[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Page S557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Equal Rights Amendment

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yesterday was an interesting day for me 
personally, but it was an interesting day, more importantly, in the 
history of the United States when it comes to the Equal Rights 
Amendment.
  The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in 1923, 100 years 
ago--100 years ago. It was proposed by a leader named Dr. Alice Paul. 
At the time, she had just won an important victory. She and her fellow 
suffragists had just led successfully the campaign to ratify the 19th 
Amendment to give women the right to vote in the United States--100 
years ago.
  Despite this monumental achievement, Dr. Paul recognized that just 
the right to vote was not enough for gender equality, but it was the 
right starting point. So she devoted the remaining years of her life to 
enshrining gender equality in every facet of American life and 
particularly into the Constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment.
  Sadly, Dr. Paul and her fellow suffragists passed away long before 
they could see the ERA become the law of the land, but their legacy 
lives on today in a new generation of activists, lawmakers, and 
trailblazers who are propelling the movement for equality forward.
  The personal side of this relates to the fact that when I graduated 
from law school in 1969, I went to work for the Lieutenant Governor of 
Illinois, Paul Simon, who later served here in the Senate. One of my 
first assignments in the Illinois State Senate was to work for the 
passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the State of Illinois.
  The road to ratification has been long and winding. I continue to be 
amazed by the proposal. Fifty years ago, it really came down to some 
very basic arguments, and the leading argument against the Equal Rights 
Amendment was that men and women would have to share public restrooms. 
When I say that, you think: Wait a minute. You want enshrined in the 
Constitution the constitutional rights of more than half of the people 
living in America, and the article came down to a debate over the 
future of public restrooms? I have to tell you, that had more to do 
with it than almost anything else. I heard that argument over and over 
and over again.
  The ERA is a rallying cry for Americans young and old for good 
reason. As the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, it would ensure that 
our Nation lives up to the promise of real equality, and, frankly, it 
is a principle that should be enshrined in the Constitution.
  Thirty-eight States have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in the 
past half century--the most recent, Virginia in 2020. Thirty-eight is 
the exact number needed to certify an amendment to the Constitution. 
The only thing standing in the way of an Equal Rights Amendment is an 
arbitrary deadline that Congress included in the preamble--let me 
underline those three words, ``in the preamble''--of this amendment as 
it passed in 1972 clarifying that this was not the controlling but 
simply in the preamble, is what the current controversy is about.
  During yesterday's hearing on the ERA, we heard from several 
witnesses: my own home State Lieutenant Governor, Juliana Stratton, and 
a young woman whose name is Thursday Williams, a first-generation 
American, a board member of the ERA Coalition, and a senior at Trinity 
College in Connecticut. She spoke on behalf of a lot of young people. 
She is a college senior. Her compelling testimony was a testament to 
the value of her voice in the conversation. I am glad she was there.
  After graduating college, Ms. Williams plans to become an attorney. 
She said:

       [I] fell in love with the United States Constitution in 
     high school.''

  You don't hear that very often, do you?
  She said:

       What I love the most about the Constitution is how 
     brilliantly it was designed to adapt to the changing needs of 
     its people.

  She argued that today the American people deserve a Constitution that 
guarantees equality regardless of sex, a Constitution that we can use 
as a tool to fight discrimination.
  She concluded her testimony by asking the members of the committee:

       If we continue to hold back more than half of [the] people 
     [in America] from accessing equal opportunities, what does 
     that say about us as a country?
       How can we be the beacon of freedom and democracy we claim 
     to be if we don't declare that sex discrimination contradicts 
     the American dream?

  This young college student is pretty smart, as far as I am concerned. 
She knew exactly the right question to ask. Generations of Americans 
have been waiting for us in Congress to protect their fundamental 
rights.
  Congress approved the ERA 50 years ago, but in doing so, we imposed 
that arbitrary time limit for ratification. That is why our hearing 
yesterday was so important. The members of the committee were not 
merely discussing the importance of the ERA; we were urging our 
colleagues to join us in passing it.
  This joint resolution already has bipartisan support in both 
Chambers. I want to salute Senator Murkowski of Alaska, with Senator 
Ben Cardin, for joining us in cosponsoring this effort. We can't wait 
any longer.
  I listened to the arguments about opposing the Equal Rights Amendment 
in this year, 2023. Fifty years ago, the argument was, we can't see how 
we are going to resolve public restrooms. Now the argument raised by 
one of the witnesses called by the Republicans was, we are worried 
about the impact that an Equal Rights Amendment would have on the 
future of field hockey--field hockey. The woman who testified, 
representing one of the Koch Industries' entities that have been 
created to do politicking, said she couldn't explain to her daughter or 
guarantee to her that there wouldn't be some clash as to whether men 
could play on her field hockey team.

  I would say to her with all due respect--and I have been a parent 
myself; still am--that it is time to sit down and talk to her daughter 
about the basics, and the basics are the constitutional guarantee of 
her rights for the rest of her natural life, not the next field hockey 
game.
  There is more at stake here, and it probably relates less to her 
because of who she is and her family than it does to all the other 
women whose lives would be improved by the passage of the Equal Rights 
Amendment. That is where we stand today.
  There is no room for uncertainty when it comes to protecting equal 
rights under the law. That is a lesson that was driven home last year 
when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. For the first time in 
history--for the first time in the history of the United States of 
America--the Supreme Court ripped away a constitutional right from the 
American people. That has never, never happened before.
  One of the Supreme Court Justices--by name, Clarence Thomas--made it 
clear that this was just the beginning. He was going to call into 
question a lot of fundamental constitutional rights, like the right to 
privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to family 
planning.
  So now Members of the Senate have to make a decision during our time: 
What kind of America do we want for our granddaughters and daughters--a 
country in which the fundamental rights are safe and secure or one in 
which the Constitution still--still, 100 years after we started--fails 
to recognize fundamental equality on the basis of sex?
  I think the hearing was very clear, and I think the issue is very 
clear. I know what I want to be able to explain to my little 
granddaughter. She is only 3\1/2\ now, but I hope to live long enough 
to someday sit down with her and have a serious conversation about 
this. I want to tell her that during the course of my life, her 
constitutional rights in America were at issue and that we did the 
right thing for her and for her daughter and her daughter's daughter 
and everyone born in America in guaranteeing basic equality.