Document 13: Senator Birch Bayh, "International Women's Year Observation," Congressional Record 123, pt. 24 (22 September 1977): 30449-30451.

Photograph of Senator Birch Bayh. From The Spirit of Houston:
The First National Women's Conference, p. 243.

   Birch Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator from Indiana (1963-1981), formerly a member of the House of Representatives (1954 to 1962), had a history of involvement with women's rights, most notably through his sponsorship of the Equal Rights Amendment. Bayh was also a commissioner on the NCOIWY and a strong supporter of the NWC. Bayh submitted the following letter from Bella Abzug to the Congressional Record as part of the pro-conference campaign to limit Congressional criticism of the NWC state and territorial conventions.[65]

p. 30449

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S YEAR
OBSERVATION

   Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I know that many of my colleagues are receiving a great deal of mail on the State IWY conferences conducted this past summer pursuant to Public Law 94-167. Due to the controversy engendered recently concerning these conferences, the Presiding Officer of the National Commission on the Observation of International Women's Year and our former colleague from the House of Representatives, Bella Abzug, has asked that her statement on behalf of the national commission be inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent her remarks be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   DEAR FRIENDS AND FORMER COLLEAGUES: I would like to clarify the nature of the state meetings for women which have been held under Public Law 94-167 pursuant to the direction of the Congress, throughout this country this summer. Indeed, the process of these state meetings, which have been designed to elicit individual participation from a broad spectrum of Americans on issues of concern to women, is almost complete. More than 100,000 women have participated in these meetings, and the participants have reflected every age, racial, ethnic, and religious group; women from the cities, the suburbs and rural America; homemakers, blue collar women, clericals and professionals; and, as the media coverage has made clear, women with every possible political point of view. This is something which should be commended because this is what we intended.

   However, I would like to set the record straight about some of the events which have occurred at the state meetings which I do not believe were anticipated by this legislation. As I understand the legislation, the Congress planned meetings which were open to the public with the maximum amount of participation of low income women and members of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups and women of all ages.

   The objective of the state meetings is to celebrate the contributions of women to the development of our country, to assess the present role of women in our society, to identify barriers preventing women from participating fully and equally in all aspects of national life, and to develop recommendations by which such barriers can be removed. To a large extent, these objectives have been achieved. These meetings have seen Indian women come and portray their particular plight to other concerned Americans. In New York, Chinese grandmothers took buses with their daughters and granddaughters to participate in the New York State meeting for women in Albany, New York, many of them voting in an election for the first time. In Minnesota, at the end of the state meetings, women who held diametrically opposing views on the issue of abortion, adopted the following resolution, which was overwhelmingly supported: "Recognizing that we will never all agree on every issue, we pledge to bind ourselves together in love, to continue to work on the concerns of universal importance—the need for our personal dignity, the relief of our suffering, the achievement of our aspirations—so that we can go on to that great victory—equality for women, not only in Minnesota, but around the world." In Vermont, women came out in February in a blinding snow storm to go to their meeting.

p. 30450

And these were not, as some would say, an elitist radical feminist cadre. More than 42% of the women who attended the Vermont meeting stated that they had never belonged to a women's organization and had never attended a meeting addressed to the concerns of women before. I submit that this is exactly what was Intended by this legislation—broad-based, diverse, individual participation at these historic meetings.

   The National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year has taken seriously its mandate to implement this public law. The Commission has published regulations and workshop guidelines which insure the maximum in fairness and contain valuable factual information on a broad range of substantive issues, including the legal status of the homemaker, employment, education, abused women, child care, rape, social security, female offenders, older women, and women's health needs. The Commission, in designating state coordinating committees within each state to plan and conduct the state meetings for women, did everything in its power to draw into the process women with all kinds of backgrounds and organizational affiliations. It did not, as some would have you believe, attempt to stack the coordinating committees with pro-ERA supporters and persons who favored choice in the matter of abortion. In fact, the Commission did not ask of one Individual who was being considered for appointment to the coordinating committee what her view was on any issue, including abortion and the equal rights amendment. The Commission, in its regulations, ensured that there would be opportunity for nominations from the floor prior to the election of delegates to the National Conference and that recommendations which were voted on in workshops would have an opportunity to be considered In the plenary sessions to the extent possible given the time constraints of the meeting. The Commission has employed professional staff to assist it in carrying out this congressional mandate under P.L. 94-167, and the staff is equally accessible to all members of the public to respond to their questions and to assist them in participating fully in the state meeting and national conference process.

