[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1365-S1369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    REMOVING THE DEADLINE FOR THE RATIFICATION OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS 
                      AMENDMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Under the previous order, 
the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. 
Res. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 3, S.J. Res. 4, a joint 
     resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the 
     Equal Rights Amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 734

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, last week, the House voted for a 
commonsense proposal that is supported by a majority of Americans. The 
House voted to protect female athletes. This week, it is time for the 
Senate to do the same thing.
  Before my time here, I spent many years as a coach, educator, and 
mentor. I have seen how sports can change people's lives. Athletic 
scholarships open up a lifetime of opportunities for men and women 
alike. Yet, today, those opportunities for women are being threatened 
by a radical political agenda that is being forced upon the American 
people.
  When I was growing up, there were a lot less opportunities for female 
athletes. Fifty-one years ago, Congress passed title IX to ensure that 
male and female athletes both had access to lessons, life skills, and 
opportunities for advancement that come from participating in sports. 
It has been one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever to 
come out of Congress.
  As a coach, I saw its impact firsthand. One of my first jobs out of 
college was coaching junior girls' basketball--what a thrill. Title IX 
was just starting to be implemented when I took the job. I was there to 
see the incredible impact it had on young girls all over this country.
  For the first time, young women I coached had equal access to 
facilities, resources, and competition. I saw those hard-working 
athletes go on to earn college scholarships, start careers, and become 
leaders in their own communities.
  I still keep in touch with a lot of them. I am deeply proud of them. 
I wonder if they would have had the same opportunities without title 
IX. Would they have had the same access or ability for success?
  Before title IX, at a lot of schools, there was no such thing as 
college women's athletics. Very few collegiate championships for 
women's sports existed, limiting opportunities for female athletes to 
achieve greatness.
  Before 1972, when title IX was enacted, there were only about 30,000 
female athletes in college sports and only around 290,000 in high 
school sports. For comparison, at the same time, 3.7 million males were 
playing high school sports. However, after title IX's enactment, that 
changed very quickly.
  Because of title IX, female participation at the college level has 
risen more than 600 percent. Yet now female athletes are again being 
told to give up their ability to compete--and settle for second place.
  Women and girls are suffering at the hands of an ideology. The Biden 
administration is taking a sledgehammer--a big sledgehammer--to title 
IX.
  A few weeks ago--on Good Friday, of all days--Joe Biden's Department 
of Education issued a new rule completely reinterpreting title IX. As 
usual, the Biden administration is trying to legislate from the White 
House--the executive branch--because they know their radical ideas 
would not--and I repeat, would not--make it through this Congress.
  This type of change should require a bill, but Biden, again, wants to 
change Federal law by simply publishing a new rule. Biden's rule change 
says schools cannot ban boys from participating in women's sports or 
else they will lose their funding.
  I can't believe we are even talking about this.
  The proposed rule is 116 pages long. It is so vague that schools are 
not going to know what to do. They are not going to know how to 
interpret it. The vagueness is going to let the Biden administration 
selectively enforce rules and intimidate schools into taking the most 
cautious position.
  It is a backdoor national mandate to force schools to allow 
biological males to play in women's sports. Schools that choose to 
protect female athletes would face punishment from the government if 
they didn't allow it.
  The rule is expected to go into effect this coming fall 2023. That 
means teachers and coaches would have to begin opening their girls' and 
women's teams, fields, and locker rooms to biological males. It is 
unfair, it is unsafe, and it is downright wrong. To be honest, it is 
moronic.
  As a former coach, I can tell you that coaches will do what it takes 
to win. Coaches want to keep their jobs. The only way to keep your job 
as a coach and to deal with the pressure is to win games.
  College athletics is a big business--a big, big business. There are 
conferences that make near $100 million per school a year just for 
television rights. So there is a lot at stake.
  Under the Biden rules, all of the incentives are for biological males 
to dominate women's sports. They are only a very small percentage 
today. One study shows trans athletes make up about 0.00025 of athletes 
in women's college sports today--a very small percentage.
  But, frankly, one championship or opportunity ripped away from a 
female by a biological male is one too many. The Democrats are here to 
argue differently. If they do that, it is shameful.
  Ten years from now, I suspect the situation is going to be very, very 
different. The Supreme Court last year voted to allow college athletes 
to get paid for their name, image, and likeness. A few years from now, 
coaches and players would stand to make millions through playing 
biological males against women. It is only common sense that that is 
going to happen because winning is the only thing that counts in 
college and professional athletes. That is the only thing that counts.
  Biological males will and would dominate in virtually every women's 
sport. Women's sports, as we know it, would be over. Biological girls 
would simply drop out of sports or never choose to play in the first 
place.
  Is this really what the Democrats want? Is this really their plan? Do 
Democrats really want to end women's sports? Do Democrats really want 
to ruin the dreams of young girls who

