[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1024-H1029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2546, COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF
2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 79, REMOVING DEADLINE
FOR RATIFICATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 844 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 844
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2546) to designate certain lands in the State
of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-50 shall
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 79) removing the deadline for the ratification of the
equal rights amendment. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the joint
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The joint
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the joint resolution,
as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended,
and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 842 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
February 14, 2020, through February 24, 2020--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 844, providing for consideration of
two measures, H.R. 2546, Protecting America's Wilderness Act, and H.J.
Res. 79, Removing Deadline for Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2546 under a structured
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It makes in
order 12 amendments and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 79 under a closed
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one
motion to recommit.
The rule deems as passed H. Res. 842, a resolution to clarify that a
simple majority is needed for passage of H.J. Res. 79.
Finally, the rule provides for standard district work period
instructions from February 14 through February 24.
Madam Speaker, it has been almost 100 years since the equal rights
amendment was first introduced in Congress. It has been 45 years since
it was passed by Congress. In this year, as we celebrate the 100th
anniversary of women winning the right to vote in this country, it
defies logic that we are still in a holding pattern when it comes to
recognizing the equal rights of women under the United States
Constitution.
Therefore, I am proud to oversee the rule for H.J. Res. 79, which
will remove the questionable deadline for the ratification of the equal
rights amendment.
When Alice Paul, Crystal Eastman, and other suffragists and women's
rights pioneers set out to pass the equal rights amendment, they knew
they had a long and fierce battle ahead of them. The first version of
the ERA was introduced in 1923, and it took almost 50 years for both
the House and the Senate to approve it. When the amendment was finally
approved in 1972, the preamble to the amendment contained a 7-year
deadline for ratification.
Thirty-five of the 38 required States ratified the ERA in their State
legislatures during that initial 7-year timeline. The ERA had broad
bipartisan support from Members of Congress and Presidents Nixon,
Carter, and Ford but was unable to cross the finish line in the brief
time allowed.
Why the ERA did not become a constitutional amendment in the
seventies is up for debate, but it was in large part due to vicious,
antifeminist rhetoric and actions by conservative activists who sought
to trample on the rights of all women to work for an equal wage, to
control their own reproductive health, and to participate as equal
members of our society, in the name of protecting the traditional
values of a privileged few.
In the years that followed, courts have recognized and protected
various aspects of women's equality under the law through
interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But as
even Justice Antonin Scalia famously recognized, nothing in our
Constitution, as currently written, forbids discrimination on the basis
of sex.
Therefore, final passage and ratification of the ERA is critical in
guaranteeing equal rights to me, to you, to my daughter, and to all
women and girls across this country. We will not go back.
[[Page H1025]]
The equal rights amendment would permanently and explicitly prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws change, as do the people
interpreting them, but we are a Nation governed by our Constitution.
The rights given to us through the Constitution are inalienable, and
the protections they provide us with are invaluable.
We hear from the other side of the aisle that discrimination against
women is already illegal. This argument might be more persuasive if it
was not being presented by a party that is, if anything, less diverse
than it was in the 1970s. When a party reflects a predominantly White,
male, and conservative voter base, it is easy to see why that party
might not understand the need for basic additional constitutional
protections.
Women continue to face obstacles to full equality, including unequal
pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual and domestic violence, and
inadequate healthcare access. One in three women experience sexual
violence in their lifetimes; one in five women are sexually assaulted
on college campuses; and 56 percent of girls in grades 7 through 12 are
sexually harassed in any given school year. Moreover, 60 to 70 percent
of women face sexual harassment during their careers, with Black and
Brown women disproportionately impacted.
Women are paid less than their male counterparts for equal work.
Women are treated differently in job interviews and can be determined a
burden for a company if they are pregnant or planning on becoming
pregnant. These indiscretions are only compounded when we look at women
of color and women with disabilities.
Women in general in this country make 80 cents to a man's dollar.
Women with disabilities make about 65 cents to a man's dollar and 7
cents less than a man with disabilities. Black women make about 63
cents on a White man's dollar; Native women make about 57 cents; and
Hispanic women make approximately 54 cents on a White man's dollar. The
wages for trans women fall by nearly one-third after transitioning.
