[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1129-H1143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMOVING DEADLINE FOR RATIFICATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 844, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 79) removing the deadline for the
ratification of the equal rights amendment, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wexton). Pursuant to House Resolution
844, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the joint resolution, is adopted
and the joint resolution, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H.J. Res. 79
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That
notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint
Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on
March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the
States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents
and purposes as part of the United States Constitution
whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution, as amended, shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 79.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this is long-overdue legislation to ensure that the
equal rights amendment can finally become the 28th amendment to the
United States Constitution.
This year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of women gaining
the right to vote. Despite the century that has elapsed, our
Constitution still does not recognize or guarantee full equal
protection of the law for women and gender minorities, but H.J. Res. 79
would bring us one step closer.
The resolution removes the previous deadline Congress set for
ratifying the ERA and will, therefore, ensure that recent ratifications
by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are given full effect.
The ERA offers a basic and fundamental guarantee: Equality of rights
under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of sex.
That is it. Very simple.
In the years since it was passed by overwhelming bipartisan
majorities in the House and the Senate, we have made great strides to
secure that equality, including through existing case law decided under
the 14th Amendment.
The ERA would enshrine those principles and take the final critical
step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging women and gender minorities
are subject to the most rigorous form of constitutional scrutiny.
In recent years, we have seen a series of breakthroughs for women's
rights and gender equality. We have seen millions of women march in
support of their rights and dignity as equal citizens. Through the
#MeToo movement, we have had long-overdue and sometimes painful
conversations about the violence and harassment that women and gender
minorities experience, whether in the workplace, at home, or in schools
and universities.
We have seen women get elected to Congress in record numbers. And
just weeks ago, Virginia became the necessary 38th and the last
necessary State to ratify the equal rights amendment. We are on the
brink of making history, and no deadline should stand in the way.
The Constitution itself places no deadlines on the process for
ratifying constitutional amendments, making it doubtful whether
Congress had the authority to impose such a deadline in the first
place. But if it had such authority, then Congress clearly also has the
authority to remove any deadline that it previously chose to set.
I want to thank Representative Jackie Speier for introducing this
resolution, which takes that important step. This resolution will
ensure, at long last, the equal rights amendment, having been proposed
by Congress years ago, having now been ratified by three-quarters of
the States, can take its rightful place as part of our Nation's
Constitution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, three-quarters of the States
failed to ratify the equal rights amendment by the 1979 deadline set by
Congress, yet House Democrats are trying to retroactively revive the
failed constitutional amendment.
Congress does not have the power to do that. Congress set the
deadline; it was passed; it did not get approved; and now there is an
end run to go around that.
The United States Supreme Court recognized this in 1982 when it
stated that the issue was moot because the deadline for ERA
ratification expired before the requisite number of States approved it.
The next year, the Democratic leadership in the House of
Representatives,
[[Page H1130]]
acting on the same understanding, started the entire process of ERA
approval over again. But that new ERA also failed to achieve the
required two-thirds majority in the House on November 15, 1983.
But today, in defiance of historical reality and the clear acceptance
of the situation by all relevant participants in the original debate,
the Democrats have brought forward a resolution that denies the
obvious. Now, the proponents of this resolution want to convince their
base that if both Houses of Congress pass this joint resolution, and it
is signed into law, the 1972 ERA will become part of the Constitution
just because the Democrats control the Virginia State legislature and
that legislature passed the ERA this year.
Even current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--and she is
taking a lot of heat for this--a supporter of ERA since its beginning,
has said, just a few months ago:
I hope someday we will start all over again on the ERA,
collecting the necessary States to ratify it.
On Monday of this week, Justice Ginsburg said of the ERA:
I would like to see a new beginning. I would like to see it
start over. There is too much controversy about latecomers--
Virginia, long after the deadline passed. Plus a number of
States have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a
latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that
said: We have changed our minds.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to retroactively
revive the failed constitutional amendment and to subject the citizens
of all 50 States to what may be the current political trends in just
one State.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized that. Past Democratic
leaderships of the House have recognized that. Justice Ginsburg has
recognized that. But apparently, the current Democratic leadership is
intent on rewriting history.
As we have our debate today, I will show, and our speakers will show,
what the real intent about this is, and it has nothing to do with equal
rights. It has a lot to do with other issues that will be exposed
today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier), the chief sponsor of this bill.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his extraordinary
leadership on this issue.
This is very simple, Members. Women want to be equal, and we want it
in the Constitution.
I am equal on this House floor with all of my male colleagues, but
when I walk out, I have fewer rights and protections than them.
I rise today because the women of America are done being second-class
citizens. We are done being paid less for our work, done being violated
with impunity, done being discriminated against for our pregnancies,
done being discriminated against simply because we are women.
The ERA is about equality. The ERA is about sisterhood, motherhood,
survival, dignity, and respect.
The world recognizes this. Of the 193 countries in the United
Nations, 165 have put this kind of language in their constitutions, but
not the United States of America.
From the Women's March to the #MeToo movement to the pink wave, the
outrage we have seen among women is because we have been disrespected,
devalued, and diminished in our society. And we are fed up.
It is no wonder recent votes to ratify the ERA came in 2017, 2018,
and 2020, because we want the ERA now. We have waited for almost a
century for the ERA.
I want to thank my Republican cosponsors of this resolution,
including Congressmen Reed, Fitzpatrick, and Van Drew.
I know most of you recognize that this is the right thing to do for
your wives, daughters, and granddaughters. Ninety-four percent of
Americans already support the ERA. In fact, they are surprised it is
not already in the Constitution.
Now, some of you will say just restart the process, but you are the
same people who admit you won't vote for it. Some will say, ``Well,
women already have equality,'' while they vote against VAWA
reauthorization, vote against paycheck fairness, chip away at title IX.
For too long, women have relied on the patchwork quilt of laws and
precedents. We have put our lives on the line. We have been forced to
take our cases all the way to the Supreme Court, and often, there, we
lose.
For my colleagues who think we already have women's equality, talk to
Christy Brzonkala, who was raped by two football players at Virginia
Tech. She sought justice under the Violence Against Women Act, but the
Supreme Court struck down the civil suit provisions, claiming Congress
lacked the authority to pass it.
Talk to Lilly Ledbetter, who had to rely on an anonymous note to
learn she was paid less than her male colleagues at Goodyear.
Talk to Betty Duke, who was passed over for promotions and paid
$10,000 less for her work at Walmart.
Talk to Peggy Young, who was placed on unpaid leave, losing her
health insurance, while pregnant, at UPS, all the while men were
granted the exact same accommodation that she was denied.
The ERA is about building the America we want. It is about forming a
more perfect Union because, simply put, there can be no expiration date
on equality.
I urge my colleagues to affirm their support for women's equality and
vote for this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am a woman, so I obviously care and
support equal rights for women. But I oppose this bill for three
reasons.
First, the bill is not constitutional. When the ERA originally passed
Congress, it explicitly set a deadline for ratification. The deadline
was in 1979, almost 41 years ago. Only 35 States of the 38 needed had
ratified it. Then five States unratified it. So the count is down to
30. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead.
The U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just last
month, reiterating that the ERA's ratification timeline is expired.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg said:
The deadline passed. I would like to see a new beginning. I
would like it to start over.
Secondly, the ERA is not necessary. Women's equality of rights under
the law is already recognized in our Constitution in the Fifth and 14th
Amendments. The ACLU's women's rights director wrote: ``It has been
clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination
based on sex.'' Plus, many Federal, State, and local laws already
prohibit sex discrimination.
The third reason I oppose this bill: 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.
But don't take my word for it. Let's look at what pro-abortion groups
have done and what they say.
In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the
State's ERA required the State to fund abortions. NARAL Pro-Choice
America, which supports abortions, asserted that the ERA would
reinforce the constitutional right to abortion and would require judges
to strike down anti-abortion laws.
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.
In conclusion, this bill 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.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, again, the deadline was not part of the
amendment. It was a resolution by Congress. And if Congress can set a
deadline, it can remove a deadline.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
distinguished majority leader of the House.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 0930
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H1131]]
I thank Representative Speier, Representative Maloney, and all of
those who have been such warriors on this issue for such a long period
of time. They are keeping the faith.
This constitutional amendment was passed in 1972, to be specific, in
the early part of 1972. I was a member of the Maryland State Senate in
1972, and I had the honor in the late spring of 1972, just months after
the ERA had been passed, of voting to ratify that.
Now, the previous speaker said in only 35 States. That is 70 percent
of the States ratified that in a timely fashion. Timely in the sense
that we set in a resolution, as the chairman pointed out, a date.
Seventy percent of the States of this Nation.
Now, it needed three more States. It has now received three more
States. I have been an advocate for the equal rights amendment for
essentially 4 decades, actually longer. I will be proud to vote for it
today.
