in orange ratified and
7:46 pm
rescinded. the blue states have made no action or it did not pass in the states. let's go to james in washington, d.c., a republican. hello. caller: this is tony, actually. there are a lot of studies that indicate that younger women meet the same pay as younger men in the same cohort. similarly women with similar , levels of education meet the same levels of pay as men when you control for these factors. i remain unconvinced. furthermore, the women's movement, feminism, has been in favor of helping the middle class. i do not see anything to the benefit of poor people. i know that you want to think that you are but this does not , help people of color or disabled people. guest: i understand that you may have information, everything we know about women's pay in this country has women at a disadvantage.
7:47 pm
i would say that we need to boycott the equal pay days that we celebrate in the next year where a woman makes what a man made the entire year before. that is usually april for all women and then later for black women and then latino women have not made what white men made in 2018. she does not celebrate that until november 20. that is what we are looking at and we are looking at the poverty. most of the poor people are women and their children because they do not make what men make. in terms of starting out in their careers, we are finding out is a syndrome called the broken ladder is that so early they get knocked down, so it is not that they do not get the promotion trying to crack the glass ceiling, they get knocked down for that very first promotion, the very first pay increase that women are more than likely to be denied it, and
7:48 pm
therefore stalled in their careers. host: let us go to michael, new york. independent. caller: four observations. four people that i've read about in the news did not give women what they deserve. bernie sanders, hillary clinton, president obama and aoc. what happens is that the way i see it, women -- that is what i wanted to say. guest: i do not know on what basis all of that. i understand that you are reacting to believing that they do not support women. i think bernie sanders the last time around was one of the first to support the equal rights amendment.
7:49 pm
and, i will just end with that. it is a little tough as they are in these campaigns to peel out a piece and say that they are not supporting women because indeed, they are. host: try to give me quick responses to the pushback against the e.r.a., let it will harm women where regulations have been put in place, and workplace laws that help -- provide special accommodations for pregnant women. guest: we need more of them because most pregnant women are not given consideration. whereas if a man hurts his back he is given consideration. a pregnant woman has had to fight for those rights, and it would support that. host: government programs that support women as mothers, they are saying that this equal rights amendment would do away with those programs. guest: i do not think it will affect any of those programs.
7:50 pm
those are just scare tactics. it will give equality so you cannot discriminate based on sex. host: social security benefits. based on spouse's income. guest: not true. host: why? guest: that's what our research determines. these are all the scare tactics. one of the biggest ones that was offered in the earlier fight for the e.r.a. was the fight for single-sex bathrooms and that would bring about the end of civilization. we have gender-neutral bathrooms everywhere and that is not destroyed our country, but what is is the lack of equality for women. host: this past week there was a hearing on the e.r.a. i want to play for you ranking gop member mike johnson and his argument that the e.r.a. ratification could affect existing abortion laws. >> today the subcommittee holds yet another hearing on the era which will have to be passed by congress and the states under
7:51 pm
the constitution's super majority requirements before it becomes it should not become part of the constitution. it should not become part of the constitution for a number of reasons including this one. the bipartisan hide amendment -- -- prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is endangered. the people's's right to protect the unborn would be eliminated if the e.r.a. were to pass. researchessional service provide the committee with its own evaluation. 1983, the in executive summary of the report says under strict scrutiny the pregnancy classification in the hyde amendment would be regarded to be a sex classification under the e.r.a., meaning if the
7:52 pm
e.r.a. were to become under our law, restrictions on abortion would be struck down. host: carol jenkins, your response. guest: the e.r.a. coalition helped the judiciary committee mount that hearing and we were very pleased that we got it. years.the first in 36 the supreme court has said abortions are illegal and that is what we have to pay more attention to as opposed -- we feel this is a distraction from equality in many areas brought to women and men. i think that's what we need to focus on. ellen, silver spring, maryland. democratic caller. caller: my opinion is and i've worked for unions before about equal rights. i always felt i got better, equal pay and i knew i was
7:53 pm
making what the person next to me was making when i was working for a union. they had a structured pay scale and that's what you're on and i believe it would also solve problems with the way people are saying immigrants are taking our , jobs. if you have jobs where the pay is equal and only the best person gets the job, not by anything else that's what's , going to happen. if the union has structure to it and yes, you can get fired, you get three noes and you're out of there. so that's what i have to say. guest: thank you for that. wouldn't it just be wonderful if there were an amendment to the constitution where you didn't have to worry about that? i think that's what we are working for so that that would be open to everyone in this country.
