[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 71 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1403-S1406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 senior assistant 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 Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              S.J. Res. 4

  Mr. SCHUMER. First, Mr. President, I would like to speak about the 
upcoming vote on the Equal Rights Amendment.
  As we all know, the story of American democracy has been a hard but 
inexorable march toward greater equality--equality regardless of race, 
equality regardless of social status, equality regardless of marital 
status, and equality regardless of sex. That march began at the 
founding of our country, when Abigail Adams reminded her husband to 
``remember the ladies'' when drafting the Constitution, which fell, 
unfortunately, on deaf ears.
  It was a march that drew great numbers during the convention at 
Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848, and found expression in the abolitionist 
movement. That march took a bold step 100 years ago, when Alice Paul 
and Crystal Eastman drafted the original iteration of the Equal Rights 
Amendment and came before Congress for the first time.
  Let that great march toward equality take the next bold step today 
when the Senate votes to take up this bipartisan resolution on the ERA.
  This resolution is as necessary as it is timely. America can never 
hope to be a land of freedom and opportunity so long as half its 
population is treated like second-class citizens.
  So 100 years after the ERA first came to Congress, the work is not 
done. The fight has yet to be won. The march continues. And we have a 
chance to take this next step forward.
  The resolution is simple. It removes the arbitrary deadline for State 
ratification of the ERA that was imposed in the 1970s.
  Today, 38 States have ratified the ERA, as required by the 
Constitution.

[[Page S1404]]

But because two States acted only recently, after the deadline set by 
Congress, the ERA remains unratified.
  Today's resolution says this deadline shall be in effect no more and, 
by doing so, recognizes that a sufficient number of States have now 
acted for the ERA to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.
  There is no good reason--none--for this Chamber, this Congress, and 
this Nation to bind itself to limitations set 50 years ago. The 
Constitution itself imposes no such barrier. By keeping this barrier in 
place--this 7-year barrier--all we are doing is needlessly obeying 
skewed rules set by politicians who are long gone and whose views ought 
not to rule the day any longer.

  In 2023, we should move forward to ratify the ERA with all due haste 
because, if you look at the terrible things happening to women's rights 
in this country, it is clear we must act. To the horror of hundreds of 
millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights 
today than they did even a year ago. The protections of Roe v. Wade are 
gone, thanks to the MAGA majority on the Supreme Court. Over a dozen 
States have near-total abortion bans and millions of people have to 
travel hundreds of miles just to access reproductive care. That is 
sickening.
  That is why the Senate, today, should vote in favor of advancing this 
ERA resolution so we can bring our Nation one step closer to greater 
justice, greater equality, and a more perfect union.
  Again, let that great march toward equality take the next bold step 
today.
  I thank Senators Cardin and Murkowski, as our lead sponsors--it is a 
bipartisan bill--and all Members who have championed this resolution. I 
will proudly vote yes on this measure.