   Despite the Commission's careful implementation of the law and the gratifying response of the overwhelming number of women who have participated at the state meetings there has been, on the part of a militant and well-organized group, a deliberate attempt to disrupt, to spread misinformation to infuse the state meeting process with distrust and to polarize the participants.

   The Commission has witnessed the same tactics in meeting after meeting. Prior to the meeting there are allegations that the meeting and the election results are prepackaged and rigged; during the meeting the same rhetoric, unsupported by the facts, continues; and after the meeting, even though the entire slate of the protesting group or a substantial number of its members are elected as delegates. Is this good faith participation, or a deliberately orchestrated attempt to discredit a fair process? For example, a Commission staff member went to the "Pro America" booth the night before the state meeting began and was told by the persons handing out literature that the election was rigged, that conference participants would not be allowed to vote on recommendations, and that they must be sure to sign affidavits that they voted for the entire "Pro America" slate or their ballots would not be counted. When asked by the IWY Commission staff member who told them that they would not be allowed to vote for whomever they pleased as a delegate to the National Conference and that they would not be allowed to vote on recommendations, the response was "our leaders". In fact, nothing of the sort occurred or ever could occur under the Commission's democratic procedures. Almost all of the persons elected as delegates at that meeting were endorsed by the "Pro America" slate: the ballots were counted and the electorate spoke. But some persons tainted the process with deliberate and calculated misinformation.

   Phyllis Schlafly's May newsletter for the Eagle Forum instructed her followers to protest the state meetings for women from start to finish. She also ordered them to report on "the crooked way the votes are taken: the many violations of fair elections rules and parliamentary procedure." I believe that there is a difference between organizing persons of your political persuasion to participate in the meetings and to be vigilant to ensure that correct procedures are complied with. But that is a different thing from Mrs. Schlafly's preordained results. Any responsible and fairminded person or organization would demand proof of wrongdoing before such serious and defamatory charges are levelled.

   In this same newsletter, Mrs. Schlafly also instructed her followers that they should remind their legislators that "all the pressure they are getting for ERA is due solely to this Federally-financed propaganda campaign." This brings us to another issue of harassment and deliberate misinformation engaged in by persons who are determined to impede the process of these state meetings. No doubt many of my former colleagues are being deluged with mall demanding that the Commission be investigated and that its appropriation be withdrawn because it is engaging in illegal lobbying activities. This, of course, is a legal matter. Duplicative lawsuits have been filed against the Commission by Stop-ERA members on this issue. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has ordered the complaint dismissed. The issue is now again before the Federal district court in the Southern District of Illinois. On the motion of Stop-ERA members in Illinois seeking to enjoin the Illinois State Meeting for women, a preliminary hearing was held on April 28, 1977. In denying plaintiff's motion, the court stated, "the evidence also shows that the Commission is conscious of the proscriptions against lobbying in its appropriation statutes. . . . There is no indication in this record of imminent danger of direct lobbying activities by Commission members or staff personnel in the Illinois or other state legislatures." Yet, the false allegations and deliberate misinformation continue. We are witnessing a harassment campaign of unparalleled proportions.