7:54 pm
host: democratic caller in silver spring, maryland. caller: thanks a lot for c-span and i just wanted to say that i think some of the data on this issue can cut both ways. certainly in aggregate you can find data support for the idea that women don't get paid enough. there are certain instances in which i think there is parity. there are some reasons behind it. there aren't as many women engineers as there are biologists or teachers. it's hard to do all the normalization. i think when it comes to women's issues it would be nice to emphasize the group that needs to help the most which might be single women. ways to use women to try and solve some of society's problems, which would be to restrict gun ownership to women, and you would have fewer mass shootings and to use it as an international strategy to educate women abroad.
7:55 pm
i think it will bring a lot of global poverty down. host: any thoughts? guest: a novel approach. i don't have anything to say to that. thank you for offering that. it's absolutely the first time i've heard that. host: kurt in florida. republican. caller: good morning. i'm a retired space shuttle engineer 30 years with a big corporate company. and finding equal pay or even finding out what your coworkers are making is a difficult subject. most large corporations have salary ranges for level one people, level two, level three people but you will never find out what any of those people make because few people want to discuss what they make because they feel they are working either harder or less hard than you and it causes a discrepancy. unions, the little i know about
7:56 pm
them, they do have a structured scale of pay based on skill. i think in most jobs when you call three categories i guess skilled, semiskilled and i don't want to use unskilled, but, manual. and those jobs when you are skilled, they are well published, salary ranges. and semiskilled is also mostly union representation i think anyway. the manual labor jobs, those are all -- i've never done them before except when i was a teenager. it's more or less you negotiate going in. which is true for a lot of jobs. you have to be negotiating your salary when you start and when you get your reviews and things like that. the more skills you have, the more you are able to move from job to job which will allow you to get negotiating power to raise your wage from job to job. my wife is professionally employed and does very well into , the six figures.
7:57 pm
she has been doing at 35 years. she does her job and she's very good at it and it's recognized in a professional environment. the other environments are much more difficult because the jobs are temporary. the whole thing about being female or male or all the other categories -- when you get into how well you do your job that is what shines versus your exterior appearance. host: carol jenkins. guest: so often how well someone is doing is a subjective determination as opposed to an objective one and what we find is that women are more unfairly judged in that category. there would really be no other explanation for it, for the vast differences. we are not talking in some cases about even $5,000, a difference which would be important, but we are talking about $30,000, $100,000 difference for the same
7:58 pm
work. and for people being evaluated on different bases. that's the difficult thing that we are dealing with here. in the walmart case with betty dukes who died without getting recompense for having been cheated all those years. every manager in every walmart across the country had the same opinion about women and their performance. it had nothing to do with company intent. that's where we have major problems. host: this is a text from ann in alexandria. she says i spoke with the woman in the richmond area who was anti-e.r.a. it came out that religion informed her opinion. she does not believe that women should be entitled to the same jobs as held traditionally by men so she did not want female , firefighters.
7:59 pm
this person writes, i was a so i disagree. guest: good for you. it's so hard. you can't argue with their religions and what they believe. they are entitled to those rights. there was a legislator in virginia, a woman who said the only e.r.a. she needed was the gun that she wore to work every day. and that was her opinion. we think everybody should come to this conclusion on their own. should we have a country that outlaws discrimination or should we not? should we continue to discriminate? if the constitution has been amended 27 times why does this , one having to do with women not discriminating based on sex take a century to get ratified? host: when do you think virginia will be the 38th state to ratify this? guest: we are told it may be one of the first orders of business.
8:00 pm
the session opens on january 8. maybe the next week, but very early on. host: to follow this debate you can go to eracoalition.org. carol jenkins, copresident and ceo. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] washington journal mugs are available. check out all the c-span products. >> although congress is currently in recess, rollcall has the latest on the house impeachment inquiry and what to expect when lawmakers return next week. schiff says his committee will transmit a report on the evidence gathered so far in the impeachment inquiry soon after congress returns from thanksgiving recess. that information is baseon
59 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPANUploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1560425580)