Just a few months, as I said, after Congress adopted the ERA,
Maryland voted for ratification. I thought that it was long overdue
even then in 1972. Here we are some 48 years later, and it still is.
Our Founders declared ``all men are created equal'' in their
Declaration of Independence. Surely, no Founder, if they were writing
that document today, would have said ``men'' meant white, property-
owning men. Surely, they would not have written that. Surely, none of
us would have supported that.
Since the very beginning Americans have been taking steps, therefore,
to define that in a more expansive, inclusive term representing our
universal values. We amended the Constitution to ensure African
Americans and women could not be denied the right to vote. It took a
long time. Particularly, I hope the women in this body will think of
the suffragettes who were extraordinarily active and involved in our
community and making decisions in our families and in our communities
and country but who could not vote prior to 1919.
From 1789 to 1919 women could not vote. I am the father of three
daughters, the grandfather of two granddaughters, and the great-
grandfather of three great-granddaughters. For me to go home to them
tonight and say I voted against your being equal in America. Now, my
wife passed away, but if I went home to her tonight and said I voted
against your being equal in America or those grandchildren and great-
grandchildren who happen to have been born as women and say to them I
voted against your being equal in America today.
We passed the Civil Rights Act to make clear that all must be treated
equal regardless of race. We passed the ADA, which I cosponsored 30
years ago to ban discrimination against those with disabilities. But
still nowhere in our Constitution does it state clearly that women must
be treated equally and that one must not be subject to discrimination
because of their gender.
The ERA would enshrine that basic tenant of our democracy in our
Constitution at long last. Seventy percent of the States and then three
more said that ought to be in our Constitution. Three-quarters of the
States have voted to ratify this amendment.
Discrimination against women has through our history kept bright and
talented Americans from achieving their full potential in our economy.
Because of their hard work, the sacrifices, the leadership, and the
perseverance of trailblazing women, we have seen barriers come down,
doors of opportunity open, and glass ceilings shatter.
Discrimination, inequality, and injustice persist, and we will hear
arguments on this floor rationalizing why discrimination ought to still
exist. And as long as our Constitution does not explicitly ban
discrimination based upon gender as it does based on race, we will
continue to see forms of legal discrimination against women linger in
our country.
Taking this step to add the equal rights amendment to the
Constitution is one of the many that House Democrats are taking to
combat discrimination against women simply because they are women.
Last year, we passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Not everybody voted
for that, but, in my opinion, everybody voted for that who thought
equal pay should mean equal pay, irrespective of gender and based upon
work performed. That built on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
to ensure equal pay for equal work.
We also passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Most of us on our side voted for that, but there was a rationalization
why some thought, no, we will not protect women against violence.
We have continued working to protect women's rights to make their own
healthcare choices and to access quality affordable care.
Who said that was part of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court of the United States. They said that was a
constitutional right and we see effort after effort to erode that
constitutional right.
I am proud that the Democratic Caucus in the 116th Congress is not
only the most diverse in American history, but also includes the
greatest number of women.
In Virginia, it was an election that saw the house of delegates reach
30 percent women and the State senate reach 28 percent. Once it got
there, the women of Virginia stood up and said this ought to be in the
Constitution of the United States, and they voted to do so. Virginia
now has a woman speaker of the house, as we do in our U.S. House, and
as my home State of Maryland has in our house of delegates. It is
because more women are stepping up to run for office and winning
elections that more women's voices are being heard in our democracy.
That is why this resolution is on the floor. That is a wonderful
thing, and I have been proud to help recruit talented women to run for
the House as Democrats. And very frankly, we need more women as
Republicans, a diminishing group, I might add.
I urge my colleagues, men and women, Democrats and Republicans, to
join in supporting this resolution.
And, finally, is it too late?
It is too late. But it is never too late to do the right thing.
Make this part of our Constitution. Stand up and say, yes, women
should be included as all humankind who are endowed by their creator
with certain unalienable rights. That is the principle that we are
articulating today.
Alice Paul, who first wrote the ERA and campaigned for it for most of
her life was once asked why she kept all her focus on getting the job
done, and she said this, ``When you put your hand to the plow, you
can't put it down until you get to the end of the row.'' We are not at
the end of the row, but this is a way upon that row to make it complete
to make our Constitution protect all people, male or female, Black or
white, all people.
At long last, let's hold firm to that plow. Let's get the job done.
Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today to commend the women who have gone before us to
celebrate the achievements that women have made and to reaffirm the
fact that we are equal in the eyes of God and in law.
Women make up 51 percent of the population, comprise over half of the
college students, make up most of today's medical and law school
students and own the majority of new businesses.
Women are not victims in need of validation. Little girls can be
whatever they want to be, whether that be an astronaut, a doctor, a
full-time mom working at home, or a member of Congress.
In addition, Federal law and court precedent uphold our rights. That
is something to applaud, and I do. However, today's legislation is
problematic on several fronts.
First, the resolution is unconstitutional. The time limit to pass the
ERA expired decades ago. Congress can't go back and remove a deadline
from a previous constitutional amendment initiative. The Supreme Court
has recognized that the 1972 ERA expired, and the Department of Justice
issued a ruling saying Congress may not revive a proposed amendment
after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Pretending that we
can remove the time limits for passage is both futile and deceptive.
Secondly, if the time limit could be extended, the ERA would not
bring
[[Page H1132]]
women any more rights than they currently have right now, but it would
entrench the legality of abortion. We know this from court precedent by
listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally
protecting abortion on demand.
In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the equal rights
amendment in their State constitution requires State funding of
abortions. Federal courts are likely to do the same. Perhaps that is
why every pro-abortion organization is endorsing passage of the ERA.
NARAL Pro-Choice America says, ``With its ratification, the ERA would
reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.''
The National Organization for Women says, ``An ERA--properly
interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed
restricting access to abortion. . . . `'
But that is not the only concern with passing this resolution.
Besides being unconstitutional and shredding State and Federal pro-life
protections, the ERA would also erase decades of progress which have
provided opportunities for women, advance women's progress through
Federal programs, and secure necessary protections for women and girls.
How? By incorporating gender identity in the definition of sex,
jeopardizing private spaces for women, girls' sports programs, and
women's educational institutions.
The ERA endangers laws, programs, and funding designed to benefit
women providing a pathway for legal challenges to welfare programs,
grants for battered women's shelters, efforts to bolster women
participating in STEM programs, as well as State laws governing child
support, alimony, and custody. These outcomes are anything but pro
women.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 79, which takes a key step to
ensure that the equal rights amendment will become part of our
Constitution.
Nearly 100 years after women gained the right to vote, it is
difficult to believe we still haven't given women equal rights. It is
hard to believe it is a serious disagreement in this Chamber.
In the year 2020, it is unacceptable that women still make only 80
cents for every dollar earned by men and that women are still subject
to violence, harassment and attacks on their freedom to control their
own bodies.
In Judiciary Committee this morning, a brilliant female law clerk is
describing sexual harassment by a distinguished and respected ninth
circuit judge. This should never happen. And with ongoing efforts to
undermine progress we have made; the equal rights amendment is more
important than ever.
It took over 130 years to give women the right to vote. It is almost
100 years since they have gotten it. It is time to give women their
proper place in the Constitution of the United States, which most
modern constitutions have, equality regardless of sex.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 79.
Of course, I believe in equal rights. Women should never face
discrimination and harassment. I believe we should be empowering women
and girls to achieve their dreams.
So it is disappointing today to stand in this Chamber and see this
important issue turned into some type of political stunt. The deadline
for States to ratify the ERA passed nearly 4 decades ago. Even Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated the only path forward is to start over.
Let's be honest, this is not about equality or women's rights. This
is about enshrining unrestricted abortion in the Constitution and
allowing full taxpayer funding for abortion. Now is not the time to be
weakening pro-life protections.
Yesterday, in South Bend, Indiana, in my district, the remains of
2,411 victims of abortion were finally given a dignified burial after
spending 20 years in moldy Styrofoam boxes in the back of the doctor/
abortionist's car and in his basement.
{time} 0945
These unborn boys and girls would be young men and women today
entering college.
Moments ago, we stood on this House floor together and we offered a
moment of silence that these innocent lives were taken and there were
victims, over 2,400.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that, together, we stand again to defend
the rights of the most vulnerable among us, that we stand together
today for the sanctity of life, to lift women up, to protect women, and
to strengthen families.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this
misguided resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, with Virginia becoming the 38th State
to ratify the equal rights amendment, today we make it clear that
Congress never intended the arbitrary deadline to act as a barrier to
ratification of this vital amendment.
Ratification of the equal rights amendment affirms our Nation's
values by codifying an expressed prohibition against sex discrimination
in our Nation's foundational document.
