The publication is reproduced in full below:
REMOVING THE DEADLINE FOR THE RATIFICATION OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS
AMENDMENT
______
speech of
HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I rise in support of equality and the principle that our Constitution was designed, not to shore up the dominance of the historically powerful, but to ensure the rights of all and to foster a society in which each of us is free to shape our future based on our abilities. The resolution today seeks to remove the deadline Congress put in place for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. While ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is imperative to enshrine equal rights for women, I do not believe it is necessary to strike the deadline for ratification. However, by voting on this legislation, we may imply that it is necessary for Congress to lift a self-imposed deadline in order for the ratification to be effective. I do not prescribe to this view.
Congressional authority to propose Amendments to the Constitution and the mode of ratification is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Article V requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose an amendment. Congress can choose ratification through three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. Once the amendment is proposed to the states, there is no Constitutionally imposed time limit on the ratification process. Article V of the Constitution is silent with regard to when a state must consider and ratify an amendment. In fact, the ratification process for the 27th Amendment took more than two hundred years.
Historically, Congress has ratified amendments without specific time limitations. The first amendment to contain a time limit was the 18th Amendment, which established the prohibition of alcohol. The text of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments each contained language limiting the time frame for ratification. In contrast, the text of the Equal Rights Amendment ratified by the states does not contain a time limit. It is the proposing clause sent to the states for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment which contains a seven-year time limitation. Notwithstanding a lower district court ruling to the contrary, the language of a proposing clause is not legally binding. The ratification process of the Equal Rights Amendment was properly before the states and was reasonable and sufficiently contemporaneous. Therefore, having been ratified by Virginia and a sufficient number of other states pursuant to Article V, the ERA, in my judgement, has become part of the Constitution.
This resolution is unlikely to add to the argument that the ERA has been ratified, and, because it implies that the deadline needs to be removed, it may strengthen arguments against because if the deadline is binding, then passage of this resolution in the House, without passage in the Senate, certainly does not cure that defect. And even with Senate concurrence, the effect of the resolution on state ratifications between the deadline and the removal of the deadline is unclear. So the passage of the resolution in the House and Senate will at best add confusion to the debate and at worst will strengthen arguments against the conclusion that the ERA has been ratified. Nevertheless, forced with a vote, it makes more sense to vote in favor than to oppose the resolution.
Regardless of the outcome of this resolution on the ERA itself, the fight for equality must continue. Women still face hurdles in the pathways to success. On average, women still earn less than men for the same job functions. Pregnant women often lack basic protections and reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Perhaps most concerning of all, violence against women is still widespread and undermines the educational and social potential of women and young children in this country.
I am proud to have worked with my Democratic colleagues in the House to pass legislation to remedy these inequalities. The House recently passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (H.R. 842) which protects workers who are trying to form a union. While in most of America, women earn less than men, women and men working under a union contract receive equal pay for equal work. We have worked to fill the gaps in the patchwork of existing laws governing how and when workers take time off to care for themselves and their families. Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more working parents and low wage workers who are currently excluded from leave policies is a top priority.
There are other initiatives being considered to address inequities. Nearly two thirds of minimum wage workers in the United States are women. The Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 603) will raise the income levels of the most economically insecure households and would be a step in the right direction towards pay equity. The Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act
(H.R. 1065) is important legislation that will provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women in the workforce. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) which expands protections and provides critical funding for victim services, law enforcement training, and data collection, is now pending in Congress.
However, even if all this legislation were to become law, it would not be the same as amending the Constitution to guarantee women equal rights. Discrimination in the workplace, violence in the home, and institutional barriers require systemic legal and cultural change. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment provides an additional legal tool for combatting discrimination on the basis of sex.
We will continue the fight for equality and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 51
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up