[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 104 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2718-S2721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me turn to the fight--the century 
fight

[[Page S2719]]

for women's suffrage, the right to vote, the right to be treated 
equally, the right to be heard. It is a history that is long and 
interesting, sometimes very colorful.
  I have had an opportunity these past couple of weeks to be reading a 
collection of stories about how women in the West worked to really be 
the vanguards, if you will, on the suffrage movement. You don't 
necessarily hear them spoken to with great frequency, but, in fairness, 
it is many of those Western States--it was Wyoming that was the first 
mover.
  So reading some of their stories was a good reminder--a good 
reminder--of the role that many in Alaska have also played. We have 
been relatively progressive when it comes to women's rights--so 
progressive that many Alaskan women received equal voting rights with 
men in 1913. This was 7 years before the 19th Amendment was ratified. 
Alaska was still a territory and was still going to be a territory for 
a long time going forward.
  The sorry and the sad part of that history, though, was that not all 
Alaskan women were given that right to vote. Alaskan Native women were 
excluded. They were excluded based on citizenship and civility 
assessment as well as literacy tests that prevented Alaska Natives--not 
just the women but some Native men--from voting for several more 
decades.
  We recognize through a State day of observation and recognition the 
work of Elizabeth Peratrovich, an Alaska Native woman from Southeastern 
Alaska, who was the driving force behind our first antidiscrimination 
law. This was back in 1945, nearly 20 years before Congress passed the 
Civil Rights Act.
  This year, on the 75th anniversary of the bill's passage, the U.S. 
Mint has actually created a gold coin in her honor. As you look at that 
coin and reflect on her role, on the significance of that proud, 
strong, fierce Native woman leader, you can't help but be proud of her.
  The fight for women's suffrage was waged, as we know, for decades and 
decades. But again, the women in the West led the way.
  As I was reading the recount of the Alaska suffrage initiative, it 
was reflected that the women in Alaska didn't really have to work that 
hard to get it; that it was just ``provided'' to them. I think there is 
more to that history than that, but a newspaper publication at the 
time, The Daily Alaskan, in 1904, argued that while women's suffrage 
might be disfavored as a general proposition, the merits were different 
in Alaska.
  And he says the women there ``are brave and noble helpers in the 
development of a frontier country'' and ``not the pampered dolls of 
society.''
  So today it still probably holds true that we have some pretty strong 
women in Alaska. We own and operate fishing vessels. We work as oil rig 
operators, diesel mechanics. We have some extraordinary Alaskan women, 
industry leaders leading our Alaska Native corporations, leading our 
oil companies. We are leaders in education and advocates for children 
and seniors and victims of domestic violence. They truly have helped 
not only our State but our country.

  The 100th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage is a reminder of the 
progress that we have made as a nation. But we know that we have more 
to do and that inequities remain whether in the workforce or pay 
equality. Continuing that work is a matter that we have not relaxed on. 
That work includes getting the Equal Rights Amendment signed into law.
  The Equal Rights Amendment was first written and introduced by Alice 
Paul at a conference commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Seneca 
Falls Convention in 1923. But it wasn't until 1972 that the ERA passed 
through Congress and was sent to the States with a 7-year deadline for 
ratification that was eventually extended until 1982.
  It is a pretty simple amendment. It is pretty short. ``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 the Equal Rights 
Amendment, in addition to the implementing provisions following that. 
But that is the context.
  In Alaska, I am proud to say that we were one of the early adopters, 
having ratified the Equal Rights Amendment on April 5, 1972. More 
recently, Virginia became the 38th State to have ratified the 
amendment, which brings us to the three-fourths threshold needed for 
ratification. Unfortunately, this milestone was reached after the 
deadline for ratification. It had already expired, so Senator Cardin 
and I have introduced a resolution, S.J. Res. 6, which would remove the 
time limit from the joint resolution that passed the Congress in 1972.
  I have asserted time and again--and Senator Cardin, so many--we have 
said that you cannot put a time limit on women's equality. It has been 
100 years since women were granted the equal right of voting. Women's 
equality is fundamental to the American way of life, and it is far past 
time to be expressly recognized in the Constitution.
  I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership in working on this 
resolution with me and all the Members of Congress who fought with us 
in support of the ERA. I thank the advocates who continue to call their 
Senators, call their Congressmen, who lift their voices to support this 
important cause. We have work to do. We will continue that work.
  I want to note that my colleague Senator Cardin was here on the 
floor, was planning to speak on this matter today, but our time 
schedules got compressed, so his statement has been included as part of 
the Record. I want to acknowledge the good work and the partnership 
that we have on this.
  With this, I yield the floor
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in this time of renewed interest for 
fairness and equality for all men and women and nationwide and 
worldwide protests, I urge my colleagues to think about what we can do 
to create a more just society. Indeed, one of the founding documents of 
our country, the Declaration of Independence, provides that ``all men 
are created equal,'' in the famous words of Thomas Jefferson.
  But let me remind my colleagues about our history here as the 
Continental Congress met to debate independence of the United States 
from Great Britain. In a letter dated March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams 
wrote to her husband, the future President John Adams, urging him and 
the other Members of the Continental Congress not to forget about the 
Nation's women when fighting for America's freedom.
  The future First Lady wrote in part, ``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 favorable to them 
than our ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of 
the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If 
particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are 
determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by 
any laws in which we have no voice or representation.''
  Well, women of the United States would indeed have to wait a long 
time just to get the right to vote in America. Indeed, even after the 
Civil War, which almost tore this country apart over slavery, the 
Fifteenth Amendment ratified by Congress and the States in 1870 
provided that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote 
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' Women had 
tried again to include the right to vote in the Constitution but were 
rebuffed.
  But the women of this country did not give up. So they kept agitating 
and lobbying for the right to vote, and they were ultimately 
successful, when Congress and the States ratified the 19th Amendment in 
1920, which states: ``The right of citizens of the United States to 
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 
State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation.''
  However, while women in American gained the right to vote in 1920, we 
all know that women are still not treated equally under the law and 
that civil rights are the great unfinished business of America.
  Our fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, officially began 
shortly after passage of the 19th Amendment, the culmination of the 
long-running women's suffrage movement that guaranteed women the right 
to vote.