While our Nation's courts have properly recognized that women are
entitled to equal protection under the law, we have a responsibility to
do all that we can to guarantee that, regardless of sex, all Americans
are treated the same in every aspect of their lives, including making a
living, obtaining healthcare, and accessing public services.
These rights must not be swayed by political ideology or depend on
judicial philosophy. Equality is a founding value of this great country
and, more than any other word, describes the very idea of America.
Madam Speaker, a vote for H.J. Res. 79 is a vote for equality. I urge
my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 79.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution.
Listening to people on the other side say that there is a cornucopia
of benefits awaiting women should the ERA become a part of the
Constitution, I am here to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to
look past what looks nice on a bumper sticker or a 40-second sound bite
to realize that there are going to be many consequences that will hurt
women should this be ratified. I will just talk about insurance,
because insurance is regulated by the States.
Girls get substantially lower rates on auto insurance because they
are better drivers. With the ERA and the State regulation, that would
become unconstitutional, and girls are going to have to pay boy
drivers' rates for auto insurance, which really does not reflect the
actuarial exposure of that at all.
Secondly, look at life insurance. Women live longer than men and, as
a result, in life insurance, also regulated by the States, you see
women's rates being lower than men's rates becoming unconstitutional,
and women are going to be paying more to life insurance companies for
the coverage that they decide on.
I could go on and on and on. We had a lot of hearings on this in
1973.
I am here to say that, when the ERA was originally passed in 1972,
women's rights were not enshrined in a lot of State laws. There has
been tremendous progress in this area both at the Federal level and in
the States. The proponents of this resolution completely ignore that
happening. We don't.
We think that the statutory protections that have been passed all
around the country in the last almost 50 years have advanced women and
have addressed a lot of the complaints that we hear from that side of
the aisle.
This is going to unleash a Pandora's box of lots of litigation that
has been raised by this, some of which has been brought up by my
colleagues on this side.
[[Page H1133]]
Let's not enrich the lawyers. Let's do the right thing. Don't pass
this resolution. Enforce the laws that have been passed both here and
in the State capitols.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank all of the women of America.
I thank the sponsor of this bill. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and the ranking member for being on the floor. I thank him.
I ask the question: Does anybody see the sense of women not being in
the most powerful document of laws and power of the American people?
Let us be reminded of the words of Abigail Adams: ``I long to hear
that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new
code of laws''--which she is saying to her husband--``which I suppose
it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the
ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.
Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.''
I rise enthusiastically to support H.J. Res. 79 and to say to my
colleagues there is no constitutional prohibition for passing this.
We are grandly involved because this is the 1972 passage by the State
of Texas of the equal rights amendment. And here, in 1977, Betty
Friedan and Bella Abzug were in Houston at the 1977 National Women's
Conference that our predecessor, Barbara Jordan, was at.
Let us pass H.J. Res. 79, because, as Abigail Adams said, let's
remember the ladies.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary
and an original cosponsor, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of
H.J. Res. 79, which eliminates the ratification deadline for the Equal
Rights Amendment and will lead to the long overdue adding of the ERA as
the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the imperative powerfully expressed
on March 31, 1776 in Braintree, Massachusetts in a letter from Abigail
Adams, the future First Lady, to her husband John Adams:
I long to hear that you have declared an independency--and
by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be
necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the
Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your
ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of
the Husbands.
The resolution before us will help enshrine for all time the belief,
promise, and commitment that all men, and women, are created equal and
endowed with by the Creator with the same inalienable rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are making real this promise thanks to the bipartisan resolution
introduced by Congresswoman Spiers of California.
The Constitution does not prohibit the action we are taking; in fact,
it permits it since ratification deadlines are not even mentioned, much
less imposed by the Constitution. This resolution reinforces that, the
previous deadline is no bar to passing the ERA.
Under Article V of the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment
``shall be valid to all intents and purposes whenever ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.''
A resolution identical to H.J. Res. 79 has been introduced in the
United States Senate, which I call upon the Senate to take up and pass
forthwith.
Madam Speaker, it is useful to review how we arrived at this moment
in history.
Beginning in the late 1960s, the National Organization for Women
(NOW) devised and began implementing a strategy of pushing for equal
rights through a combination of impact litigation and advocacy for the
Equal Rights Amendment.
I remember this particularly well because in November 1977, the first
National Women's Conference was held in Houston, Texas and attended my
congressional predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan.
The National Women's Conference was inspired by a 1975 United
Nations-sponsored event from two years prior which led President Gerald
Ford to establish a national commission to investigate women's issues.
Congress later voted to provide $5 million to fund the organization
of regional conferences and to hold a national gathering at the
conclusion, the result of these efforts was the National Women's
Conference meant to unite all women and give them an opportunity to
voice their hopes for the future of the government.
I remember that Phyllis Schlafly of the conservative Eagle Forum
organized and came to Houston to lead backlash demonstration protesting
the ERA and the women's movement, claiming that the ERA would force
women to give up their right to be supported by their husbands, and
subject them to the military. draft and deployment to Vietnam.
That was the launch of the conservative counter-offensive to derail
ratification of the ERA and the beginning of the schism that has seen
equality between the sexes and expanding the economic, privacy, and
political rights of women subject to increasing partisan debate and
action that is continues to the present day.
In 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths of Michigan filed a discharge
petition in the House to bring the ERA to the floor, after the
Judiciary Committee consistently refused to act on it.
The discharge petition was adopted, and the ERA passed the House by a
wide margin.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also held several days of hearings in
1970 on its version of the ERA but it failed to gain enough votes that
year.
On October 12, 1971, the House voted by 354-24 to approve a version
of the ERA that stated:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house
concurring therein), that the following article is proposed as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
within seven years of its submission by the Congress:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date
of ratification.
On March 22, 1972, the Senate passed the ERA by a vote of 84-8.
The following month, Madam Speaker, I graduated from college in the
first undergraduate class of women to attend Yale University in
September 1969.
I was a member of the group of 250 upper-class women who transferred
to Yale University, a number that eventually led to 1,500 women being
admitted over the years, in addition to the 4,000 male students.
Between September 12-14, 1969 undergraduate women students arrived on
campus and at that time, 48 of 817 FAS faculty were women and only two
had tenure.
I am proud to be a part of the history of Yale University and had the
opportunity to speak about my experience at the 50th Anniversary last
year.
The presence of women at Yale, which had been an all-male institution
was a sign of the change that was sweeping the nation.
I first arrived at Yale with the anticipation and anxiety of any
college student arriving on campus for the first time.
This was an extraordinary milestone--both for Yale and for us young
women.
But being a ``first'' is not all that people may assume that it is.
In the centennial year of the 19th Amendment, on January 15, 2020,
the Virginia General Assembly became the 38th state to vote to ratify
the Equal Rights Amendment, the magic number needed to become enshrined
in the Constitution.
Because of the ERA, women are finally included in our Constitution,
making them equal to men under law.
A vote to eliminate the ratification deadline for the ERA is a vote
for equality; a vote against the measure is a vote to preserve the
legacy of sex discrimination.
Women will not continue to be second-class citizens in their own
country.
The absence of the ERA has meant that women can be paid less for
their work, violated with impunity, and discriminated against simply
for being women.
Women made up more than 6 in 10 seniors who lived in poverty last
year, with the poverty rate for senior women at 11 percent.
The average Social Security benefit for women 65 and older is about
$14,270 per year, compared to about $18,375 for men 65 and older.
In the 116th Congress, women hold just 23.6 percent of seats in the
U.S. Congress.
In 2019, just 33 Fortune 500 CEOs are women, a new record.
While women-owned businesses account for 42 percent of all firms,
women-owned business account for just 8 percent of the total private
sector workforce and 4.3 percent of total revenue.
Some legal scholars note the location of the deadline in the preamble
is important, because the ERA's deadline was not part of the text that
the states voted on when they ratified the amendment.
Other scholars argue that the deadline itself is unconstitutional
because Article V of the
[[Page H1134]]
Constitution does not include mention of deadlines.
A close reading and clear understanding of the Constitution leads
inescapably to the conclusion that when the Framers considered a time
period to be of the essence, they specified the time period clearly in
the document itself.
Moreover, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), the Supreme
Court rejected the idea that Article V contains an implied limitation
period for ratifications.
Madam Speaker, as a country founded on principles of liberty, justice
and equality, and a global leader in formulating international human
rights standards, the United States need to pass the ERA to meet basic
standards for women who are denied equal access to legal rights and
protections.
Too many women in the United States inexplicably lag behind
international human rights standards and it is a myth that women in the
United States already enjoy all of the expected standards of rights and
protections afforded under America.
The reality is, women in the United States experience continued
discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent them from fully
participating as equal members of society.
For example, women have risen to some of the highest levels of
legislative and executive representation over the years, yet with 20%
of Congressional Members and an average of 24.9% of state legislatures,
but the United States ranks #72 in the global market of women
represented in public and political positions.