                     Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023

  Mr. President, now on default, yesterday, House Republicans passed, 
through the narrowest possible margin, a bill that amounts to a little 
more than a hard-right ransom note to the American people.
  Republicans' ``Default on America Act,'' DOA, cannot possibly be 
called a real ``plan'' for resolving the default crisis. The DOA reads 
more like a threat coming directly from the House Freedom Caucus: 
Either Republicans will force a default on the debt, or they will force 
steep cuts, highly unpopular with the American people, for law 
enforcement, veterans, families, teachers, and kids.
  Let's be perfectly clear. The Republicans' ``Default on America Act'' 
does nothing to actually resolve the looming debt crisis, and it has no 
hope of ever becoming law. If anything, the House's actions have made 
the likelihood of default more likely. It locks the House into an 
unacceptable position and pulls us even further apart.
  This shows the real solution is a clean, bipartisan plan to avoid 
default. It is the same one both parties have adopted many times 
before. That is the solution, not this ``Default on America Act'' that 
is going nowhere.
  If Republicans want to sell this terrible agenda to the American 
people, they should make their case in talks about the budget and 
appropriations, where it belongs, not by using the full faith and 
credit of the United States as a hostage.
  Let me say that again. The Republicans' ``Default on America Act'' 
does nothing to resolve the default crisis and, in fact, makes it only 
more likely. The ``Default on America Act,'' which the House just 
passed, is not a step forward but rather a costly step backward.
  Speaker McCarthy has claimed for months he wants to negotiate on 
avoiding default, but, according to reports, he is saying the opposite 
behind closed doors.
  Per at least one GOP House Member, Speaker McCarthy called this 
radical bill ``a floor, not a ceiling.'' That is what he told the hard-
right Members whose votes he needed. The Speaker has reportedly 
promised his right flank that, moving forward, he will oppose any 
measure that doesn't have every single hard-right priority considered 
in this bill.
  In other words, to say this bill is ``a floor, not a ceiling'' is a 
threat to make the GOP bill even more extreme and avoid any 
alternative.
  If these reports are true--and Speaker McCarthy has made clear he has 
no intention of negotiating--the Speaker can't say his bill is ``a 
floor, not a ceiling'' and also claim he wants to negotiate. This is 
rather a hostage-taking tactic, and this ``Default on America Act'' is 
the ransom note forced on us by a hard-right, unrepresentative small 
group in the House of Representatives who have leverage because of the 
rules there.
  The GOP should realize that the American people will object to steep 
cuts to education, law enforcement, veterans' care, and border security 
that the DOA bill proposes.
  So for all the effort the GOP spent trying to pass their bill, 
unfortunately, we are not any further along to resolving the debt 
ceiling crisis, and, if anything, we have taken a costly step backward.
  It all brings us back to the place where we have been since the very 
beginning. The only real solution to avoiding a catastrophic default is 
the same solution that both parties have adopted in the past: Come 
together for a clean plan to avoid default, with no ransom notes, no 
``floors,'' and no brinksmanship.
  Democrats will not allow this ``Default on America Act'' to become 
law.


                            SAFE Banking Act

  Mr. President, finally on safe banking, yesterday, Senators from both 
sides of the aisle--I met with them repeatedly--reintroduced the SAFE 
Banking Act.
  SAFE Banking would ensure cannabis businesses that operate in States 
with legal cannabis have equal access to critical banking 
infrastructure. Clearly, this bill has provisions particularly aimed at 
helping minority business owners who are at a critical disadvantage in 
the cannabis industry.
  Right now, the norm for the cannabis businesses is to operate on all 
cash, and that is simply not fair. It exposes them to too many risks 
and stifles their opportunities to grow.
  Congress should be in the business of promoting entrepreneurs, 
promoting job growth, not holding these things back.
  I have worked very hard to make progress in SAFE Banking Plus, and 
the work will continue, but I have also made it clear that one of my 
top priorities to ensure SAFE Banking passes is that it contain 
critical criminal justice provisions--most importantly, expunging 
criminal records for certain low-level marijuana offenses.
  We have a moral responsibility in Congress to undo the terrible 
damage caused by the War on Drugs. It almost always has affected people 
of color. So I am going to work very hard with my colleagues to make 
sure criminal justice provisions are a part of SAFE Banking when it 
reaches the floor.
  I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have met 
numerous times, and I think everyone is working in good faith, 
including Senators Merkley, Daines, Brown, Sullivan, and Paul--a 
bipartisan group if there ever was one.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues--Democrat and 
Republican--to make progress on SAFE Banking Plus this Congress, and I 
hope this portends more bipartisan cooperation on future cannabis 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 4

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the cloture 
motion for S.J. Res. 4, and we are joined by Senator Murkowski. I first 
want to start by thanking her for her extraordinary leadership on this 
issue and so many other issues that involve equality and opportunity 
for all Americans. It has been a journey that we have shared together, 
and I really want to thank her for her leadership on S.J. Res. 4.
  It is bipartisan, and I know we are going to have a strong vote. I 
would just urge our colleagues not to filibuster equality. Let's get 
onto this resolution and complete the work that we have done. The 
States have already completed the work. Three-fourths, 38 States, have 
already approved and ratified the constitutional amendment for equal 
rights.

