[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1024-H1029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2546, COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 
 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 79, REMOVING DEADLINE 
   FOR RATIFICATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 844 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 844

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2546) to designate certain lands in the State 
     of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-50 shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 79) removing the deadline for the ratification of the 
     equal rights amendment. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the joint 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The joint 
     resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, 
     and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 842 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     February 14, 2020, through February 24, 2020--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 844, providing for consideration of 
two measures, H.R. 2546, Protecting America's Wilderness Act, and H.J. 
Res. 79, Removing Deadline for Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2546 under a structured 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It makes in 
order 12 amendments and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 79 under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one 
motion to recommit.
  The rule deems as passed H. Res. 842, a resolution to clarify that a 
simple majority is needed for passage of H.J. Res. 79.
  Finally, the rule provides for standard district work period 
instructions from February 14 through February 24.
  Madam Speaker, it has been almost 100 years since the equal rights 
amendment was first introduced in Congress. It has been 45 years since 
it was passed by Congress. In this year, as we celebrate the 100th 
anniversary of women winning the right to vote in this country, it 
defies logic that we are still in a holding pattern when it comes to 
recognizing the equal rights of women under the United States 
Constitution.
  Therefore, I am proud to oversee the rule for H.J. Res. 79, which 
will remove the questionable deadline for the ratification of the equal 
rights amendment.
  When Alice Paul, Crystal Eastman, and other suffragists and women's 
rights pioneers set out to pass the equal rights amendment, they knew 
they had a long and fierce battle ahead of them. The first version of 
the ERA was introduced in 1923, and it took almost 50 years for both 
the House and the Senate to approve it. When the amendment was finally 
approved in 1972, the preamble to the amendment contained a 7-year 
deadline for ratification.
  Thirty-five of the 38 required States ratified the ERA in their State 
legislatures during that initial 7-year timeline. The ERA had broad 
bipartisan support from Members of Congress and Presidents Nixon, 
Carter, and Ford but was unable to cross the finish line in the brief 
time allowed.
  Why the ERA did not become a constitutional amendment in the 
seventies is up for debate, but it was in large part due to vicious, 
antifeminist rhetoric and actions by conservative activists who sought 
to trample on the rights of all women to work for an equal wage, to 
control their own reproductive health, and to participate as equal 
members of our society, in the name of protecting the traditional 
values of a privileged few.
  In the years that followed, courts have recognized and protected 
various aspects of women's equality under the law through 
interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But as 
even Justice Antonin Scalia famously recognized, nothing in our 
Constitution, as currently written, forbids discrimination on the basis 
of sex.
  Therefore, final passage and ratification of the ERA is critical in 
guaranteeing equal rights to me, to you, to my daughter, and to all 
women and girls across this country. We will not go back.

[[Page H1025]]

