tv Washington Journal Carol Jenkins CSPAN November 22, 2019 1:34pm-2:06pm EST
campaign event in new hampshire. live coverage from new england 2:00 p.m..ins at encase you missed any impeachment inquiry hearings, we will have some of those highlights this weekend beginning tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern we will have the testimony of alexander been and kurt volker. on sunday, the testimony of gordon sondland. nscowed by fiona hill director for russia affairs. also, david holmes. that starts at 10:35 a.m. eastern on sunday. you can string that anytime online at c-span.org. carol jenkins who is the copresident and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition. what is the equal rights amendment? should be the 20th
amendment to our constitution which simply says that equality is for everyone in this country. you cannot discriminate based on sex. if you words, that's it. nothing controversial. country should provide 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 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 20th 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. you 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. expired, wee limit only got to 35. miraculously, in recent days, in 2017, nevada ratified the e.r.a. and in 2018, illinois ratified 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. this is taking up -- this has been taken up as soon as they are in session. tomorrow we have a markup of a removal of the time limit. a big week after 100 years of working for it. host: why do 38 states need to ratify this? guest: it was stipulated that three third -- three fourths of congress and three fourths of states have to pass and ratify any amendment so that you will have achieved that -- we will 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. new --aul, 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 excitement in 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. he 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 lose money if they had to give women equal pay, providing quality to women in this country. it was an economic issue as well. toot we see is that after #me and all the progress that women made, can we truly say that we are not willing to give room -- 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 kentucky,s, idaho, nebraska, and tennessee, voted to rescind their ratification. west: our legal scholars, have 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. 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 of vote. guest: it did not get out on committee by one vote. if we had -- if it had gone out onto the floor, we would've had the 38th state january this year. -- and more moral pro-e.r.a. legislators makes all the difference. it was such a huge campaign. he advocates on the ground, our coalition members on the ground had postcards, texting, and phone banking because they understood what was happening. justnot -- it did not affect virginia, it would've -- it would affect women across the country. host: 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 removal. in the senate, there is a bipartisan bill there. senator ben cardin and lease term -- 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.
republican,texas, a you are up first. caller: good morning. 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. i am fed up and tired of it because women 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. absolutelyy is essential in figuring out. if we say we will give you quality, even the good guys --
even if we will give you quality, even if good guys, they have been shocked to learn that they are 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 the lack of recognition in constitution. from that minute when women were deliberately left out, it set up a thinking system that somehow you could get away with paying women less than men and women did not need the money as much as amended to support their families, and that has lost -- lasted for far too long. thank you for your support. a republican from texas, it was great. host: we want to hear from others. .emocrats, 202-748-8000 republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.
let me read this to you. "equality of rights should not be denied or abridged by the u.s. or any state on account of sex." how will these words impact wife in texas's that they will be able to get a job just because this is added to the constitution. guest: because it is so simple. discrimination is illegal in the united states of america. we have never been free of discrimination because of that. you know that so many other people are left out of the constitution, is -- 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 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 penitent -- 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 yesterday about the extraordinary gap for women of color in the news industry or 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? and you will remember the walmart case where it 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. amendmentual rights 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 move to transparency, because that will cost some come trip -- companies millions or billions of dollars. were will be revisions where are confident that they will take effect that those who have voted for the equal rights amendment, that that will stand. 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. 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 complaint against gender bias between voters and the media were given pete buttigieg more support and attention because he is a man. a woman with a similar resume would not be taken seriously not 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, 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 rescinded. the blue states have made no action or it did not pass in the states. notice go to james in washington, d.c., a republican. hello. caller: this is tommy, actually. there are a lot of studies that indicate that younger women meet the same pay as younger men in the same cohort, and women with similar levels of education eight the same levels of pay as men when you control for these factors. i remain unconvinced.
furthermore, the women's movement and feminism has been in favor of helping the middle class. i do not see anything to the benefit of poor people. i know what you -- 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 everything weon, know about women's pay in this country has women at a disadvantage. 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 therefore stalled in their careers. host: let us go to michael, new york. independent. caller: four observations. poor people that i have read the did not give -- -- four people that i've read about in the news did not give women what they deserve. sanders, hillary clinton, president obama and aoc.