[[Page S1366]]

want to be the next world-famous gymnast, like Suni Lee, or tennis 
player superstars, like the Williams sisters, or Olympic swimming 
legend, like Katie Ledecky? Is that what they want?
  I am grateful that many courageous female athletes are speaking out. 
I spoke with one of the greatest athletes in history, Caitlyn Jenner, 
who is fully supportive of this bill for keeping men and boys out of 
women's sports, because we have all seen women like Riley Gaines, who 
had to watch her national championship dreams get taken away by a 
biological male. This was after she was forced to share a locker room 
with that adult biological male against her will.
  Riley Gaines was at the University of Kentucky on an athletic 
scholarship. But what would happen if a young girl is forced to compete 
against a male in high school? She could watch her dreams taken away.
  Already 28 championships have been taken away from girls and women at 
the hands of biological males. You have got to be kidding me. Males 
have 40 to 50 percent greater upper body strength and 20 to 40 percent 
greater lower body strength. It is dangerous to put them on the same 
field with women. This is basic biology.
  What did we see from the ``Party of Science'' last week? Exactly zero 
Democrats in the House voted for this bill--zero. The ``Party of 
Science'' seems to have skipped biology class.
  Now the question is, Will any Democrat in the Senate show a little 
bit of courage and stand up for women--just a little bit? Will any 
Senate Democrat vote to protect their daughters, their granddaughters, 
or great-granddaughters? I am anxious to see this. Will any of them do 
that today?
  Democrats have been talking a lot about women on the Senate floor 
lately. Democrats seem to think the only thing women care about is 
abortion, ending the life of a child. What about women and girls who 
want to be athletes or go to school on an athletic scholarship? Does 
that matter?
  Not a single House Democrat voted to protect girls and women in 
sports. Today, we are going to find out where Senate Democrats stand.
  The bill the House passed last week would stop this administration 
from forcing schools to let biological males compete against women. In 
fact, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act does just the 
opposite. It prevents a school from receiving funds if it lets boys 
compete in women's sports.
  Americans do not want the Federal Government footing the bill for a 
policy that is a slap in the face to women who have worked so hard to 
become athletes.
  A clear majority of Americans support this bill--a clear majority. 
Poll after poll has proven that. It is time to act before the situation 
gets worse, and it is going to get much worse. So now I am going to 
give this body a chance to stand up for women athletes.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of H.R. 734, which was received from the 
House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I rise 
today in opposition to S. 613, legislation that would ban transgender 
women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their 
gender.
  My Republican colleagues falsely claim that allowing transgender 
women and girls to play sports is harmful to cisgender women and girls. 
They continue to hurl insulting lies about transgender girls dominating 
sports. But what is true is that these bans are deeply harmful to 
transgender girls, particularly transgender girls of color, girls who 
are gender nonconforming, and cisgender girls as well. These ``sex 
tests'' invade every girl's privacy and open the door to harassment for 
anyone who is perceived as ``different.''
  If my Republican colleagues were actually worried about women and 
girls in athletics, they would join in our efforts to address unequal 
athletic opportunities in school, unequal pay, sexual abuse and 
harassment, and more. But this isn't about supporting women and girls; 
this is about power and control. My Republican colleagues are obsessed 
with controlling women's bodies and our lives, as we are seeing yet 
again today.
  But instead of being honest about what they are doing, many on the 
other side claim that this bill is somehow a defense of title IX. That 
couldn't be further from the truth. Title IX says:

       No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, 
     be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
     or be subjected to discrimination under any education program 
     or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

  As someone who knew and was friends with Patsy Mink, the author of 
title IX, I can tell you she would be standing right next to me to say 
title IX in no way or shape supports what my colleague is attempting to 
do. Patsy spent her entire life fighting to advance equal opportunity 
for women and girls. It would pain her to know that the bill she fought 
so hard to make law is being twisted by Republicans to discriminate 
against the very people it was designed to protect.
  Republicans have the wrong priorities. We shouldn't be banning anyone 
from playing sports. We should be fighting the discrimination that all 
women and girls--trans, cis, or otherwise--continue to face in 
athletics, in the classroom, and in the workplace.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I am truly disappointed but expected 
that the Democrats were going to block this legislation to protect 
young girls and women. Again, it is shameful. It really is.
  I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor, and I want to thank her 
for joining me in this effort to protect women.
  I yield the floor to Senator Ernst.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Alabama for leading this effort.
  Iowa has a celebrated history of exceptional girls' sports programs. 
We recently saw the Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team make it to 
the national championship after taking home their fifth Big Ten 
Tournament title just days after cheering on the high school girls 
competing in the State tournament. Last year, the Iowa High School 
Girls Athletic Union proudly sanctioned girls wrestling, opening up new 
opportunities for girls to be part of a team and recognized for their 
achievements.
  Title IX not only makes these events possible; it guarantees an 
opportunity for our female athletes. Whether it is growing as a leader, 
winning a championship, or securing a scholarship to college, sports 
opens doors for young women. But right now, President Biden is working 
overtime to force institutions to allow biological males to share 
spaces with females and compete in women's sports. Doors that were 
opened over 50 years ago are being slammed in the faces of girls across 
the country because of the progressive left's gender ideology. Girls' 
locker rooms have now become a battleground for the Democratic Party, 
and parents continue to be iced out of the issue.
  Thankfully, last year, Governor Reynolds protected girls' sports 
across Iowa, from elementary school all the way up to the collegiate 
level.
  Here in the Senate, I am proud to join my friend from Alabama and our 
colleagues in supporting the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports 
Act. Under this legislation, any athletic program that receives Federal 
funds and permits a biological male to participate in competitions 
designated for women or girls would be in violation of Federal law. The 
House just passed this commonsense bill last week, and we should not 
waste any more time in passing it here in the Senate.
  Payton McNabb is a senior in high school. She loves volleyball but 
was severely injured last fall because a biological male spiked the 
ball into her face.
  Riley Gaines Barker, a 12-time NCAA All-American athlete, was forced 
to compete against a biological male, Lia Thomas, in the 200 freestyle. 
The two tied--they tied--for fifth place, with Thomas taking home the 
trophy. No kidding. Thomas took home the trophy. The NCAA told Riley it 
was necessary for photo purposes.