  The equal rights amendment would permanently and explicitly prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws change, as do the people 
interpreting them, but we are a Nation governed by our Constitution. 
The rights given to us through the Constitution are inalienable, and 
the protections they provide us with are invaluable.
  We hear from the other side of the aisle that discrimination against 
women is already illegal. This argument might be more persuasive if it 
was not being presented by a party that is, if anything, less diverse 
than it was in the 1970s. When a party reflects a predominantly White, 
male, and conservative voter base, it is easy to see why that party 
might not understand the need for basic additional constitutional 
protections.
  Women continue to face obstacles to full equality, including unequal 
pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual and domestic violence, and 
inadequate healthcare access. One in three women experience sexual 
violence in their lifetimes; one in five women are sexually assaulted 
on college campuses; and 56 percent of girls in grades 7 through 12 are 
sexually harassed in any given school year. Moreover, 60 to 70 percent 
of women face sexual harassment during their careers, with Black and 
Brown women disproportionately impacted.
  Women are paid less than their male counterparts for equal work. 
Women are treated differently in job interviews and can be determined a 
burden for a company if they are pregnant or planning on becoming 
pregnant. These indiscretions are only compounded when we look at women 
of color and women with disabilities.
  Women in general in this country make 80 cents to a man's dollar. 
Women with disabilities make about 65 cents to a man's dollar and 7 
cents less than a man with disabilities. Black women make about 63 
cents on a White man's dollar; Native women make about 57 cents; and 
Hispanic women make approximately 54 cents on a White man's dollar. The 
wages for trans women fall by nearly one-third after transitioning.
  A woman who works full-time year-round typically loses $430,480 in a 
40-year work-life period. That means this woman would have to work 
nearly 11 years longer to make up this lifetime wage gap.
  This also has a serious financial impact on retirement. The average 
Social Security benefit for women 65 and older is about $13,867 per 
year, compared to $18,039 for men of the same age.
  So, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If paying 
women less than men is already illegal, if treating women differently 
in the workplace and other professional settings is already prohibited 
by existing law, why does it still happen?
  The answer is simple: because it is relatively easy to navigate 
around existing laws to protect women. It is easy to treat women 
differently in a way that is legal and in line with the law.
  That is unacceptable, and that is why we need the equal rights 
amendment.
  When women earn less for equal work, families earn less for equal 
work. If you choose to deliberately shortchange the American family and 
deny them financial security, then, clearly, we have different values.
  Although the ERA was passed with bipartisan support, and strong 
support from Republican women, we saw in the Rules Committee last night 
and in debate about this rule and bill that the spirit of the late 
Phyllis Schlafly has overtaken today's Republican Party, which now 
seeks to cloak deep-seated misogyny in anti-choice rhetoric.
  Passing the equal rights amendment is long overdue. I am excited to 
be part of a Democratic majority that will remove this arbitrary 
deadline for ratification and finally allow States to exercise their 
constitutional authority to pass this critical and fundamentally 
American amendment.
  This rule will also provide for consideration of H.R. 2546, the 
Protecting America's Wilderness Act. This is a package of public lands 
bills from the Natural Resources Committee that will designate more 
than 1.3 million acres as wilderness or potential wilderness areas, 
preserving those public lands for generations to come.
  Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by 
Americans as public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 million 
acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us to combat 
climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer 
recreational activity to Americans, young and old.
  As we continue to endure devastating and worsening effects of climate 
change, providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness allows 
for these areas to continue to serve as critical carbon sinks to 
capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
  Additionally, wilderness areas are some of our most naturally 
resilient landscapes. This allows them to endure periodic wildfires and 
other disturbances, like floods, with relatively little human impact or 
intervention. This helps save the government money, as opposed to a 
more active style of forest management.

                              {time}  1230

  This legislation not only helps to combat climate change, it also 
supports access to clean water, protects pristine wildlife habitats, 
and bolsters the outdoor recreation economies of Colorado, California, 
Washington, and more.
  The Protecting America's Wilderness Act was crafted in direct 
coordination with the stakeholders and local voices that it will 
impact. I thank Chairman Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette, and the 
members of the Natural Resources Committee for the lengths they went to 
in order to make this bill a success and one that will preserve and 
protect pristine wildlife habitats, clean water, and access to outdoor 
recreational opportunities.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Before I get to the points, I know that we differ on policy, but I 
have to tell you that I was offended by what I thought were racist and 
sexist comments made by my Democratic colleague about the Republican 
party makeup, and I totally disagree with her.
  Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to clarify what H.J. Res 79 is. 
It is not the equal rights amendment. It is a date change. The 
legislation is a joint resolution removing the deadline for 
ratification of the equal rights amendment in States that the amendment 
shall be valid and adopted as part of the Constitution whenever 
ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States.
  Democrats say this is about equal rights for women. Well, I am a 
woman, and so I, obviously, support equal rights for women. But I 
oppose H.J. Res 79 for the following reasons:
  First: The bill is totally unconstitutional.
  When the ERA originally passed on March 22, 1972, Congress explicitly 
set a deadline for ratification stating that the amendment shall be 
valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
States within 7 years from the date of its submission by the Congress. 
That meant that the final deadline was March 22, 1979, almost 41 years 
ago.
  By the end of this initial deadline, only 35 of the 38 States needed 
had ratified it, so Congress with a simple majority vote, which is 
questionable, extended the deadline once to 1982, but no other States 
joined in ratification. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead.
  It is also imperative to note that five of the 35 States rescinded 
their ratifications. So then the count was down to only 30 States.
  In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just 
last month reiterating that the ERA ratification timeline is expired.
  Ultimately, when the 1972 ERA's deadline passed without ratification 
by three-fourths of the States, the proposed amendment expired and is, 
therefore, no longer pending. The 1972 ERA, therefore, can no longer be 
ratified because it no longer exists.
  In one of its works, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
which we all turn to, states that the ERA formally died on June 30, 
1982. The U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed all cases related to the 
ERA because it held the cases to be moot, saying that the ERA 
ratification date had expired.