While the number of women justices has significantly increased, women
litigants' access to justice is severely limited.
Although women vote in higher percentages than men, women's access to
voting is under attack in many states where increased voter ID
requirements and voter purges pose unprecedented barriers.
Although women constitute nearly half of the US labor force, at a
participation rate of 57%, equal economic opportunity is severely
lacking given deficient or nonexistent mandatory standards for
workplace accommodations for pregnant women, post-natal mothers and
persons with care responsibilities.
What also remains a shameful truth in America, is the gender wage gap
which has remained at or near 21% over the past decade.
And women with higher levels of education experience the largest
earning gaps, as do minority women regardless of educational
attainment.
The percentage of women in poverty has increased over the past
decade, from 12.1% to 14.5%, with a higher rate of poverty than men and
women are exposed to higher rates of homelessness and violence without
adequate protections in place in shelters and housing support options.
Women in detention facilities throughout the country also experience
increasingly high rates of over-incarceration, sexual violence,
shackling while pregnant, solitary confinement, lack of alternative
custodial sentencing for women with dependent children, and
insufficient access to health care and re-entry programs.
Migrant women traveling to the U.S., many victims of trafficking and
violence, including sexual violence, are kept in detention centers with
children for prolonged periods of time.
The U.N. has reported that women, particularly black and LBTQ women,
in the U.S. experience police brutality and increased incidents of
homicide by police.
Even though women own over one-third of commercial businesses in the
United States, primarily in small and medium sized businesses, these
businesses face greater barriers in obtaining low cost capital from
sources such as the SBA--which awards less than 5% of federal contracts
to women-owned business.
Finally, one of the most alarming deficiencies for women in America
is the inability to access basic health care and the imposition of
devastating barriers to reproductive health and rights.
Too many women are suffering dire and deadly consequences.
Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the
U.S. has increased by 136%.
Black women are nearly 4 times more likely to die in childbirth, and
states with high poverty rates have a 77% higher maternal mortality
rate.
The United States deserves to much better.
It is unacceptable that women in America are facing a health care
crisis so dire that the global community is denouncing it as a human
rights violation.
Sadly, the direction States are taking will only further dismantle
women's access to affordable and trustworthy reproductive healthcare.
While clinics are shutting down at drastic rates throughout the
country, devastating restrictions and barriers imposed throughout Texas
strike at the core of this abomination.
A Texas statute known as HB2 (House Bill 2), was enacted several
years ago under false claims to promote women's health, when in fact it
only set in motion dangerous restrictions on women's access to
reproductive health care.
In addition to constant attacks on funding for reproductive health
care clinics, abortion providers in Texas were forced to undergo
impossible million-dollar renovations and upgrades.
Denying hundreds of thousands of women health care services in Texas,
nearly half of all reproductive health care clinics were forced to shut
down, and now only 10 remain in the second largest state in the
country.
No woman in America should be denied the dignity of being ability to
make choices about her body and healthcare.
Access to safe, legal and unhindered healthcare must be realized by
all women.
These simple facts can no longer be denied, and hypocrisy can no
longer be tolerated.
A woman's personal autonomy over her own body and her right to choose
whether to bear or beget a child is a constitutionally protected
fundamental right.
More than 40 years ago in the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113, (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the right to
privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extends to a
woman's decision to have an abortion.
We cannot ignore the obvious hypocrisy of imbalanced protection and
access to fundamentally protected rights for women in America when it
is easier to purchase and lawfully possess a firearm--even for a person
on the terrorist watchlist--than it is for a woman to exercise her
constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
Madam Speaker, this is not fair, and it is not right.
And with the ERA added to the Constitution, it will also not be
lawful.
Madam Speaker, Congress had the authority to extend the deadline and
it chose to do in 1979; a fortiori, it has the power to eliminate the
deadline today.
And that is the right, just, and moral thing to do.
I urge all Members to stand on the right side of history and join me
in voting to pass H.J. Res. 79 so that the Equal Rights Amendment can
take its rightful place as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, we have heard my Democratic colleagues
say that passing the equal rights amendment is necessary to secure
basic rights under the law for women. Not only is this untrue, it
obscures a fundamental fact. This ERA actually denies the most basic
human right: the right to life. This ERA uses gender equality as a
smokescreen to create an unlimited constitutional right to abortion.
Instead of working to craft legislation that protects women's rights
without trampling on the right to life, Democrats have put forward,
today, an unconstitutional, partisan measure.
Not only would this result in on-demand abortions across all 50
States, but it would also clear the way to provide taxpayer-funded
abortions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, costing millions of
dollars every year.
This measure is not about advancing women's rights, especially as
women across the country, Republicans and Democrats alike, are
increasingly horrified by the practice of late-term abortion and by
recent comments made in New York and Virginia that lifesaving treatment
should be denied to some newborns.
Allowing women to discard their unborn children at taxpayer expense
is not ensuring gender equality. It is not protecting women. It is not
empowering women. It is not providing women equal pay for equal work.
It is simply another step down the path of devaluing all human life and
dignity.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this measure.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for
yielding.
In Texas, many years ago, I marched in support of the equal rights
amendment. Today, I join my colleagues to reaffirm that support.
Women are behind some of this Nation's greatest achievements. We
fought for civil rights, set athletic records, sent men to space, and
then went there ourselves. We have forged
[[Page H1135]]
our paths in history, yet we are still not equal to men under the eyes
of the law.
We must remove this stain from our Constitution. Today, we are voting
to remove an arbitrary deadline so we can finally prohibit gender
discrimination under the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I will proudly vote in favor of the resolution, and I
urge all my colleagues to do the same.
As many in my district would say, ``It is time to approve the ERA.''
``Ya es hora de aprobar el ERA.''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 79.
It pains me to say that life is under attack in our Nation. The pro-
abortion discussions taking place around this country are sickening. In
the last year, we heard a Governor promote infanticide, and we saw
State legislatures take action for the same.
We still haven't had a vote on this floor in the United States House
of Representatives to protect babies who survive abortion. Yesterday,
in committee, I even introduced legislation that would protect babies
who survive abortion. It failed along party lines once again.
We have millions of American families who would love to adopt, yet we
don't discuss that. I know women who have cried every month when they
realized that they had not conceived the baby they so desperately
wanted. I know men and women who have undergone multiple tests and
procedures just to conceive a child. They would gladly adopt a baby
that someone else didn't want.
Instead, today, we are voting once more on another piece of
legislation that would drastically reduce protections for life. This
bill would create the basis for taxpayer-funded abortion at the Federal
level, and it would permanently allow abortion until birth for any
reason throughout the Nation. It would force government-funded
healthcare providers and hospitals to provide abortions.
We cannot have that. We cannot bring abortion into a healthcare
debate because it is not healthcare. Abortion is murder.
If we want to discuss protecting rights for all Americans, it needs
to pertain to everyone, including and, especially, newborns.
While I always welcome a conversation with my colleagues about how we
can advance women's rights and the rights of all people, this is not
the way to do it. It is not through thinly veiled messaging bills with
nice names but radical policies.
We can pass good pro-woman, pro-family, pro-American legislation
through bipartisan solutions.
So if we are going to do it, let's do it; but today, sadly, we won't,
and that is so disappointing.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
I rise today in strong support of the equal rights amendment and the
resolution before us.
Today, this body comes together unabashed in our conviction for a
future that expands the vision set forth by our Founders. Together, we
strive for a nation that advances the notion of equality, that takes up
the mantle of the unfinished work that is the American Dream and the
practice of government by and for the people--for all the people.
My daughter, Natalie, is just over a year-and-a-half old, and I look
forward to telling her one day about today, how the people's House, led
by the Chamber's first female Speaker, voted to ensure that the women
of her generation will be the first to grow up knowing that the
Constitution truly guarantees equal rights.
It feels fitting to close by quoting Shirley Chisolm, the first Black
female Member elected to this body and the youngest, until my good
friend Lauren Underwood took office last year, who said, when Congress
sent the ERA to the States for ratification: ``The time is clearly now
to put this House on record for the fullest expression of that equality
of opportunity which our Founding Fathers professed. . . . It is not
too late to complete the work they left undone.''
I support the resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Georgia for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 79.
As a woman who has worked all her life, often in male-dominated
professions, I detest discrimination in any form against any group, and
I have always done all that I can to eliminate it. Furthermore, I
welcome any discussion on how to root out discrimination against women
where it exists.
But do not be deceived. This is not what this legislation is about.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already provides women
and all Americans equal protection under the law, but the goal of this
legislation is different. The goal here is to expand access to abortion
up to birth and to overturn the broadly supported policies that protect
taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions.
{time} 1000
As we know all too well, Roe v. Wade has broadly legalized abortion
in the United States, but the equal rights amendment that this
resolution tries to ratify goes much further.
