August 25, 1978
Page 27905
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, tomorrow is the 58th anniversary of the adoption of the 19th amendment to the Constitution, the women's suffrage amendment. The years which preceded adoption of that amendment saw the growth and development of a "women's movement," and the 19th amendment was their symbol of social equality.
Today, 58 years later, a strong new women's movement is fighting for another amendment to the Constitution, the equal rights amendment. That amendment has become a symbol of social equality for the women of today.
The amendment is the subject of great controversy in the States which have not yet ratified, and in some States which have. As a supporter of the equal rights amendment, I believe the case for it is clear, even obvious. I hope those States which have not ratified will do so quickly.
And most importantly, I hope that the women — and men — who have fought so hard and so persuasively for the equal rights amendment, first in Congress and for the past 7 years in the States, will resolve on tomorrow's anniversary to keep up the fight until it is won.
I am concerned that the question of the 7-year time limit suggested by the 92d Congress has obscured the debate over the equal rights amendment, diverted the energies of supporters and created a controversy which may well be empty of meaning.
The fate of the equal rights amendment still lies in the hands of those legislatures which have not yet approved it. I urge supporters of the amendment to redouble their efforts in the States, and concentrate on convincing three more legislatures of the need to ratify the amendment.
The Congress finds itself in a curious position, which the framers of the Constitution either did not foresee, or thought so improbable that the question was never addressed.
We are debating deadlines as if amending the Constitution were some sort of sports event, with four quarters or three periods or nine innings. The development of a Constitution by the people is and must be a more dynamic and sensible process than that.
To make matters worse, the question of a deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment has run up against a "deadline" the Congress itself has imposed for adjournment this fall. Perhaps it is the pace of modern society which makes these ad hoc days on the calendar seem like a solid brick wall blocking the road to ERA. A closer examination, I believe, will expose the deadline as a mirage.
The Constitution sets no such deadline or time limit in article V, which describes the method of amending the Constitution. The framers made no reference to time limits when debating the article. And the Congress set no time periods for ratification for nearly 130 years until1917, when it proposed the 18th amendment.
Even then, a time period was proposed mainly in response to approval by the Ohio legislature of a long-forgotten amendment proposed 80 years earlier.
The Supreme Court has given only limited guidance on the question of deadlines. The Court's major pronouncements have been these:
That the ratification procedure ought to be "succeeding steps in a single endeavor," and "sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of States to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period ..."; That the Congress may set time limits: And that the question of a reasonable time for ratification is one which may be addressed "in the presence of certified ratifications by three-fourths of the States."
It seems to me the Supreme Court has felt that the question of amending the Constitution is closely intertwined with the political and social climate of any given period. While the passage of generations before adoption is probably not a reasonable time, some other period might well be reasonable. And it is the Congress which makes that decision.
The key question is not what the Congress does next month, or before next March. The key is getting the approval of the legislatures. Regardless of our decision on a time period this year or next, the Congress almost certainly will be confronted with the questions of timely ratification again, after three more legislatures ratify. Regardless of whether Congress acts now, it certainly could declare then that ratification had in fact occurred.
And anyone who might wonder whether the question of ERA is alive need only observe the events of tomorrow's anniversary. The fact of the controversy itself is persuasive evidence that ERA is a live issue ripe for action.
I hope the question is settled in favor of the equal rights amendment. Whether or not we act this year to extend the time period, the passage of days will not end the hopes of equal rights amendment supporters.
When the Senate is given an opportunity to extend or eliminate the time limit suggested 7 years ago, I will support that approach. I do not believe it is necessary. Nor is it likely to finally settle the question of what constitutes a reasonable time.