[[Page H1026]]

  Regardless of one's view on whether or not the equal rights amendment 
should be adopted, the fact remains that the equal rights amendment was 
not ratified by the necessary 38 States by the deadline set forth in 
the text of the amendment itself.
  Just last night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certainly 
not known as a conservative, said Virginia's recent adoption of an ERA 
resolution was long after the deadline passed. She went on to say, ``I 
would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's 
too much controversy about latecomers. Virginia--long after the 
deadline passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their 
ratification.'' Remember the five I talked about. ``So if you count a 
latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said 
we've changed our minds?'' And deratified.
  In addition, the Democrats' sneaky act to slip into this resolution 
language that would deem that a mere majority vote instead of the two-
thirds vote needed on a constitutional amendment, has significant 
constitutional and legal ramifications.
  Should my Democratic colleagues wish to proceed with seeking to add 
the ERA to the Constitution, the appropriate method would be to follow 
the procedure outlined in the Constitution: Passage by a two-thirds 
majority in both Houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-
quarters of the States. And it seems as recently as last night, Supreme 
Court Justice Ginsburg agrees.
  Secondly: The ERA amendment is not necessary.
  Women's equality of rights under the law is already recognized in our 
Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments.
  Women do deserve fairness and equality under the law. Through 
established law such as Title IX, the Equality Opportunity Act of 1963, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 
and Equal Pay Act, plus State and local laws, women have made huge 
strides against institutional discrimination against women in 
education, employment, sports, politics, and many other aspects of 
society.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that both the equal 
protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of 
the Fifth Amendment guarantee women equal protection under the law.
  That is why the ACLU women's rights director Lenora Lapidus wrote in 
response to what Ms. Scanlon brought up about Justice Scalia, ``it has 
been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits 
discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored 
by conservative Supreme Court Justices, this principle has been 
reaffirmed.''
  Third: If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to 
undo pro-life legislation and lead to more abortions and taxpayer 
funding of abortions.
  Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what pro-abortion groups 
have done and what they are saying now.
  Abortion activists have already utilized State-level ERAs to require 
taxpayer-funded abortion.
  In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 
State ERA required the State to fund abortions since procedures sought 
by men like, prostate surgery, are funded. A lawsuit in Connecticut 
used similar arguments and achieved the same objective, full taxpayer-
funded abortion.
  In 2019, Planned Parenthood and Women's Law Center filed a lawsuit in 
Pennsylvania arguing that the Pennsylvania's ERA means abortion must be 
included in medical coverage for women because men aren't denied 
coverage for anything.
  In another example, NARAL Pro-Choice America--which is a pro-abortion 
group--in a March 13, 2019, national alert asserted that the ERA would 
reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. It would require judges 
to strike down anti-abortion laws.
  Further, in a 2019 letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU 
stated, ``The equal rights amendment could provide an additional layer 
of protection against restrictions on abortion, contraception, and 
other forms of reproductive healthcare.''
  And the pro-ERA website itself, EqualRightsAmendment.org, explicitly 
states that ratifying the ERA into the U.S. Constitution would 
``provide a strong legal defense against a rollback of women's rights, 
including but not limited to Roe v. Wade.''
  In conclusion, H.J. Res 79 is unconstitutional. The ERA is 
unnecessary since constitutional, Federal, State and local laws already 
guarantee equal protections, and the ERA, if ratified, would be used by 
pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life laws.
  Also included in this rule is H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's 
Wilderness Act.
  My Republican colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have 
expressed concern that each of the bills in this package will remove 
large swaths of land in rural areas from development, threaten the 
economic base of these regions, and reduce the effectiveness of fire 
prevention plans.
  My Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have 
continued the disappointing trend of moving bills that are not 
supported by the Members who represent the impacted lands. In fact, all 
the wilderness designations in H.R. 2546 are located outside the bill 
sponsor's district. Instead, most are located in Representative Scott 
Tipton from Colorado's district, who opposes the bill.
  One of the greatest concerns about this piece of legislation is that 
significant opposition from local counties, communities, and 
stakeholder groups seem to go ignored. The consensus is that these 
bills will negatively impact individual homeowners, agricultural 
entities, water providers, first responders, and the recreation tourism 
industry.
  Today, it seems what we simply have before us are examples of:
  Legislating in other Members' districts without their support or any 
attempt to collaborate.
  Increased risk of wildfires due to the lack of management and 
inability to use mechanical means to fight or prevent fire within all 
newly designated wilderness areas.
  Lack of support from local leaders and stakeholders across each of 
the bills in this legislation.
  Concerns about threats to private property rights when the vast 
majority of land proposed to be added to the Santa Monica Mountains 
National Recreational Area is nonFederal.
  I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, certainly we see a laundry list of 
reasons for opposition to this bill.
  We hear that it is unconstitutional. Although, in fact, nothing in 
the Constitution speaks to deadlines that Congress may set.
  We usually hear our colleagues from across the aisle invoking Justice 
Ginsburg to argue that for some reason we should start over with this 
century-long process.
  Justice Ginsburg has obviously been a champion on these issues, and 
to the extent that remarks that she has made are being quoted, I 
understand that they were expressing a personal view about the ideal 
circumstances in which the ERA could pass, not a legal view about what 
is required.
  It is probably better to remember that Justice Ginsburg has been a 
champion for the ERA since it was approved by both Houses of Congress 
in a bipartisan way in the 1970s. And as she reiterated just yesterday, 
``The union will be more perfect when that simple statement--that men 
and women are persons of equal citizenship stature--is part of our 
fundamental instrument of government.''
  Please note, this is a tactic of distracting and dividing. Last night 
I asked our colleague if he would be willing to vote for the ERA if, in 
fact, we were to start over, which he said he would not. And we 
certainly do not see members of the Republican party saying that they 
would vote for the ERA if it would be reintroduced.
  What we are seeing here is simply an effort to quash the ERA, to end 
it, to put it to rest, to not have it be made part of our Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise today in order to form a more perfect union, and I do that by 
supporting today's rule and the underlying