There is a broad consensus that the ERA could be used to overturn
pro-life laws, legalize abortion up to birth, and mandate taxpayer-
funded abortions.
The expansion of abortion is not the only harmful impact of the ERA.
It would have a harmful impact on shelters that protect women from
violence, eliminate women-specific workplace protections, and destroy
women's sports.
Furthermore, were this resolution ever to become law, the Supreme
Court would undoubtedly rule that it does not ratify the equal rights
amendment.
As everyone in this room knows, when Congress initially passed the
equal rights amendment, it intentionally included a 7-year deadline for
the required 38 States to ratify, a deadline which has long since
passed. Multiple States have also rescinded their ratification.
As such, Supreme Court precedent requires that any attempt to ratify
the ERA must start at the beginning. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
was recently quoted saying she would like the process to start over.
To be perfectly clear, with this resolution, the Democrats are
attempting to write into the Constitution the right to an abortion at
all three trimesters, force taxpayers to pay for them, and eliminate
all conscience protections for medical providers who wish to abstain
from abortion.
This resolution is not about protecting women. It is a partisan
messaging bill designed to appease radical pro-abortion groups. If the
majority were serious about the equal rights amendment, it would start
the process anew and give all States the option to consider the ERA
again.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I would remind everyone that the equal
rights amendment simply says: Equality of rights under the law shall
not be denied on account of sex.
If people on the other side want to admit that equality of rights
under the law means there must be a constitutional right to abortion,
well, that is wonderful. Of course, the constitutional right to
abortion is already established under current law.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, what a glorious day this is.
Today, the House of Representatives will vote to remove the arbitrary
deadline to ratify the equal rights amendment. With our vote today, and
with Virginia's historic vote to become the 38th and final State
necessary to ratify the amendment, little girls, their moms, and women
across this great Nation will know that, yes, our Constitution can,
will, and must enshrine a ban on discrimination on the basis of sex.
Equality of sexes is not debatable. It has no expiration date.
First proposed almost a century ago and passed by Congress in 1972,
the equal rights amendment would be a momentous step forward for women
to
[[Page H1136]]
end unequal pay, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment and
exploitation.
So today, to women across this country who are watching, as the first
South Asian woman ever elected to the House of Representatives, let me
say: We see you. We stand with you. And we will fight for you.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, women have been fighting tooth and nail for decades to
be recognized as equal under the eyes of the law. While we made
significant gains, it is time for a full constitutional equality.
In 1866, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, a free-born Black woman,
addressed the National Women's Rights Convention in New York City, and
she said: ``Justice is not fulfilled so long as woman is unequal before
the law. We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity.
. . . Society cannot afford to neglect the enlightenment of any class
of its members.''
These words still hold true today for our mothers, for our daughters,
and for our future leaders. We must take up the mantle of the women who
came before us and pass this amendment for a more just future.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the gentlewoman from
Virginia is in the Chair and grateful to her for her leadership and our
other colleagues, Elaine Luria and Abigail Spanberger, as new Members
of Congress who give us the opportunity as the majority to bring this
important legislation to the floor. I thank them for Virginia's
leadership in all of this. It is so appropriate that the Congresswoman
is in the Chair for this because she was a leader in the State
legislature on the equal rights amendment when she served there.
This is a historic day, a happy day, as the House takes action to
move our Nation closer to our founding ideal that all are created
equal. I salute Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership on this
resolution and for her lifetime of work to advance equality in America.
The gentlewoman quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
and I think it bears repetition. Justice Scalia said: ``Certainly the
Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The
only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The lack of
an ERA has allowed the Supreme Court Justice to have this
interpretation.
Here it is, we say it over and over again: Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of sex.'' How can you have a problem with that?
Let me also salute Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, our longtime lead
sponsor of the equal rights amendment in the House, for her great
leadership, and Chairman Nadler, the members of the Judiciary
Committee, and all the Members who came to Congress committed to
finishing this fight for the equal rights amendment.
I also want to acknowledge that yesterday, at our press presentation
on this, in the audience was a Republican from Illinois who was
responsible for Illinois passing the equal rights amendment, Steven
Andersson. He was with us at the Capitol. We commend him for being a
leader on the ERA, passing it through the Illinois statehouse.
What an honor and how clear that this is not partisan, perhaps only
in the House of Representatives, but not in the rest of the country.
Let us acknowledge the millions of women in Nevada, Illinois,
Virginia, and across America who have raised a drumbeat for
ratification and reignited a nationwide movement for equality.
Nearly 100 years ago, Alice Paul, a Republican, introduced the equal
rights amendment, the first proposed amendment to the Constitution
calling for women's equality in America.
Fifty years ago, soon after becoming the first African American woman
to serve in the Congress, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm stood on this
House floor to urge passage of the ERA, calling it ``one of the most
clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in
the principles that shaped our Constitution.''
But today, in this year that marks the centennial of women having the
right to vote, it is a shameful reality that the equal rights amendment
still has not been enshrined in the Constitution. As a result, millions
of American women still face inequality under the law and injustice in
their careers and lives.
Without full equality under the Constitution, women face a
devastating wage gap, and this has an impact not only on what families
earn today but on women's pensions and retirement in the future. This
is wrong.
Women face discrimination as they raise families. Sixty-two percent
of pregnant women and new moms are in the workforce, but current law
allows pregnant workers to be placed on unpaid leave or forced out of
their jobs. And sexual harassment and assault too often go unchecked,
all leading to women's underrepresentation at the decisionmaking table.
We know what the statistics are--what was it?--33 CEOs of the Fortune
500 companies are women. Really?
Today, by passing this resolution, the House is paving the way to
enshrining the equal rights amendment in the Constitution. It will
achieve justice for women and achieve progress for families and for our
children, lowering wage disparity and increasing paychecks so moms can
pay for their family's needs, such as rent, groceries, childcare, and
healthcare.
We are able to strengthen America. It is not just about women. It is
about America.
The ERA will strengthen America, unleashing the full power of women
in our economy and upholding the value of equality in our democracy.
I have four daughters, one son, two granddaughters, and I can't even
imagine how anyone could think of his or her daughter not having
equality; his or her sister, mom, wife, not having equality. What is
that about, that women should not have the same status of equality as
men?
This has nothing to do with the abortion issue. That is an excuse.
That is not a reason. It has everything to do with a respect for women:
your daughter, your sister, your wife, your mother. And you are saying,
by voting against this, that your daughter, your sister, your mother,
your spouse should not have equal protection under the law in the
Constitution of the United States.
To those who say that the ERA is not necessary, let me quote from a
recent statement from the American Association of University Women. It
states that many ``Americans mistakenly believe that the U.S.
Constitution explicitly guarantees equality between men and women.''
Perhaps you think that. ``The equal rights amendment would, once and
for all, guarantee constitutional equality between men and women. Its
ratification would provide the constitutional guarantee that all men
and women are truly equal under the law.''
I urge a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution. It will be
bipartisan in the United States Senate when we send it over there
shortly, to ensure that women are truly equal under the law in America.
Because we know in America, when women succeed, America succeeds.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining for
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for bringing this
resolution to a vote and thank Representative Speier and Representative
Maloney for their work on this legislation.
This is a historic day. It has been nearly a century since the first
constitutional amendment to guarantee
[[Page H1137]]
equal treatment for women was introduced in 1923. Since then, 37 States
have ratified the equal rights amendment, including my home State of
Pennsylvania in 1972.
Virginia's ratification of the ERA this past January brought us one
step closer to this basic right that we will be held equal in the eyes
of the Constitution. The motto of Susan B. Anthony's newspaper was:
``Men their rights and nothing more; women their rights and nothing
less.'' Today, we again say women will accept nothing less than
equality.
ERA builds on the work of Anthony and others like Jeannette Rankin,
Alice Paul, Ida B. Wells, and this diverse Congress.
I am filled with joy today because I am looking forward to going home
and telling my granddaughters, Aubrey and Ella, that we are one step
closer to a more perfect Union.
{time} 1015
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman
Nadler and Jackie Speier for their historic leadership on the equal
rights amendment.
Madam Speaker, first introduced in 1923, the equal rights amendment
is still as relevant and necessary as ever because we know that
equality for women will always elude us when it isn't etched into our
Constitution.
We have seen it when the Supreme Court gutted the Violence Against
Women Act; we have seen it when judges don't enforce equal pay for
equal work or when a Federal judge ruled that Congress didn't have the
authority to outlaw female genital mutilation. But if your rights are
in the Constitution, then they can't be rolled back by the changing
whims of legislators, judges, or Presidents.
Women are long past due equal treatment under the law, and we will
persist until it is firmly guaranteed. There is no deadline for
equality. We demand our equality be spelled out in the Constitution,
and we spell it E-R-A.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this important vote for equality.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 79,
which removes the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights
amendment. A woman's rights must be guaranteed by our government.