[[Page S1367]]

  Lia Thomas is a 6-foot-4-inch biological male who swam on the men's 
team at the University of Pennsylvania for 3 years before switching to 
the women's team for his final year. Thomas beat female 2020 Olympic 
silver medalists and American record holders to win an NCAA Division I 
title.
  Man, you might feel like a woman, but you aren't one.
  We must protect our young girls and make sure they aren't pushed off 
the podium. Title IX is the law of the land whether the far left likes 
it or not. The law was created to offer the same playing field to 
female athletes as their male counterparts, not to subject women to 
second place and the sidelines.
  In defense of our Iowa daughters and female athletes across the 
Nation, I am standing with Riley Gaines--who was recently attacked by 
radical activists on a college campus--and her message: Biological men 
should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
  Our female athletes deserve fairness, safety, and the ability to win 
those top scholarships and titles, as title IX intended. No amount of 
harassment from the radical left will stop strong women from standing 
up for the truth and for what is right.
  If Senate Democrats pushing the so-called Equal Rights Amendment were 
really interested in equal rights for women, they would protect women's 
sports and spaces from biological men.
  Madam President, every time a girl steps onto the mat, onto the 
court, the field, or the track, she should know that she has every 
opportunity to compete and win.
  I am proud to work with my friend Senator Tuberville and my 
colleagues in fighting to pass the Protection of Women and Girls in 
Sports Act.
  With that, I will yield the floor to Senator Tuberville.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. I thank Senator Ernst for her comments. Now I would 
like to yield the floor to my colleague from North Carolina, Senator 
Budd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Madam President, I rise today to support Senator 
Tuberville's Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.
  For more than half a century, title IX has expanded opportunities for 
women and girls from the classroom to the playing field. According to 
the Women's Sports Foundation, our country went from a ratio of 1 in 27 
girls playing sports in 1972 to 1 in 5 today. We went from fewer than 
30,000 female collegiate athletes in 1972 to nearly 230,000 female 
athletes today. That is progress that should be celebrated.
  However, women's sports are fundamentally undermined when biological 
males are allowed to compete against them. There are biological 
differences between men and women. If we ignore those differences, we 
threaten future opportunities for female athletes and the entire notion 
of women's sports. It is unfair, it is unsafe, and it is unacceptable. 
That is why Senator Tuberville's bill is so important. It simply 
ensures that title IX protections are clearly defined by a person's 
reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
  The bottom line: Female athletes should compete against other female 
athletes. It is that simple.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I thank Senators Ernst and Budd for 
their comments today. I also want to thank the 25 cosponsors we have 
signed on to my bill in the Senate. Rest assured, this is not the end. 
We will continue to fight for this legislation for all the girls and 
women across this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. First, Madam President, I thank my colleagues who are 
on the floor today--Senator Tuberville for his leadership, Senator 
Budd, and Senator Ernst--for their efforts in the protection of women 
and girls in sports. As a doctor, I share their concerns, share their 
passion in terms of fairness, in terms of safety, and I congratulate 
them on their efforts and continue to join them in those efforts to 
provide the protection for women and girls in sports.