[[Page H1027]]

resolution which will finally allow for the 28th Amendment to the 
Constitution, the equal rights amendment.
  The equal rights amendment will enshrine the fundamental principle 
that every American be afforded equal rights under the law, including 
women.
  In 1971 and 1972, Congress overwhelmingly passed the equal rights 
amendment. And just a few weeks ago Virginia became the 38th State to 
ratify it and the last State needed to amend our Constitution.

                              {time}  1245

  H.J. Res. 79 would remove the deadline for States to ratify the equal 
rights amendment, clearing the path for full equality of rights for 
women.
  Because women are still subject to significant pay disparities and 
sexual harassment, our work is far from over.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support today's rule 
and the underlying resolution and join me in voting for a more perfect 
union.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my good friend.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.J. Res. 79. This resolution seeks to unconstitutionally remove 
the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment.
  In 1972, Madam Speaker, when I was 10 years old, Congress originally 
set the deadline for ratification at 7 years by two-thirds vote. Before 
the original time period expired, Congress then passed a 3-year 
extension, which also passed before the necessary number of States 
ratified the amendment.
  Today, 37 years after the constitutional time has expired, it is 
quite clear that, because of a new focus on a so-called right to 
taxpayer-funded abortion, the equal rights amendment does not have 
support from a two-thirds majority of Congress or, likely, from two-
thirds of the States, certainly, as we have seen at least five States 
have already rescinded.
  Instead of following the guidance of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsberg and starting the amendment process over again as the Founders 
intended--and this is, let me just say, Madam Speaker, Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsberg's legal view as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. It 
is her legal view. It is her constitutional view. Instead, Democrats 
are attempting, today, to retroactively and unconstitutionally remove 
this deadline by a simple majority vote.
  For decades, Congress has expressed the will of the American people 
and not used taxpayer dollars for abortion. Whether they were Democrat 
or Republican Presidents, split Chambers of Congress or one party in 
control of both branches of government, there has been bipartisan 
agreement on appropriations language to limit taxpayer-funded abortions 
and support basic pro-life protections across our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, if the Democrat majority wants to test 
that bipartisan agreement and upend decades of precedent, they are 
welcome to use the simple, clear process laid out in Article V of the 
Constitution to propose and adopt a new and legal ERA amendment.
  Let me be clear, Madam Speaker. I support equal rights for women, as 
does the U.S. Constitution, but skirting that process for partisan gain 
sets a dangerous and un-American precedent.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our democracy and to 
vote ``no.''
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a January 15 New York Times article, 
entitled: ``Why the Equal Rights Amendment is Back.''

