[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________