[[Page S2720]]

  Alice Paul, leader of the National Women's Party, recognized the need 
for further laws in order to provide full legal equality to women in 
all activities, not just voting. Her proposal for an amendment for 
equal treatment under the law regardless of sex marked the first 
iteration of the ERA. U.S. Senator Charles Curtis would introduce this 
proposal for the first time in October 1921. Over the years, both the 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party would include the ERA in 
their platforms. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy both indicated their 
support for the ERA. Needless to say, the ERA has a long history, and 
throughout that time, it enjoyed the notable bipartisan support.
  The ERA has been able to count on such support precisely because of 
the widespread need recognized by both sides of the aisle for equal 
treatment under the law. What is at stake here is simply the issue of 
putting women on an even playing field with men. This is not about 
empowering one demographic group over another, but ensuring that 
discrimination on the basis of sex is no longer an obstacle to prevent 
women from enjoying the same rights and protections that men enjoy.
  As the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia articulated: 
``Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the 
basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' 
The fight for the ERA aims to fill this gap in the law.
  When Congresswoman Martha Griffiths introduced her ERA in Congress in 
the 92nd Congress, the House of Representatives passed the measure by a 
vote of 354 yeas to 24 nays. Five months later, the Senate passed it by 
a vote of 84 yeas to 8 nays. It received an immediate endorsement from 
President Richard Nixon upon its passage. While the ERA would in time 
become ratified by most States, it fell just three short of the three-
fourths requirement of 38 by the measure's deadline of March 22, 1979.
  When Senator Murkowski and I came together to introduce S.J. Res. 6 
on January 26, 2019, we committed ourselves to advancing this nearly 
century-long fight for equality between men and women. Our measure 
would remove the deadline for ratification.
  Remember that the Constitution contains no deadline for the 
ratification of constitutional amendments, and in 1992 Congress 
declared the 27th Amendment ratified after more than 200 years, which 
prohibits Congress from changing its own pay before an intervening 
election. And the States have recently woken up when it comes to the 
ERA, with Illinois, Nevada, and, most recently, Virginia ratifying the 
ERA, reaching the number of 38 State ratifications, or three-quarters 
of the States.
  I would note that our companion House resolution introduced by 
Congresswoman Jackie Speier was passed by the House earlier this year, 
and so this issue is awaiting final action in the Senate.
  As Congress looks to what it can do to create a more just society, 
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, would finally give 
women the legal protection consistent with ideals of our Nation. I am 
therefore proud to have partnered with Republican Senator Lisa 
Murkowski of Alaska in introducing a joint resolution that would remove 
the deadline for ratification of this crucial amendment.
  And we picked this historic day to discuss it, as the Senate approved 
the women's suffrage amendment--the 19th Amendment to our 
Constitution--on June 4, 1919.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a joint editorial 
that I wrote with my colleague and friend, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, 
talking about why it is time to finally ratify the ERA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2019]

          It's Time to Finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment

                   (By Ben Cardin and Lisa Murkowski)