                                 Energy

  Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the high 
price of Democrats' misguided energy agenda. It is a high-price crisis 
entirely of President Biden and the Democratic Party's own making.
  Last year, when energy prices were already at historic highs, what 
did Democrats do? Well, they voted 10 times--time after time after 
time--against increasing American energy production. Instead, Democrats 
jammed through the Senate and the House the largest climate bill in 
American history. The climate extremists applauded this.
  Let me just say, hold the applause, because the American public is 
suffering. Families all across this great land are hurting. Democrats' 
reckless spending in the past 2 years has driven up the cost of energy 
and, of course, as everyone knows, this has fueled inflation.
  Inflation reached a 40-year high because of Democrats' spending. 
Prices today are over 15 percent higher than they were the day Joe 
Biden took office. Energy prices have gone up even more than that. 
Americans are paying 36 percent more for energy today than they were in 
January of 2021. Gas prices to fill the tank are up 46 percent. That is 
a 5-month high. They are going to continue to go up during this 
summer's driving season.
  The lower gas prices that the administration desperately and 
irresponsibly depleted our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 
achieve last year has hurt our economy and has hurt our country and has 
hurt our national security.
  Democrats were wrong to raid our emergency supplies of petroleum 
products in a desperate attempt to lower gas prices leading up to the 
November 2022 elections.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is our Nation's emergency reserve. 
Now it is out of gas. It is down to the lowest level it has been at in 
40 years. Not refilling it. Oh, no.
  Joe Biden knew we needed more energy than that. So he went on bended 
knee to foreign dictators, begging them to produce more oil to help 
lower gas prices here in America but not letting us produce it here at 
home--and we have plenty.
  This President did everything he could to try to lower gas prices 
except the thing the American people know would work, and that is to 
produce more American energy. So American families are once again 
facing that double whammy of an energy crisis coupled with an inflation 
crisis.
  Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to help solve the problem. 
Remember, the Biden administration began working on day No. 1 to choke 
off America's energy resources: killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
canceled oil and gas leases.
  America's energy revolution turned us into the world's energy 
superpower. Our economy had a wonderful, competitive advantage. It is 
good for families, good for workers.
  We challenged dictators without having to worry about our energy 
supply. We had affordable, reliable, and available American energy. 
This administration and the Democrats in this body squandered the gains 
that we had achieved.
  They attacked American oil, natural gas, and coal at every turn along 
the way. Then they raised taxes to make it even more expensive. They 
instituted burdensome regulations to make it more difficult to produce 
the American energy.
  They have put up roadblock after roadblock on every type of American 
energy. And yet Joe Biden and the Democrats, open-mouthed, looked with 
surprise: Why have the prices skyrocketed?
  Anybody could have predicted that choking off our energy supply would 
lead to record-high energy prices and to increase dependence on our 
adversaries--Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela.
  Last week, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm testified before the 
Energy Committee. I specifically asked her about the administration's 
plan to lower gas prices and energy prices across the board, because 
they are up across the board. They are up for heating energy; they are 
up for driving energy.
  Her solution: government mandates, phase out anything powered by oil,

[[Page S1368]]

natural gas, or coal. Take away our gas stoves, take away our gas-
powered water heaters, force-feed us expensive electric cars that don't 
work for many people across the country.
  They may be OK for rich people in the big cities who don't have to 
drive very much, who can afford to pay $16,000 more for a vehicle than 
for a traditional car. But for Wyoming families and Wyoming farmers and 
Wyoming ranchers, they just don't work.
  People want affordable, reliable vehicles. And for people all around 
rural America, electric cars are not it.
  Americans don't support the Democrats' climate extremism. Look at the 
polls. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they don't want to buy an 
electric car. They don't want to be force-fed by Joe Biden. They don't 
want to have the government in the driver's seat.
  They say the price is too high. It is $64,000 on average. The 
batteries are unreliable. Charging them is inconvenient. It is time-
consuming. It takes a long time to get a battery charged, and it can't 
go all that far.
  And then who benefits from all of this? China. That is because most 
of the critical minerals that are needed to build these batteries come 
right out of China. Just look for the ``made in China'' sticker on the 
batteries of the electric vehicles.
  This country should be focusing on strengthening our energy 
independence, not finding ways to become more dependent to China or 
Russia.
  So the reality of Secretary Granholm's so-called solution to lowering 
prices is that Americans will just pay more; not really concerned about 
affordability, but I didn't hear that word at all.
  The way to lower prices is to unleash American energy. Now, the House 
recently passed legislation to do just that. And I support their 
efforts.
  Senator Capito and I are going to soon introduce our own legislation 
in the Senate. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going to 
hold a hearing on the critical issues in the coming weeks.
  We can only unleash American energy if we fix our broken permitting 
system process. Right now, new energy projects are bogged down by a 
maze of redtape and lawsuits.
  Our legislation is going to include enforceable timelines on 
environmental reviews and filing legal challenges. We are going to move 
forward faster with an all-of-the-above American energy agenda. We need 
it all.
  My Democratic colleagues have stated before that they do want 
permitting reform. Well, we will see. They are going to have an 
opportunity to speak up and to vote; because if they are serious, real 
reform is possible. If they are serious, we can tell the American 
people that real relief is on the way.
  We do need a long-term commitment in this country to American energy. 
Making life more affordable for every American should be a bipartisan 
priority. It hasn't been for the first 2 years in the Biden 
administration and now going into the third.
  We need to get back to a point where we can make energy affordable, 
available, and reliable--instead of focusing, as the Democrats do, on 
only renewable energy, regardless of the cost and regardless of the 
consequences.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


    Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights 
                               Amendment

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time--and I am going to be 
joined by several of my colleagues--to talk about a vote that we are 
going to have tomorrow on S.J. Res. 4. This is the resolution that 
would rescind the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights 
Amendment.
  This is an issue that I have been working on for a long time, 
including during my time in the Maryland General Assembly in 1972, when 
the Maryland legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.
  So this goes back a long time, and it is time to finish the work. I 
want to thank Chairman Durbin for his leadership on this issue, the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the work he did so that we 
could reach this moment where we have a chance to take the step that is 
critically important, removing any ambiguity in regards to the 
ratification process.
  I also want to thank Leader Schumer for making this time available so 
we will be able to vote on this issue tomorrow.
  I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of 
Senator Lisa Murkowski, my coleader on this resolution. The two of us 
have worked together. This should never be a partisan issue. Equality 
should enjoy support, I would hope, from both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  There is no time limit on equality. The 28th Amendment to the 
Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment, was approved by the U.S. 
Congress in both the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote, as required 
in the Constitution, and has been ratified by 38 States--that is, 
three-fourths necessary for the ratification of a constitutional 
amendment.
  The sole purpose of S.J. Res. 4 is to remove any ambiguity, to remove 
the time limit that was included originally in the 1972 act of Congress 
of 7 years and previously extended to 10 years.
  I want to acknowledge the help I have received on this through the 
incredible staff we all have here in the U.S. Senate. Bill Van Horne, 
who is my chief counsel, has been working on this issue since my days 
in the House of Representatives, and I thank him for his leadership in 
bringing all the groups together. Helen Rogers has helped a great deal 
in this effort. I just want to acknowledge the work both of them have 
done on the Equal Rights Amendment.
  The ERA simply states:

       Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or 
     abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

  That is it. That is exactly what the Equal Rights Amendment to the 
Constitution says. Ratification would affirm women's equality in our 
Constitution, enshrining the principle of women's equality and explicit 
prohibition against sex discrimination in our Nation's founding 
document.
  Currently, the only explicitly guaranteed right in our Constitution 
based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, which is the right to vote.
  Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well 
short of addressing systemic sex-based inequality in our society.
  As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool for 
Congress, for Federal Agencies, and in courts to advance equality in 
the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual 
harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of 
LBGTQ+ individuals. Enshrining this protection in our Constitution also 
ensures enduring protections for all Americans across the country.
  Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well 
short of addressing the systemic sex-based inequality in our society.
  It is also a signal to the courts that they should apply a more 
rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that 
discriminate on the basis of sex.
  That is what the ERA is all about: equality--the most fundamental of 
American values.
  We need to finally get the job done. Last Congress, a bipartisan 
majority in the Senate cosponsored this joint resolution, and the House 
of Representatives has already passed this legislation on two 
occasions--first in the 116th Congress and then in the 117th Congress.
  Virginia became the 38th and final State required by the Constitution 
to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on January 27, 2020.
  Our resolution, S.J. Res. 4, would clarify once and for all that the 
Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements of article V of our 
Constitution.
  Let me read what it says:

       That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House 
     Joint Resolution 208, the 92nd 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 Constitution, whenever 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States.