[[Page S1405]]

  It is now necessary for us to take the final step and remove any 
doubt on the validity of the previous actions of Congress and the 
ratifications by the States. The courts have held what we have done 
before. It is up to Congress to do this. We have the authority, and we 
have the opportunity today by the vote that is going to take place.
  We just got a statement on the administration's policy. President 
Biden strongly supports S.J. Res. 4. So we now have the support of the 
executive branch, and I hope that we can get the votes today in order 
to move forward on this. It is necessary.
  We know that there are still systemic challenges based upon sex in 
our workplace, in healthcare, and domestic violence. This will be 
helpful, and most Americans already think it is part of the 
Constitution. So let's get the job done. We will have an opportunity to 
do so in a few moments.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague, who has been a true leader on 
this, Senator Murkowski of Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his 
leadership on this issue, not only in this Congress but in the previous 
Congresses when we have attempted to advance this very important 
measure.
  What we have in front of us right now is S.J. Res. 4, an amendment to 
add the Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution. It is pretty 
simple. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or 
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. It is 
as simple as that. That is it. That is the full substance of the Equal 
Rights Amendment. We refer to it as the ERA.
  I think most people in this country believe that it is already a part 
of the Constitution, that it is already a protection under it.
  Justice Scalia stated more than a decade ago now:

       Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination 
     on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits 
     it. It doesn't.

  A little bit of the history here: The ERA was first proposed back in 
1923, 3 years after ratification of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing 
women the right to vote, fully 100 years removed from where we are 
today. Now, 50 years later, the ERA finally passed Congress, was signed 
by President Carter in 1972.
  There was a 7-year deadline for ratification. Thirty-five States 
moved quickly, including the State of Alaska, within that deadline. It 
was extended once, in 1982, to give the remaining States some more time 
to consider it. But momentum waned as other things took precedent.
  The ERA didn't go away, though. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia became 
the 36th, the 37th, and the 38th States to ratify it between 2017 and 
2020. And so where we are today is there are 38 States that have 
ratified the ERA. That meets the threshold of the three-quarters of the 
States that are needed to ratify a constitutional amendment, but that 
can't happen because of a technicality because the preamble of the ERA 
contains an outdated deadline for ratification.