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 15, 2020]

                 Why the Equal Rights Amendment Is Back

           (By Patrick J. Lyons, Maggie Astor and Maya Salam)

       Of all the laws the Virginia legislature may pass now that 
     Democrats have won control of it, none have been so long in 
     the making as the Equal Rights Amendment. First proposed 
     almost a century ago and passed by Congress in 1972, the 
     E.R.A., which would add a provision to the Constitution 
     guaranteeing equal rights to men and women, could have 
     sweeping implications if it takes effect.
       Both houses of the Virginia Legislature approved the 
     ratification resolution on Wednesday. Supporters hope that 
     will lift the amendment over the threshold to become part of 
     the federal Constitution. But there is considerable dispute 
     over whether the state's action will have any legal effect or 
     merely be symbolic.
       Here's what it is all about.
     What does the amendment say?
       The E.R.A. is three sentences long, and the key one is the 
     first: ``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 other two are about putting it into effect.
       By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly 
     believe that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed 
     equal rights by the Constitution. But it currently does so 
     only for the right to vote. The amendment is intended to 
     remedy that omission.
       Supporters say adopting the E.R.A. would, among other 
     things, sweep away discrimination in the workplace; help 
     women to achieve pay equality and allow men to get paid 
     paternity leave; require states to intervene in cases of 
     domestic violence and sexual harassment; and guard against 
     discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood. It may 
     bolster protections for gay and transgender people as well.
       Opponents have argued that the amendment would, among other 
     things, undermine family structure; intrude on religious 
     practice; and lead to the outlawing of separate men's and 
     women's bathrooms, single-sex college dormitories and other 
     accommodations. Some also argue that the E.R.A. is 
     unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guarantees 
     everyone the ``equal protection of the laws.'' The Supreme 
     Court has indeed read the 14th Amendment to ban many forms of 
     sex discrimination. But supporters of the E.R.A. say there 
     are still gaps in existing laws, both at the federal and 
     state level, that need to be addressed comprehensively.
     How did the amendment stall, and come back to life?
       Amendments to the Constitution require the assent of three-
     quarters of the states--these days, 38 out of 50--to take 
     effect. When Congress passed the amendment in 1972, it set a 
     deadline for reaching that goal--originally 1979, later 
     extended to 1982. But only 35 states ratified the amendment 
     in time, in large part because of an opposition campaign led 
     by Phyllis Schlafly, a proudly anti-feminist Republican.
       There the issue lay until 2017, when a Democratic state 
     senator in Nevada, Pat Spearman, persuaded the Legislature to 
     ratify the amendment, even though the deadline had long 
     passed. That move revived interest across the country, and 
     Illinois followed suit in 2018. An effort in Virginia fell 
     short a year ago, but after Democrats won in November, they 
     promised to try again.
     Is Virginia's assent enough to get to 38 states?
       That's a bit cloudy. Virginia is the 38th state to approve 
     the Equal Rights Amendment, but over the years, five of those 
     states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and 
     Tennessee--have voted to rescind their ratifications, and it 
     is possible that opponents would challenge the amendment on 
     that basis.
       They would not have precedent on their side. After the 
     Civil War, several states tried to take back their 
     ratifications of either the 14th or 15th Amendments, but they 
     were counted in the Yes column anyway, and all of those 
     states later re-ratified the amendments.
     What about the deadline?
       That is the big question now. It could be repealed, or 
     challenged in court, or both.
       Most amendments to the Constitution have not had explicit 
     ratification deadlines. The most recent one, the 27th, had 
     been pending for more than 200 years before it was finally 
     ratified in 1992.
       Supporters argue that the deadline for the E.R.A. is 
     unenforceable because it is stated only in the preamble to 
     the amendment, and not in the amendment itself.
       The Supreme Court said in 1921 that amendments had to be 
     ratified within a reasonable time after passage, and that 
     Congress had the authority to set a deadline, as it has 
     almost always done since then. But in 1939, the court ruled 
     that the question of whether ratification of an amendment was 
     timely and valid was ``non-justiciable''--in other words, it 
     was up to Congress, and none of the courts' business.
       Congress extended the deadline for the Equal Rights 
     Amendment once--by three years--and supporters say it could 
     do so again, or repeal the deadline entirely. A bill to do 
     that was introduced in the Democratic-controlled House in 
     April and attracted broad support. It would also have to pass 
     the Republican-controlled Senate, where its prospects are 
     less clear, though it has sponsors there from both parties.
       Legal experts disagree, however, on whether Congress has 
     the power to remove the deadline retroactively, and that 
     issue could land in court.