  It is a clarification resolution. Congress has the power to do it. 
Congress approved it by more than the required two-thirds majority in 
both Chambers, and three-quarters of States have now ratified it. 
Article V of the Constitution has been complied with.
  You are going to hear legal arguments surrounding whether a Senate

[[Page S1369]]

joint resolution can remove a deadline, so let me talk about some of 
these issues.
  First, in the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution that 
sets a time limit on ratification. Read Article V. It talks about the 
votes necessary in Congress--we have had that--and the votes of 
ratification by the States--we have done that. There is no time limit 
in the Constitution.
  The 27th Amendment effecting congressional pay raise was ratified 
after two centuries, after being initially proposed by Congress as part 
of the Bill of Rights in 1791, two centuries before--over 200 years 
before it was ratified.
  Congress has the authority to act. There is precedent for Congress to 
extend the deadline for ratification of an amendment, as it did once 
before for the ERA. Note that the ERA deadline was contained in the 
preamble to the text of the constitutional amendment, not in the 
constitutional amendment itself.
  There is precedent for Congress to declare that the requisite number 
of States have ratified a constitutional amendment, as the House and 
Senate did in 1992 by resolutions affirming the validity of the 27th 
Amendment regarding congressional pay raises. That is the one that took 
over 200 years to ratify.
  In terms of Article V, the only question is whether a State has 
ratified. Ratification is something that happens at a moment in time. 
It either happens or it doesn't happen. History tells us that once a 
State has ratified, it can't take it back. The 14th Amendment became 
part of the Constitution after the Civil War even though two States had 
attempted to rescind prior ratifications. Those States were included on 
the list of States that ratified. The effectiveness of a rescission is 
ultimately a question for Congress. S.J. Res. 4 answers that question.
  Then the most recent opinion by the Department of Justice, the 
opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, noted that Congress, as a 
coequal branch of government, is not precluded from taking further 
action regarding the ratification of the ERA.
  So we have all of the legal requirements. We can act.
  Now let me lay out a few more things here.
  Most Americans believe the ERA is already part of our Constitution. 
Just ask them. They think it is there. Most of our States have 
provisions in the State constitutions to provide equal rights based 
upon sex. So we already have it in States, and it is working.
  Most democracies--in fact, every constitution that has been written 
since World War II contains an equal rights amendment. The United 
States is an outlier on this issue. We are the leader of democratic 
values in human rights globally, but we don't have an equal rights 
amendment in our Constitution.
  The Pew Research Center did a survey on this. Seventy-eight percent 
of Americans support the Equal Rights Amendment being added to the 
Constitution. This is overwhelmingly popular among all of our 
constituents--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, men, women. Two-
hundred fifty national and local groups support the ERA, including the 
League of Women Voters, the National Urban League, the National Council 
of Jewish Women, the SEIU, and many, many other civil rights, labor, 
and civic groups.
  This resolution language removes any doubt of ratification, and it is 
the right way to go under our Constitution. We had the advice of 
constitutional scholars who support what we are doing--Erwin 
Chemerinsky, Larry Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catharine MacKinnon, 
Victoria Nourse, former Senator Russ Feingold. All have endorsed the 
way we are proceeding.
  The ERA is needed not only to keep progress moving forward but also 
to protect against incursions on the progress we have already made. 
Based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, some Justices ascribe 
to the view that the meaning of equality under the equal protection 
clause should be frozen in time in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was 
ratified. That approach may cast in doubt even the limited precedents 
currently holding that the equal protection clause applies to sex 
discrimination.
  It has been more than 100 years since women won the right to vote and 
nearly 100 since the effort to enshrine the ERA in the Constitution 
began. Generations have fought to achieve major points of progress in 
our laws and our society since then. However, it is undeniable that 
work remains.
  Finally, enshrining the ERA into the Constitution would be one major 
step that we could take towards a society that is truly equal on the 
basis of sex.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 4. The women of America 
have waited long enough. Don't filibuster equality. You don't want to 
be on that side of history.
  There should be no time limit on equality. Let us use this 
opportunity to complete the action of equality based on sex in our 
Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The majority leader.

                          ____________________