  And that is where our simple resolution comes in. It removes that 
arbitrary deadline to reflect what has actually happened instead of 
what Congress thought was going to happen some decades ago. It would 
affirm the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified by 38 States, met 
the threshold to be made part of the Constitution, and allow that to 
finally occur.
  Now, some have suggested that the ERA is no longer needed. We have 
certainly made great strides as women since 1923, but there is a lot 
more that needs to be done. Women are a majority of the U.S. population 
but continue to be underrepresented in elected office, in the courts, 
in the business world, and in so many other areas.
  There remains, of course, a pay gap. We know of this. We hear the 
statistics all the time--a pay gap between men and women: 18 cents on 
the dollar according to the GAO--and that gap is wider across 
industries and within certain groups, to 22 cents on the dollar for 
women at private, for-profit companies and 23 cents for full-time 
managers.
  As the Senator from Maryland has mentioned, the ERA is also needed to 
help address violence against women. Statistics from the National 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, for example, show that 1 in 7 
women compared to 1 in 25 men have been injured by an intimate partner.
  Again, what the Equal Rights Amendment provides: It would establish 
fundamental protections against discrimination based on sex. Every one 
of us should agree that such discrimination is completely unacceptable 
and that every citizen, regardless of sex, should enjoy the same rights 
under our Constitution, and that is all we are doing here today.
  Again, equality of rights under the law should not be denied on 
account of sex. It shouldn't be controversial, but just about 
everything nowadays somehow is.
  There has been debate about whether Congress has the authority to act 
on this resolution. I believe we do. There is no constitutional 
provision, there is no law, no Supreme Court decision telling us that 
we can't. The Constitution contains no time limit for ratification of 
amendments, and there is clear precedent for States taking years--
decades, even centuries--to do so.
  The 27th congressional pay act amendment was ratified in 1992. That 
was a full 203 years after it was enacted in 1789.
  Another issue that has been raised is the five States that have 
attempted to rescind their ratification, but the Constitution does not 
contemplate rescissions, and there is clear precedent for Congress 
determining that rescinding an amendment after ratification is 
ineffectual. In 1868, Congress adopted a concurrent resolution 
declaring that the 14th Amendment had been ratified despite the fact 
that two States--New Jersey and Ohio--had attempted to rescind their 
prior ratifications.
  Again, the purpose of the ERA is to secure full equality for women, 
and there should be no time limit on that. Men and women should be 
treated equally under the law, and that is not a controversial 
position; it is a widely held view. The fact of the matter is, the vast 
majority of Americans support the ERA: 73 percent, according to one 
poll from 2020; 78 percent according to another; and 85 percent 
according to a poll from last year, including 93 percent of Democrats, 
93 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Republicans. At least 
half of the States have Constitutions like Alaska that guarantee equal 
rights based on sex in some way.
  So I am proud, again, that our State stepped up in 1972 and, a few 
months later, by an overwhelming vote, amended our constitution to 
prohibit sex discrimination.
  Mr. President, we are at the point where we are going to take a vote 
here right now. I am not entirely pleased by the timing of our debate 
on this resolution because we have not yet secured the 60 votes needed 
for its passage. I don't really like it being used as a filler on the 
floor, as somewhat of an exercise that runs the clock in a largely 
empty legislative calendar.
  I don't see how the ERA or women in this country will ultimately 
benefit from that, but I am proud to lead this resolution with Senator 
Cardin. I am proud to be working with him and others that, again, would 
see through the hollow arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment and 
would join us in passing it.
  The American people are waiting for this. It is long overdue for 
Congress to act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, once again, I want to thank Senator 
Murkowski for her leadership. This is a bipartisan effort, this joint 
resolution that we have, and it has been what the Equal Rights 
Amendment journey was about.
  It started with action in the Congress. There was strong bipartisan 
support for the resolution for no discrimination based upon sex in our 
Constitution. It was passed by the House and Senate by bipartisan 
majorities.
  The States' ratification process--I can tell you about the one in 
Maryland that I was part of when I was in the House of Delegates in our 
State legislature when we ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. There 
was strong bipartisan support.
  And I am proud today that I am joining with Senator Murkowski for the 
need for the Equal Rights Amendment

[[Page S1406]]

to be ratified. This is a bipartisan effort. I hope our colleagues will 
not filibuster it. I understand the concern.
  This will be our first vote in the Senate on the resolution. The 
House has already passed it in two previous Congresses. I know that our 
House colleagues are watching, and I thank them for their leadership in 
the House. This will be our first opportunity in the Senate. I am glad 
we are having this opportunity.
  With that, Mr. President, I would ask consent that, despite the 
previous order, we start the vote immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the 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.
         Charles E. Schumer, Benjamin L. Cardin, Margaret Wood 
           Hassan, Richard Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Alex Padilla, Tina Smith, 
           Elizabeth Warren, Cory A. Booker, Gary C. Peters, Jack 
           Reed, Angus S. King, Jr., Brian Schatz, Mazie K. 
           Hirono, Amy Klobuchar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 4, a joint resolution removing the 
deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feinstein
     Lee
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gallery will come to order.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gallery will come to order.
  The Sergeant at Arms will remove the individual.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The individual will leave the Chamber.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will remove the 
individual from the Chamber.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will remove the 
individual from the Chamber.
  The Senate will come to order.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 51, 
the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me explain. I switched my vote to no, 
not because I am not strongly for ERA--I wanted to bring it to the 
floor--but it will allow us to go back and cast a vote again in the 
future. This issue is too important, so we are not giving up. So I am 
moving to reconsider so I can bring it back up at a later time.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________