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for nearly a century, advocates have 
tried to add a provision to the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights 
to men and

[[Page H1028]]

women. By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe 
that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed equal rights by 
our Constitution, but it currently does so only for the right to vote. 
The equal rights amendment will help remedy that omission.
  It is necessary that Congress consider this amendment to the 
Constitution to help women achieve pay equality, require States to 
intervene in cases of domestic violence and sexual harassment, and 
guard against discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood.
  Contrary to the arguments we are hearing today, this is not an 
abortion amendment; this is equal rights for women.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for another speaker, but I 
will yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that my colleague from 
the Rules Committee, Ms. Scanlon, said. She said something to the 
effect of nothing in the Constitution sets a deadline. Well, I have to 
disagree with that. Actually, it is not just me; it is the Supreme 
Court. A 1921 Supreme Court decision, Dillon v. Gloss, affirmed that:

       Congress has the power to fix the definite time limit for 
     ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment under its 
     authority to determine the mode of ratification for an 
     amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

  As I said before, this expired back in 1979. I mean, that is 41 years 
ago. Then, of course, back then, Congress came forward, and my 
understanding is they just did a majority vote instead of the two-
thirds that I believe is needed to deal with a constitutional 
amendment.
  But no other States had ratified. In fact, by the 1979 deadline, five 
States had withdrawn their ratification. So you were at 35, then it 
went down to 30, and it is dead.
  When my colleague says Justice Ginsberg supports the ERA, I know 
that. That is my point. She does support the ERA. But even she said we 
need to start all over again because the deadline has passed.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order a resolution to prevent any 
moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracking on Federal lands unless 
authorized by Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this amendment would affirm that States 
should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and 
prevent any President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
  Many of the Democratic candidates for President have pledged to ban 
hydraulic fracturing in the United States, a campaign promise straight 
out of the ``keep it in the ground'' playbook.
  While this widely used practice is often vilified by proponents of 
the Green New Deal, in fact, hydraulic fracturing is heavily regulated 
by the States and governed by stringent industry standards throughout 
the country.
  Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, U.S. gas bills have fallen by $13 
billion collectively every year from 2007 to 2013. The U.S. is leading 
the way in emissions reductions through innovation in the energy 
sector. In 2017, U.S. carbon emissions reached the lowest level ever 
since 1992, and per capita emissions reached the lowest level since 
1950.
  And, very importantly, the U.S. has become an energy exporter, and we 
no longer have to rely on OPEC oil like we did in the 1970s. Fracking 
and U.S. energy independence strengthens our national security.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Armstrong), my good friend.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, 
and I join the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) in urging my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider H. Res. 
659.
  Hydraulic fracturing provides enormous benefits to the American 
people, including energy security, national security, economic growth, 
and reduced carbon emissions.
  The Baaken oil patch, stretching across western North Dakota, is an 
essential contributor to producing 1.5 million barrels of oil per day 
and over 2 billion cubic feet of associated gas per day.
  The United States is uniquely situated in the world economy. We are 
one of the very few if not the only country that is both food and 
energy secure. I am proud that North Dakota is a big part of that 
energy security.
  Let us not forget that a mere 10 years ago, if Iran would have shot 
down a U.S. drone, seized the British ship in the Strait of Hormuz, 
conducted a terrorist attack on a Saudi oil facility, and shot rockets 
at U.S. troops in Iraq, oil would have skyrocketed to over $115 a 
barrel and stayed there.
  Do you know what happened the day after those attacks? Oil went down 
$1.29.
  Fracking directly employs over 2 million Americans, including 35,000 
people in my home State.
  In 2020, the U.S. is expected to become a net energy exporter.
  In 2019, we doubled our natural gas exports.
  Fracking offsets other carbon energy sources, which the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted was an important 
reason for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
  With continued technological advancements like carbon capture storage 
and utilization, we can continue to develop these American energy 
reserves while decreasing carbon emissions.