This bill is about the Members of Congress ensuring that the rights
and equality for women are a part of our Constitution.
It is sad to watch those who lose their way because they will find
any way to distract from the issue of equality. The Members on the
other side are trying to interject abortion into this, but I want to
say that even though we have come so far as women--there are a record
number of women lawmakers here in this House--we have so far to go, and
this corrects that injustice and recognizes equality for women under
the law.
As the great Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman in
Congress, stated: ``The time is clearly now to put this House on record
for the fullest expression of that equality of opportunity which our
Founding Fathers professed. They professed it, but they did not assure
it to their daughters, as they tried to do for their sons.''
The time is clearly now to put this House on record for the fullest
expression of that equality of opportunity which our Founding Fathers
possessed. They possessed it, but they did not assure it. We try as
they tried to do for their sons.
Madam Speaker, I encourage support of this bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
Ms. WEXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank Congresswoman Speier for introducing this important resolution.
In 1923 Alice Paul introduced the equal rights amendment to include
women in our Nation's founding documents. Nearly 100 years later,
during my time in the Virginia State Senate, I sponsored the resolution
for Virginia to ratify the ERA. But it wouldn't be until January 27,
2020, with the historic number of women lawmakers serving in the State
legislature that the great Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th and
final State to ratify the equal rights amendment.
This was not simply a symbolic vote. Specifically affirming equality
on the basis of sex in the Constitution will strengthen State and
Federal laws that protect women. We need the equal rights amendment to
ensure that equal justice under law is a constitutional right for women
and not just an inscription over the entrance to the Supreme Court.
Finally, these words will ring true: ``Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State
on account of sex.''
Today, I am proud to cast my vote in support of the ERA and in
recognition of the tireless work of so many trailblazers and activists
over the years, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
Res. 79, a bipartisan bill that moves us closer to adopting the equal
rights amendment.
Madam Speaker, American women are barrier breakers. We have broken
down barriers and shattered glass ceilings in education, at work, in
the law, in the military, and at home. We are in a new era where women
are leading in ways that they never have before, but legal gender
discrimination, pay disparities, and inequality remain. They will not
go away on their own. That is why we need to ensure that women's rights
are guaranteed by adopting the equal rights amendment.
I was so proud in 2018 when Illinois ratified the equal rights
amendment at long last. Two years later, I am here on the House floor
because the women of northern Illinois sent me here to fight for them.
I am here to fight for our right as women to equal treatment under the
Constitution of our great country.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to move us one giant step
closer to legal equality by supporting this essential bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution to remove the arbitrary deadline to ratify the equal rights
amendment. This year is the centennial of the 19th Amendment, yet women
are still fighting for full and equal rights under the law.
Women continue to face many barriers to true equality, including
pregnancy and gender discrimination, unequal pay, and a lack of access
to a full range of reproductive healthcare services. The equal rights
amendment to the Constitution would provide for fundamental equality
for women regardless of who is President, who is on the Supreme Court,
or changes in Federal law.
Congress first approved the equal rights amendment in 1972, and my
home State of Oregon was quick to ratify it the following year. Now, 38
States--the required three-fourths under the Constitution--have
ratified the amendment. Today Congress will stand with our States and
make it clear that it is time--actually way past time--to adopt the
equal rights amendment. It is not too late to do the right thing. It is
not too late for equality.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
resolution.
[[Page H1138]]
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Beyer), who is from the 38th
State.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, it has been 97 years since the equal rights
amendment was introduced in the 68th Congress and 48 years since the
ERA passed the House and Senate.
In those 48 years, I have had three daughters and one granddaughter.
Those four young women are brilliant, precocious, and accomplished,
with strong character, great morality, and true nobility. These women
are every bit the equal of any man I have ever met, yet our
Constitution does not recognize their equality nor prohibit
discrimination against them.
I am very proud that the Commonwealth of Virginia was the 38th State
to ratify the ERA. We must permanently remove the deadline for State
ratification and provide an essential legal remedy against gender
discrimination.
Does this sound like a political stunt: ``Women shall have equal
rights in the United States and every place subject to its
jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''
No. These words belong in the United States Constitution. There is
nothing partisan about recognizing men and women have equal rights
under the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, every single constitution in the whole
world written since 1959, including Afghanistan, for example, has the
equivalent of the equal rights amendment, but the United States of
America does not.
Though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and President
Trump's Department of Justice may tell you otherwise, we need the equal
rights amendment, and we need it now.
The requisite number of States have now voted to ratify the equal
rights amendment. Last year my home State of Illinois was the 37th
State to ratify, and this year Virginia brought us to that number of
38.
Today I will proudly vote ``yes'' to show my grandchildren--my
granddaughters and my grandsons--that women are not only strong,
powerful, and resilient, but also equal citizens under the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with us.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 79 and
stand shoulder to shoulder with women to demand gender equality and
justice.
When I think about the future of our country and what I want it to
look like for young women and girls like my granddaughter, Anna, I
envision a just and equitable society with fair play, diverse
leadership, and equal access to basic healthcare rights. That is why
the equal rights amendment is necessary.
For too long our country's structural barriers have cast a shadow
over women's rights. With 38 States having affirmed their support for
the ERA, we are one step closer to shattering those barriers.
This resolution negates misguided arguments that because it is an
arbitrary deadline, the equal rights amendment is effectively dead. It
is clear from the recent actions of Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia, and
our collective voices, it is still very much alive, and we will not
rest until it is ingrained in the most sacred document of our Nation's
history.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with our country's women
and support our right to constitutional equality.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, 244 years ago women were
left out of our Constitution by the men who drafted it. But since then,
generations of women and men have blazed a steady trail towards
equality in this country; but we still do not have constitutional
equality.
I attended many ERA events representing the League of Women Voters in
the 1970s, and if someone would have told me then that we would still
be fighting for this in 2020, I would have said that it was a failure
of justice.
Why is anyone against rights for everyone?
Madam Speaker, equal rights for women transcend your politics, they
transcend your age, where you are from, and your gender.
Women in this country continue to receive unequal pay, suffer from
harassment in the workplace, endure discrimination for pregnancies, and
fight long legal battles over domestic violence cases. A correction of
our Constitution is clearly long overdue.
Liberty and justice for all must apply equally to women and men in
this country. Let's pass this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, 28 days ago on Martin Luther King,
Jr.'s birthday, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the ERA. After
decades of struggle, 48 years after congressional passage, two-thirds
of the States agreed to an amendment that secures equal rights for all
American citizens regardless of sex. This amendment would touch every
corner of our lives.
With 24 words our Nation will finally fully recognize women as equal
participants in society.
To my colleagues opposing the ERA: What are you afraid of?
How can you oppose this resolution and then look women in your
district, in your churches, and in your own homes in the eye?
Today is your chance to stand on the right side of her story. I
implore my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 79. Let us finish this
struggle and at long last have women and men finally equal under the
law with their rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
{time} 1030
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, since women gained the
right to vote 100 years ago, we have made incredible progress--rolling
back laws like those that kept us from serving on juries, owning land,
or even getting our own credit card--and this Congress has more women
than ever.
But true equality is still a goal, not a reality. The fact is women
are still paid less than men for the same work, and we still have men
passing laws that dictate our choices about our bodies.
It is clear, if we want equality, we need the ERA, and the people
agree. We saw that at women's marches across the country and in the
groundswell of the #MeToo movement.
That energy is leading to change. The people are speaking. It is up
to us to listen. Arbitrary deadlines are no reason to silence our
voices.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and give women
the same rights as men.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support today of Congresswoman
Speier's bill, H.J. Res. 79. I thank Congresswoman Speier and
Congresswoman Maloney for their consistent leadership as warrior women.
The ERA would guarantee rights to all and would finally affirm
women's equality in our Constitution by removing this arbitrary
deadline.
We know that, too often, women have been relegated to the sidelines
and left
[[Page H1139]]
out of the Constitution, especially Black women and women of color. For
example, there is still rampant gender wage discrimination.
Discrimination against women must end. That is why the ERA is so
important. It would make sure that our government would ensure that
women are treated equally, a right that needs to be clearly outlined in
every aspect of our country.
I want my granddaughters, Jordan, Simone, and Giselle, to know that
they are equal to men, that their rights are enshrined in the
Constitution. They, like every girl and woman, deserve equality in
their country. They should know that their country, the United States
of America, has finally joined the rest of the world to stand up for
their rights as American women.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this
resolution to advance the cause of full and equal rights for all women.
I do so for my 1-year-old granddaughter for whom I deeply hope that,
when she reaches the age of understanding, the ERA will be as enshrined
in our Constitution as is the right to vote today. I also do so as a
proud citizen of my Hawaii.