   Some of the critics of the Commission go so far as to claim that every time I speak somewhere as the Presiding Officer of the Commission, or other Commission members speak their views on some controversial issue, that constitutes a violation of the lobbying restriction in the public law. I know that the members of the U.S. Congress know something of constitutional law and freedom of speech, and I am confident that they would accord the individuals who serve as members or staff to the National IWY Commission the same First Amendment freedom of speech rights as Mrs. Schlafly. It is one thing to use federally appropriated monies for lobbying activities; this the Commission cannot and will not do. It is another to attempt to parlay a lobbying restriction in a federal law into a mechanism for muzzling people and inhibiting their freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

   Let us examine the nature of some of the participation that has occurred at the state meetings. A man who identifies himself as an active Mormon, missionary and former member of the Sunday School Board of the Church of Latter Day Saints wrote despairingly to the Salt Lake Tribune of some of the events he witnessed at the Utah State Meeting for Women, a meeting the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote was seriously debated. Mr. Vernon decried the booing and hissing of minority viewpoints by "conservative fanatics and the mindless sheep who followed them", and he characterized the refusal of the majority to allow the more liberal minority participants to present their views as "the height of intolerance and bigotry". Mr. Vernon also stated in his anguished letter, "So, congratulations to you my fellow Mormons. You won the battle, but you lost the war. You won your points against the ERA, … even to the extent of voting down teaching little girls in public schools how to recognize potential rapists."

   This monolithic anti-change voting, whatever the issue, has occurred at a minority of the meetings. Regrettably there have been instances, which I think the Congress did not anticipate in its hope for unprecedented individual and diverse participation at these meetings, of male leaders, often lawyers or clergymen, coming to the meetings "in charge" of a group of women. These leaders then instructed their followers on when to speak, handed them slips of paper telling them what to say, chastised them when they did not do a good job and told them not to speak again, and even told them when, and how often, they were excused to go to the ladies room.

   In fact, some of the State meetings for women have seen the participation of members of male organizations which I am certain that the Congress never envisioned participating under this Public Law. Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan have boasted of their success in controlling certain State meetings, and have stated that their informants and infiltrators have participated at the State meetings and will participate in the National Conference. Mr. Robert Shelton, imperial wizard of the United Klans of America, Inc., has stated that he and other members of the Klan will be in Houston for the National Conference for Women to "protect our women," since, according to Mr. Shelton, "it's not safe for a decent woman to be there." I am quite certain that the women who are coming together in Houston to discuss their problems and attempt to identify the barriers that inhibit their full participation in the life of this country do not want or need the involvement of an institution such as the Ku Klux Klan to assist them in this endeavor.

   Other male leaders at the State meetings have told their flock to vote "no" on any recommendation, not just on the controversial issues of the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, but for equal funding for educational opportunity for our daughters as well as our sons, a vote "no" against the reform of rape laws so that more rapists can be apprehended and convicted; a vote "no" against the provision of shelter for chronically beaten women so they can escape their cycle of abuse and despair: a rote "no" against social security law reform so that the value and dignity and self-worth of the homemaker—surely one of the most valued members of our society—can be recognized in monetary terms; a vote "no" against improving the status of women's health facilities in our country. I must ask are these people "pro-family"? Do they have any legitimacy to the claim of being "Pro-America"? Can they convince any of us that they are, in any meaningful sense, "Pro-Life"? I fear that this monolithic negativism shows only more clearly the need for further dissemination

p. 30451

of information and more public education as to the facts.

   The most recent attack on this Commission and its activities has occurred in an ad hoc congressional forum. No attempt was made to insure timely notice, due process, a fair cross-section of opinion, or an opportunity to respond to charges at this forum. Indeed, the Commission itself was never even formally notified of the proceeding. The Commission was told a few days prior to the hearing that it would be accorded 30 minutes at the end of the hearing to refute charges made during a two day period. Despite these repeated attacks and attempts to impede its functions, this Commission will fulfill its obligation to convene a National Conference for Women as mandated by law, in Houston, Texas this November.

   I thank you for this opportunity to assist my former colleagues in understanding the nature of the responsibilities of the National IWY Commission and some of the events which have occurred at the State meetings. The Commission looks forward to the continued support of the Congress as it plans the National Conference for Women in Houston, Texas, to fulfill the mandate that has been entrusted to the Commission under the law.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 95^th CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 123—PART 24

SEPTEMBER 21, 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 28, 1977
(PAGES 30065 TO 31508)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1977

   

Previous Document	Document List	Next Document