       Men and women should be treated equally under the law. It 
     seems pretty basic, right?
       As we approach the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage, 
     it comes as a shock to so many that the U.S. Constitution 
     does not guarantee women the same rights and protections as 
     men.
       We come from different ends of the political spectrum, but 
     we agree that this needs to change. Women compose a majority 
     of the American population but continue to be 
     underrepresented in government, elected office, the courts 
     and business world. A level playing field should not be a 
     euphemism but rather a reality for women (and men) from 
     Anchorage to Annapolis and everywhere in between.
       ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or 
     abridged by the United States or by any State on account of 
     sex.''
       This is the full substance of the Equal Rights Amendment. 
     It's a little less than a tweet, but it will make a positive 
     difference in the lives of millions of women.
       Why is this still necessary? During a 2011 interview, 
     Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the need for an Equal Rights 
     Amendment. He said: ``Certainly the Constitution does not 
     require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is 
     whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
       On the other side of the spectrum, Justice Ruth Bader 
     Ginsburg laid out the rationale for the ERA in simple terms: 
     ``Every constitution written since the end of World War II 
     includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal 
     stature. Ours does not.''
       Why has it taken this long? Per the Constitution, an 
     amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to 
     be enacted. While most amendments are put forward without a 
     time limit, this one came with a seven-year deadline. The 
     original was extended to 10 years, but still, only 35 States 
     had ratified the ERA by 1982.
       While the clock stood frozen at the federal level, today, 
     nearly half of the States--including Maryland and Alaska--
     have a version of the ERA written into their constitutions. 
     Gender-based equality represents the present-day views of the 
     vast majority of people across the United States, and is the 
     spirit that underpins our bipartisan legislation.
       The deadline passed in 1982, so isn't this effort futile? 
     Not at all.
       Nationally, momentum began to shift about two years ago, as 
     women across the country began to raise their voices again in 
     calls for solidarity and equality. The ERA had never gone 
     away, but the #Me Too movement gave it a jolt of energy and a 
     new spotlight for inequalities in U.S. law.
       In March 2017, 45 years to the day after Congress 
     overwhelmingly approved the ERA, Nevada became the 36th state 
     to ratify the amendment. And then, in May 2018, Illinois 
     became the 37th.
       What had for years been referred to as a three-state plan--
     working to have Congress remove the ratification deadline so 
     that three more states could ratify the ERA, and it would 
     become enshrined in our constitution--had suddenly become a 
     one-state plan.
       Earlier this month, Virginia started the ratification 
     process in their state legislature. Alabama, Arizona, 
     Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 
     North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah could also 
     become state No. 38. Congress can do its part by explicitly 
     removing the deadline it once set.
       Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for 
     ratification of amendments. The states finally ratified the 
     27th Amendment in 1992 regarding congressional pay raises 
     more than 200 years after Congress proposed it in 1789 as 
     part of the Bill of Rights.
       The original deadline for ERA ratification was not in the 
     amendment itself but only in the text of the joint resolution 
     proposing the amendment. This is to say the amendment itself 
     has no arbitrary deadline attached.
       Whether on purpose or not, Congress handcuffed itself at 
     the time it passed the ERA. But this Congress can and should 
     easily amend that language to remove the deadline for 
     ratification.
       We are proud to work together on a bipartisan basis to move 
     this essential legislation over the finish line and finally 
     make the ERA part of the Constitution--guaranteeing equality 
     under the law for women.
       Women should not be held back or provided less opportunity, 
     respect or protections under the law because of their gender. 
     This is not a partisan issue but one of universal human 
     rights. Gender equality should be an explicit, basic 
     principle of our society.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Alaska 
for her eloquent remarks, and I am glad I was here to have a chance to 
listen to them, both on equal rights, really, for all Americans. It is 
not possible for us to speak on any subject today without recognizing 
what is going on in the country.
  A couple of comments that come to my mind as I think what happened as 
a result of the incident with George Floyd in Minneapolis were, first, 
the comment of the leader of the peaceful protest in Nashville. There 
were more than 1,000 there. She said, the next day, that she was 
disappointed by the rioters and looters because they dishonored the 
memory of George Floyd and dishonored the peaceful protest against 
racial discrimination. I thought she said that well and expressed the 
feeling of most Tennesseans.
  The other comment I thought about was that of our colleague Senator 
Tim

[[Page S2721]]

Scott of South Carolina, who is one of three African-American Members 
of the U.S. Senate. He told us a couple of years ago in a private Bible 
study--and I asked him later if I could mention it--that he was stopped 
7 times--an African-American man--in his hometown, Charleston, SC, for 
being a Black man in the wrong place, even while he was the vice mayor 
of his hometown.
  I asked him about that again this week. He said: Yes, it happened 
again last month. I think most of us don't know that. We don't think 
about that--those of us who aren't African American, aren't Black. To 
think about that, I think, helps us begin the process of understanding 
the feelings that are going on in the country right now, most of which 
can't be solved by laws. They will have to be changed by attitudes.

                          ____________________