On March 22, 1972, when the U.S. Senate sent the ERA to the States,
it was early in the morning in Hawaii; but by shortly after noon that
same day, our legislature voted for ratification, the first State to do
so.
For my country and Hawaii and for all of our women leaders who led
this fight, past and present, I proudly join my colleagues in voting
for the ERA.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, after nearly a century, the
equal rights amendment is on the cusp of ratification.
At America's founding, women were intentionally left out of the
Constitution. As second-class citizens, we lacked the right to vote,
hold most jobs, or even own property. Today, we still receive less pay
for the same work, and we face violence and harassment just for being
women. But the ERA will prohibit all of that. In the eyes of our most
sacred document, we will finally be equal.
Women's rights should not depend on congressional whims or who
occupies the White House. These basic fundamental rights must be
guaranteed.
But, if we want to hand a more perfect union to our daughters--and I
have two of them--we must seize this moment to end sex discrimination.
We owe it to the women who sacrificed before us and all of our
daughters and sons who deserve a life of true equality.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution to remove
the arbitrary and outdated deadline for ratifying the ERA.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). The gentleman from New
York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
for a parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, it is my intention to raise a point
of order that this resolution requires a two-thirds vote. I will argue
the point of order when it is made, but I need to know when the proper
time is to raise the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The proper time would be when the Chair puts
the question on passage.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, do I put the question before or
after it is passed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the time the Chair puts the question on
passage.
Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it has been interesting, the discussion on the floor
today. It has been interesting on both sides to hear the different
aspects of why this bill is on the floor, why we are doing it, why we
shouldn't be doing it, and many things. It has been interesting, the
discussion, if you go from a strictly number-of-States category.
What has been interesting is my colleagues across the aisle have
talked about that there are now 38 States, but they fail to mention 5
States that rescinded their votes. Five States would put you under 38.
What was interesting to me in the Rules Committee the other night,
the argument was that, if they rescind it, it is not valid to rescind,
yet you can add States after the time limit is up. That is an
interesting argument to make if you are actually looking at it from the
perspective of if they rescind it within the timeframe yet passed it
after the timeframe, that that is okay.
Then I heard one of my colleagues actually mentioned the fact that,
if we passed it in here today, that this would now become part of the
process, along with the State of Virginia ratifying it, it is now part
of our Constitution.
I am sure this was just a euphoric discussion about how this would
actually go about, but they were also forgetting the Senate is involved
in this. It is amazing.
I was really worried at one point in the discussion that it was said
on multiple occasions that there was no protection in the Constitution
for women. I was almost scared for a moment that the 14th Amendment had
been repealed and I didn't know it.
It is in there and still is in there. I checked just a few minutes
ago. It is safe.
It is interesting to determine, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the
foremost architects in looking at this bill even in the 1970s, coming
forward, has said: If you want to do this, start over. Do it the proper
way.
As my chairman has said earlier, basically, a deadline should not get
in the way of what we want. A deadline should not get in the way of
what I want to have happen. That is becoming more and more of a concern
in this body, that the rules and parliamentary procedures don't matter
if it interferes with what we want.
But, at the end of the day, the question really becomes: Why are we
doing this? Why are we bringing this forth when there is absolutely no
legal precedent, no constitutional precedent, no anything out there--
including some of the founders who actually started this whole process
40-plus years ago, who said this is not the way you do it.
The reason I know that that is a concern is because some of those who
have actually said this have been criticized in the media from the
perspective of supporters of the ERA to say Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
comments have now killed the ERA, or effectively done it. The reason is
because she is speaking the truth about this issue.
We disagree on most everything from a legal perspective, but on this
one, we happen to agree, and she has laid forth clearly what should
happen here.
But let me also say--and it has been talked about a great deal, so I
think we just need to come to the real scenario why this is happening.
It is not that we believe it will actually happen. For anybody here who
believes that today is actually going to put it in part of the
Constitution, that is not going to happen.
So what is it? It is a political nod to the understanding of those
who are speaking for this.
As we have heard earlier, NARAL Pro-Choice America:
With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the
constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes
have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down
anti-abortion laws.
Also, NARAL:
The ERA will support protecting women's right to abortion.
With five anti-choice Justices on the Supreme Court and Roe
v. Wade on the chopping block, it is more important than ever
we codify women's bodily autonomy in our lives.
Codirector of Reproaction:
Abortion restrictions amount to sex discrimination because
they single out people for unfair treatment on the basis of
sex.
The senior counsel of National Women's Law Center:
The ERA would help create a basis for challenging abortion
restrictions.
This is what this is actually about. This is what the basis has
needed because there has been a shifting in this
[[Page H1140]]
country to understand that, in our opinion--in the opinion of many--
abortion is simply murder in the womb. It is not about life.
It is interesting, we are talking about the rights of women today--
which, again, this bill doesn't have anything to do with--but we are
not concerned if the young women in the womb are even able to have a
birthday. That is not a concern.
So what would happen from these folks who are supporting your
resolution today? Why do they want it? Because it gives a claim, from
start to finish, unfettered abortion.
So what does that mean? That means let's bring back partial-birth
abortion, which, if I have to remind anybody here, means the delivery
of the child all the way until the moment the chin comes almost out,
and then actually crushing their skull. That is what that is.
If that is a right we are protecting, I don't want any part of it,
and neither do most Americans. They don't want a part of it. But that
is one of those restrictions that will be laid back.
It would also continue to allow unlimited abortions in any State for
any reason, including sex selection.
It is interesting that we would talk about this today, the ERA, and
use this, yet a family could choose to abort a child because it is a
male or a female. Let's be honest about this.
But the bottom line for me, what really bothers me the most about
when it is unlimited, unfettered access to abortion that this bill
opens up, if it were to have passed, is one that hits close to home for
me.
You see, a European country recently stated that a geneticist in
Iceland said: We have almost basically eradicated Down syndrome people.
I thought to myself, for a second: That would be great. I mean, if we
could actually remove Down syndrome and help those and cure that, that
would be an amazing medical discovery for all people. Except there is
one portion.
Do you know how they have done it? Through genetic testing and
killing the children in the womb. They don't even let them have a
birthday.
One Icelandic counselor counsels mothers as follows:
This is your life. You have the right to choose how your life will
look. She said: We don't look at abortion as murder. We look at it as a
thing that we ended.
Do you want to know why this has opened up, America? This is why.
And for those of us like myself who have a disabled child, I do not
want to hear that we are protecting disabled rights and other rights
when we are not even allowing them to be born in certain arenas.
Every day, I get a text on this phone. It is from my daughter. Jordan
is 27 years old. She has spina bifida. She cannot walk and has never
taken a step, and I believe it probably, given the medical condition,
will not happen this side of Heaven. But she rolls and she smiles. She
goes to work 3 days a week. She gets herself up early to put her
clothes on and take her shower and get a bus that she calls, and she
goes to work.
The folks in Sweden, do you know what they want to do? Kill her.
Because she is not as valuable, as a Down syndrome child is not as
valuable.
Do you want to open this Pandora's box of no abortion restrictions?
Then own what you are doing.
But when Jordan texts me, she texts me: Good morning, Daddy. I love
you. How was your day?
Madam Speaker, when we found out 27 years ago--a week ago, 27 years
ago--that Jordan was going to have spina bifida, we were a young couple
just happy that God gave us a child, and to find out that she had a
disability only kept our hearts more in tune to what God had given.
My wife went to school the next week, and she was telling the teacher
about what was going on. She said: We are trying to figure out where we
need to go to have Jordan, help when she is born and get some more
medical attention.
This person looked at her and said: You know you have choices,
correct?''
And my wife said: Well, yes. There is Northside Hospital and others.
She said: No. Oh, no, dear. You don't have to go through with this.
That is your choice.
{time} 1045
In other words, as my wife looked at her and said: ``You're talking
about my baby.''
You see, when we go down this path, don't flower this bill up. Look
at the ones who actually talk about it and say this is an open door to
abortion on demand, with no restrictions, no government interference--
in fact, government pays for it.
But before you do that, America, as we look around, I want you to
think of the picture on the new Gerber baby ad of the young person with
Down syndrome, who is now the face of Gerber baby food. If he was in
Iceland, he would have been one of those that, as it said: Oh, we
ended.
Think about my daughter, who, when we allow it out there for people
who are struggling--and to get news that you have a child with a
disability, that is one of the most amazingly devastating things that
you can hear because you don't know what the future holds.
But what you do know is life is a gift from God, and that it is my
joy to take care of her. We had 30 major surgeries before she was 5
years old, three of which were 9 hours in length. Tell me her life
doesn't matter.
For someone who doesn't have the possibility of understanding, and
they are given a choice because they have a disability, and somebody
tells them and gets to them and says: Don't worry. Disabilities are
bad. Just go ahead and end that life, and go on with your life.
This is what this opens up.