that the way i -- 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. 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 for supporting women because indeed, they are. host: try to give me a responses to the pushback that it will whereomen who -- regulations have been put in place, and workplace laws that help pregnant women. guest: we need more of them
because most pregnant women are not given consideration. 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 say thatwith that program. guest: i don't think it will affect any of those programs. those are scare tactics. the only thing it will do is bring equality so that you cannot discriminate based on sex. host: social security benefits. guest: not true? host: why? researchat's what our determines. these are all the scare tactics. one of the biggest ones that was offered in the earlier fight the era wasight for the single-sex bathrooms and that would bring about the end of
civilization. what is destroying our country is the lack of nullity for women. -- equality for women. host: this past week there was a hearing on the era. ranking gop member mike johnson and his argument that era 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 the constitution's super majority requirements. it should not become part of the constitution for a number of reasons including this one. amendment --n hide the supreme court upheld the .bortion fund as constitution the right to the unborn will be
eliminated. provide the committee with its -- the pregnancy classification and the hyde -- meaning if the era were to become part of our law restrictions on abortion would automatically be struck down. host: carol jenkins, your response. helpedthe era coalition the judiciary committee mound that hearing and we were very pleased that we got it. it was the first and 36 years. we need to -- we feel this is a
distraction. that's what we need to focus on. host: ellen and silver spring, maryland. democratic caller. caller: my opinion is and i've worked for unions before about equal rights. i knew i was making with the person next to me was making. scalead a structured pay 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 and only the best person gets the job not by anything else than that's what's going to happen.
the union has structure to it and you can get fired you get three no and you're out of there. so that's what i have to say. 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. democratic caller in silver spring, maryland. c-span thanks a lot for 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 certain instances in which
i think there is parity. certainly in aggregate youthered it. there aren't as many women engineers as there are oil interests or teachers. it's hard to do all the normalization. i think what 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 survive some of society's problems. he would have fewer mass shootings and to use it as an international strategy to educate women abroad. i think it will bring a lot of noble poverty down. host: any thoughts? guest: a novel approach. i don't have anything to say to that. offering that. it's absolutely the first time i've heard that. host: kurt in florida. publican. caller: good morning. i'm a retired space shuttle engineer 30 years with a big corporate company. 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 3 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 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. when you ares 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 -- to negotiate with your salary when you start and when you get to reviews. and the more skills you have the more you're able to move from job to job, which will allow you to get negotiating power to raise your wage. my wife is professionally employed and she does very well. she has been doing it for 35 years, she does her job, she's very good at it and it's recognized in a professional environment. other environments are much more difficult because jobs are temporary. the whole thing about being male or female or the other categories, when you get into how well you do, that is what shines, versus your exterior appearance. guest: but often how so -- how
well someone is doing is a subjective determination as opposed to an objective one. and women are more unfairly judged in that category. there would be no other explanation for it for the vast difference. talking about the $5,000 range which would be enormous and importance, but also 40,000, $50,000 different for the same work and for people being evaluated on different basis. that's a difficult thing we are dealing with. the case where a woman died without getting recompense after having been cheated for years, they just said it was just that every manager and every walmart across the country had the same opinion about women and their performance. it had nothing to do with
company intent to discriminate. that's where we have major problems. sen. klobuchar: i want to read a text from jan, she said she spoke with a woman in the richmond area who was anti-e.r.a.. after further conversation it came up 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. ais person writes i was tugboat or so i obviously disagree. guest: good for you. you cannot argue with somebody's religion and what they believe, it is so hard, they are entitled there wasights area one 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. shouldk that everyone come to this conclusion on their own, should we have a country
that outlaws discrimination or should we not? should we continue to discriminate? the constitution has been amended 27 times, so why does this one having to do with women not been discriminated based on sex take a century to get ratified? sen. klobuchar: when do you think urgent -- host: when do you think virginia will be the first -- will be able to ratify .his debate,o follow this you can follow on e.r.a. debate. we go live now to new hampshire where amy klobuchar is holding a campaign event. campaign 2020 covered from new england college in henniker on c-span.