[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 APPLAUDING THE RECENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ILLINOIS STATE LEGISLATURE 
                  REGARDING THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 5, 2003

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in strong support 
of the recent actions taken by the Illinois state legislature regarding 
the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed amendment to the 
Constitution which would unequivocally guarantee equal gender rights 
under the law. As many of my colleagues are certainly aware, the 
Illinois State Assembly recently voted on and passed the ERA, clearing 
the way for their counterparts in the Senate to consider this crucial 
legislation at the conclusion of their current recess. If Illinois' 
State Senate agrees to ratify the ERA, then only two more state 
ratifications will be necessary for this long overdue amendment to be 
added to our Constitution.
  Some people have argued that the addition of an ERA amendment to the 
Constitution would simply be a change in semantics and nothing more. I 
strongly disagree. Presently, on average, women receive only 76 percent 
of the pay that men receive for comparable full time positions. 
Inequities such as these are inexcusable; they are disastrously 
damaging not just to women, but also to their families. Through the 
ratification of an Equal Rights Amendment, women would have an expanded 
legal basis to call for equal compensation for equal work.
  Although the Equal Rights Amendment may have faded from the public 
spotlight at times, the movement to include women in the Constitution 
never died, and it is growing vigorously once again. Women had to wait 
until 1920 to be granted the right to vote under the Constitution. 
While this was certainly a monumental development, it has not produced 
full gender equality. The 14th Amendment, granting ``equal protection 
of the laws,'' did not, and still does not, fully protect women from 
damaging gender discrimination. Only an Equal Rights Amendment would 
ensure the Constitutionally guaranteed full equality that women 
deserve.
  The ERA was originally passed by Congress in 1972, along with a 
seven-year time limit for ratification. In 1979, Congress extended the 
time limit for three more years, leaving the deadline at 1982. Within a 
decade of the initial 1972 passage, the amendment had been ratified by 
35 states, three short of the necessary 38. For many years after that, 
the ERA was, for technical reasons, generally considered ``dead.'' 
However, legal analyses indicate that with just three more state 
ratifications, the ERA may in fact meet the requirements to be added to 
the Constitution. As has been verified by several legal experts, the 
fact that the time limit appears in the proposing clause rather than 
the text of the legislation leaves this deadline open to adjustment. 
When Congress chose to extend the deadline in 1979, a precedent was 
set; subsequent sessions of Congress may adjust time limits placed in 
proposing clauses by their predecessors. These adjustments may include 
extensions of time, reductions, or elimination of the deadline 
altogether.

  It is therefore possible for current or future sessions of Congress 
to eliminate the deadline originally placed on ratification of the ERA, 
thus allowing the amendment to be added to the Constitution once it is 
ratified by three more states. This ``three state strategy'' is a very 
real possibility, and I have introduced legislation into the House of 
Representatives, H. Res. 38, to ensure that action will be immediately 
considered by Congress once three more state legislatures ratify the 
ERA.
  Put simply, it is time for the Constitution to be amended to include 
an amendment which ensures gender equality for all Americans. Today, 
unlike some times in the past, the American people are decidedly ready 
for Constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights for men and women. A July 
2001 nationwide survey by Opinion Research Corporation showed that 96 
percent of American adults believe that male and female citizens of the 
U.S. should have equal rights, and 88 percent believe that our 
Constitution should explicitly guarantee those rights. Having the ERA 
in the Constitution will simply recognize what the American people 
already want--equal justice under the law.
  Many leaders both here in Congress and in state legislatures are 
advocating for the ``three state strategy,'' as well as a renewal of 
the ERA by Congress through a second passage of the amendment. I feel 
that anyone who is serious about guaranteeing equal rights to women 
should be supportive of both of these approaches. It does not matter 
how the ERA is eventually made part of the Constitution, as long as 
guaranteed gender equality rights are the end result.
  As the Equal Rights Amendment reads, ``Equality of rights under the 
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 
state on account of sex.'' The ERA is unfinished business for the 
Constitution. It will be achieved, and present and future generations 
of women--and men--will thank us for it, and wonder why it took so 
long. It is simple justice, it is long overdue, and it is time.

                          ____________________