So don't give me a bill that is going nowhere for the reasons that
have been given. The true reasons are found in your own supporters. The
true reasons are found in what we know to be true.
When you understand what this is about, then I will stand till I have
no more breath in my body for the rights of those who can't speak for
themselves.
It is amazing to me that it was said: What would I be saying to my
daughter if I voted against this?
I would be saying to Jordan, as I will: Jordan, the 14th Amendment is
still there. Protections in law are still there. And by the way,
restrictions on abortion will not be done away with, and your life
matters.
So if you want a picture of this, picture Jordan.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, if Congress can enact a resolution putting a time limit,
it can enact a resolution removing a time limit. And when the Senate
passes this resolution, the ERA will be part of the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise very proudly, the first Muslim woman
ever elected in the Congress, in support of H.J. Res. 79.
Madam Speaker, what is even more interesting is what I have been
hearing about this obsession to control and oppress women in the United
States of America. I cannot believe it is 2020, and we are still
debating the merits of the equal rights amendment. It is beyond time.
I want you all to know this is about women of color, women with
disabilities, transgender women, immigrant women. These women are
affected by issues like unequal pay, sexual violence, lack of access
for healthcare, and poverty.
So much of what we are doing here, in trying to promote women's
equality, is about gender, racial, and economic justice.
Madam Speaker, know this: A ``no'' vote today is condoning oppression
of women in the United States of America. I urge support.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, 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 removes the
deadline Congress put in place for the ratification of the Equal Rights
Amendment. While ratification of
[[Page H1141]]
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. By voting on this legislation we may imply that it is
necessary for Congress to lift a self-imposed deadline. I do not
prescribe to this view.
Congressional authority to propose Amendments to the Constitution and
the mode of ratification is absolute. The language of Article V of the
Constitution represents the Founders intent to create a stable
government designed for change. 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. For example, 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. The
language of a proposing clause is not binding. The current ratification
process of the Equal Rights Amendment is properly before the states and
is reasonable and sufficiently contemporaneous.
Having been ratified by Virginia, according to Article V, the ERA has
become part of the Constitution. Furthermore, if the deadline is
binding, then passage of this resolution, without passage in the
Senate, does not cure the defect. Because the deadline is not binding,
this resolution is not necessary, but also not harmful.
Women continue to face additional 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. 2474) which protects
workers who are trying to form a union. In most of America, women earn
less than men, but 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.
Nearly two thirds of minimum wage workers in the United States are
women. The House has successfully passed the Raise the Wage Act (H.R.
582). This will raise the income levels of the most economically
insecure households and is a step in the right direction towards pay
equity. The Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act (H.R. 2694) is an important
piece of legislation that will provide reasonable accommodations to
pregnant women in the workforce. The House also passed the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1585) which expanded
protections and provides critical funding for victim services, law
enforcement training, and data collection.
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.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, over the course of many
years, I have consistently sponsored and promoted women's rights
legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work including most recently,
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of 2009
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers
because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and
strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family
medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the
Family and Medical Leave Act.
And this year, I have cosponsored the FAMILY Act.
I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher
education by strongly supporting Title IX.
I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that
negatively impact women and I supported numerous bills to establish
certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors'
Bill of Rights which is now law.
Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric
practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is a perverted
and unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed,
disrespect and secrecy.
Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed
legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and
labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.
The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and
significantly expanded by my law. Last year, I cosponsored the Violence
Against Women Extension Act of 2019.
This past January, I authored another bill that was signed into law--
my fifth major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass
Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act.
After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson,
was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber
ride, I introduced Sami's Law to make the ride share safer for all. In
recent months it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women who
use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been
murdered.
I arrive at the debate on the elimination of the deadline for the ERA
from the perspective of my work to ensure equality and protection for
women and every woman's right to be treated fairly and without
exploitation.
The words of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the legal
impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification have sealed
the fate of the proposed amendment. Justice Ginsburg's judgment is that
the deadline has expired and that she ``would like it to start over''
presents a definitive view that the process has come to an end.
According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg also said ``There's too much
controversy about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn
their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how
can you disregard states that said `we've changed our minds?' '' Five
states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota--voted
to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.
Today, however, one thing is absolutely clear from both sides of the
abortion divide: ratification of the ERA with its current wording will
likely overturn laws prohibiting public funding of abortion--like the
Hyde Amendment--and undo modest restrictions on abortion including
waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws,
conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any ban on late
term abortion including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral
language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant
or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--
abortion activists will use the ERA as they have successfully used
state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut--to force taxpayers to
pay for abortion on demand.
Consider this:
The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was
required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the
law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is
unique to women'' and therefore ``violates the Equal Rights
Amendment.''
In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its
state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore
clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . .
abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.''
Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion
funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type
restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.
While I take issue with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an
unborn child's inherent dignity, worth and value, at least activists on
both sides agree that the ERA as written will be used in court as a
means to compel public funding of abortion and to strike down the Hyde
Amendment and other modest abortion restrictions at both the state and
federal level.
[[Page H1142]]
NARAL Pro-Choice America plainly states: ``With its ratification, the
ERA . . . would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . .
.''
A senior lawyer of the National Women's Law Centers said: ``The ERA
would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.''
The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed
federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state
restrictions on tax-funded abortions.''
And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agree and wrote ``One
consequence of the ERA would be the likely requirement of federal
funding for abortions . . . (and) arguments have been proffered that
the federal ERA would . . . restrain the ability of the federal and
state governments to enact other measures regulating abortion, such as
third-trimester or partial birth abortion bans, parental consent,
informed consent, conscience-related exemptions, and other
provisions.''
According to the most recent Marist Poll (January 2020), 60 percent
of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion, seven in ten
Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want
significant restrictions on abortion, a majority of Americans--55
percent--want to ban abortion after 20 weeks, and nearly two-thirds of
Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome.
I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most
vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect,
empathy, compassion and protection from violence.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.J.
Res. 79, which will remove a deadline for the ratification of the Equal
Rights Amendment. This will ensure that our country fully accepts the
impact of the recent ratifications by the states of Nevada, Illinois,
and Virginia.
The Equal Rights Amendment represents the further advancement of
women in our society. It enshrines the American ideal that ``equality
of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or any State on account of sex''. While other existing statutes
have been interpreted as prohibiting some forms of sex discrimination,
there are still numerous avenues in which they are inefficient for the
full protection of women under the law.
As representatives of communities across our nation, we must set an
explicit example of our championing of women's rights. Women continue
to face obstacles to their full equality, including through unequal
pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual and domestic violence, and
inadequate access to health care services. As the United States, we
must be mindful of the global influence we have, and we must ensure
that gender equality is, without a doubt, enshrined in our foundational
principles.
The bipartisan support of this legislation captures the will of
Americans for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Therefore, I am proud to support this resolution as a crucial step
forward for gender equality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 844, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
Point of Order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I make the point of order that a
two-thirds vote is required for passage of this joint resolution
because it does have the effect of amending the Constitution.
And on the point of order, Madam Speaker, there was an extension that
was passed in 1978, where this issue came up, which extended the
deadline until 1982.
In 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment deadlines expired. In 1983,
Chairman Peter Rodino, of the Judiciary Committee, decided to introduce
H.J. Res. 1, which started the process over again.
The difference between what happened in 1978 and 1983 is that
Chairman Rodino, and those who supported re-introducing and attempting
to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, realized that it had expired and
required a start-over.
I believe that this does fall under that, and that it does require a
start-over, and I would ask the Chair to rule on whether or not the
point of order is well-taken and this does require a two-thirds vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Pursuant to House Resolution 842, an affirmative vote of a majority
of Members present and voting, a quorum being present, is required on
final passage of the pending measure. The gentleman's point of order is
overruled.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I appeal the decision of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The terms of House Resolution 842 are
unambiguous and so, consistent with the ruling of the Chair on
September 16, 1977, to permit an appeal in this case would be
tantamount to permitting a direct change in that resolution. As such,
the Chair has not issued an appealable ruling, and the Chair will put
the question on passage of the joint resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I appeal that ruling of the Chair
as well, which I believe is appealable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That ruling is not subject to appeal.
The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 183, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
YEAS--232
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--183
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
[[Page H1143]]
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--15
Adams
Byrne
Crawford
Gabbard
Graves (GA)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
LaHood
Marchant
Mast
Mullin
Payne
Welch
Wilson (SC)
Wright
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in
violation of the rules of the House.
{time} 1119
Mr. GOSAR changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. LEE of California changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, due to a medical condition, I was unable to
vote on the following Roll Call on February 13, 2020.
Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 70
(Final Passage of H.J. Res. 79)--Removing the deadline for the
ratification of the equal rights amendment (Rep. Speier--Judiciary).
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I was absent today due to a medical
emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall
No. 70.
____________________