  Simply put, America is stronger and our enemies are weaker because of 
fracking. Any attempt to ban or limit fracking makes us less safe and 
less prosperous.
  A fracking ban will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions--in fact, 
it will do the opposite--but it will destroy my entire State's economy 
and send us back to the days where we rely on OPEC to fuel our economy.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) is prepared to close. We are prepared to close.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Part of one of the underlying bills, H.R. 2546, the Protecting 
America's Wilderness Act, includes language to expand the Santa Monica 
Mountains National Recreation Area by some 191,000 acres, an area known 
as the Rim of the Valley Corridor.
  In 2008, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study 
whether to designate all or a portion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor 
as part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. In 
2016, the National Park Service recommended an expansion of 173,000 
acres.
  The bill today expands the area by more than that to 191,000 acres, 
including new areas that were not listed in the study. They are 
completely disconnected from the Rim of the Valley Corridor; yet they 
are included in the exclusion.

                              {time}  1300

  In addition, the National Park Service testified in June 2019 against 
the proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National 
Recreation Area, citing a need to focus resources on the deferred 
maintenance backlog.
  The proposed land expansion would include Soledad Canyon, a mineral-
rich area where the Bureau of Land Management has issued contracts to 
mine millions of tons of sand and gravel for southern California. Our 
strong economy has led to an increase in manufacturing and 
construction. The problem is that the supply of construction materials, 
like those that can be found in this area, is declining.
  This legislation, the underlying legislation, would make it 
incredibly onerous for contracted companies to move forward with 
agreed-upon projects. Democrats often talk about the importance of a 
large infrastructure bill, yet the passage of this bill would increase 
the costs of essential materials that such projects do require.

[[Page H1029]]

  The bottom line is that the land under consideration is currently in 
dispute, and decisions that will significantly change the landscape and 
activity of an area should not occur without consensus.
  Last night, the Rules Committee reported a rule that included 
consideration of two amendments that may help address these concerns. 
Representative McClintock offered an amendment to allow the Secretary 
of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior to exclude from wilderness 
designations any areas that do not meet the definition of wilderness as 
defined in the Wilderness Act.
  Representative Westerman offered an amendment to strike all 
designations of potential wilderness under the bill.
  Those are commonsense amendments, and when the appropriate time 
comes, I urge all Members to support the amendments. The underlying 
bill is flawed, and I will oppose it on passage.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman 
from Arizona is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge my Democratic colleagues to 
halt their attempts to change the rules and bring back an expired 
amendment that would rewrite our Constitution. Not only is this 
unprecedented, but it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional.
  I believe Congress should oppose pointless legislation to remove the 
deadline and focus, instead, on upholding women's rights, dignity, and 
opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and work together to 
promote truly helpful legislation for women.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and 
``no'' on the underlying resolution, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 79 is a long-overdue, bedrock civil rights 
effort, while the Protecting America's Wilderness Act is an effort that 
took input from a broad coalition of stakeholders to end up with a bill 
to positively impact local communities and further our national 
interest in preventing climate change.
  As Members of Congress, we have a duty to uphold and protect the 
Constitution and the charge of our Founders to continue to form a more 
perfect Union. Passing the equal rights amendment is truly 
representative of that oath to ensure that all Americans are treated 
equally and afforded equal rights under the law.
  I would like to recognize some of the women in organizations who have 
gotten us to this point: Alice Paul, who graduated from college in my 
district; Crystal Eastman; Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, 
who issued the first public call for women's equality at Seneca Falls 
in 1848; the National Organization for Women and the League of Women 
Voters, which organized and activated so many Americans of both parties 
in support of this movement; and so many of the other countless 
advocates who have fought tirelessly for women's equality.
  This resolution is for all of them and for all the women and girls 
seeking to further advance equality and fighting for a more just 
America.
  This resolution is a bold step forward in the ongoing fight for equal 
rights. I recognize that I would not be here without the sacrifices 
made by the women who came before me. Their passion and strength paved 
the way for me and for so many of my colleagues to get to where we are 
today.
  But the battle is not yet won. Let's pass this rule, pass this 
resolution, and show our children that all Americans deserve equal 
rights and protection under the Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 844

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 659) affirming that States should maintain primacy 
     for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for oil and 
     natural gas production on State and private lands and that 
     the President should not declare a moratorium on the use of 
     hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands (including the Outer 
     Continental Shelf), State lands, private lands, or lands held 
     in trust for an Indian Tribe unless such moratorium is 
     authorized by an Act of Congress. The first reading of the 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the resolution are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the resolution shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the resolution are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the resolution 
     back to the House with a recommendation that the resolution 
     be adopted, the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to adoption 
     without intervening motion. If the Committee of the Whole 
     rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the 
     resolution, then on the next legislative day the House shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
     for further consideration of the resolution.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 659.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________