A woman who works full-time year-round typically loses $430,480 in a
40-year work-life period. That means this woman would have to work
nearly 11 years longer to make up this lifetime wage gap.
This also has a serious financial impact on retirement. The average
Social Security benefit for women 65 and older is about $13,867 per
year, compared to $18,039 for men of the same age.
So, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If paying
women less than men is already illegal, if treating women differently
in the workplace and other professional settings is already prohibited
by existing law, why does it still happen?
The answer is simple: because it is relatively easy to navigate
around existing laws to protect women. It is easy to treat women
differently in a way that is legal and in line with the law.
That is unacceptable, and that is why we need the equal rights
amendment.
When women earn less for equal work, families earn less for equal
work. If you choose to deliberately shortchange the American family and
deny them financial security, then, clearly, we have different values.
Although the ERA was passed with bipartisan support, and strong
support from Republican women, we saw in the Rules Committee last night
and in debate about this rule and bill that the spirit of the late
Phyllis Schlafly has overtaken today's Republican Party, which now
seeks to cloak deep-seated misogyny in anti-choice rhetoric.
Passing the equal rights amendment is long overdue. I am excited to
be part of a Democratic majority that will remove this arbitrary
deadline for ratification and finally allow States to exercise their
constitutional authority to pass this critical and fundamentally
American amendment.
This rule will also provide for consideration of H.R. 2546, the
Protecting America's Wilderness Act. This is a package of public lands
bills from the Natural Resources Committee that will designate more
than 1.3 million acres as wilderness or potential wilderness areas,
preserving those public lands for generations to come.
Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by
Americans as public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 million
acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us to combat
climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer
recreational activity to Americans, young and old.
As we continue to endure devastating and worsening effects of climate
change, providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness allows
for these areas to continue to serve as critical carbon sinks to
capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Additionally, wilderness areas are some of our most naturally
resilient landscapes. This allows them to endure periodic wildfires and
other disturbances, like floods, with relatively little human impact or
intervention. This helps save the government money, as opposed to a
more active style of forest management.
{time} 1230
This legislation not only helps to combat climate change, it also
supports access to clean water, protects pristine wildlife habitats,
and bolsters the outdoor recreation economies of Colorado, California,
Washington, and more.
The Protecting America's Wilderness Act was crafted in direct
coordination with the stakeholders and local voices that it will
impact. I thank Chairman Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette, and the
members of the Natural Resources Committee for the lengths they went to
in order to make this bill a success and one that will preserve and
protect pristine wildlife habitats, clean water, and access to outdoor
recreational opportunities.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Before I get to the points, I know that we differ on policy, but I
have to tell you that I was offended by what I thought were racist and
sexist comments made by my Democratic colleague about the Republican
party makeup, and I totally disagree with her.
Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to clarify what H.J. Res 79 is.
It is not the equal rights amendment. It is a date change. The
legislation is a joint resolution removing the deadline for
ratification of the equal rights amendment in States that the amendment
shall be valid and adopted as part of the Constitution whenever
ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States.
Democrats say this is about equal rights for women. Well, I am a
woman, and so I, obviously, support equal rights for women. But I
oppose H.J. Res 79 for the following reasons:
First: The bill is totally unconstitutional.
When the ERA originally passed on March 22, 1972, Congress explicitly
set a deadline for ratification stating that the amendment shall be
valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within 7 years from the date of its submission by the Congress.
That meant that the final deadline was March 22, 1979, almost 41 years
ago.
By the end of this initial deadline, only 35 of the 38 States needed
had ratified it, so Congress with a simple majority vote, which is
questionable, extended the deadline once to 1982, but no other States
joined in ratification. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead.
It is also imperative to note that five of the 35 States rescinded
their ratifications. So then the count was down to only 30 States.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just
last month reiterating that the ERA ratification timeline is expired.
Ultimately, when the 1972 ERA's deadline passed without ratification
by three-fourths of the States, the proposed amendment expired and is,
therefore, no longer pending. The 1972 ERA, therefore, can no longer be
ratified because it no longer exists.
In one of its works, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
which we all turn to, states that the ERA formally died on June 30,
1982. The U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed all cases related to the
ERA because it held the cases to be moot, saying that the ERA
ratification date had expired.
[[Page H1026]]
Regardless of one's view on whether or not the equal rights amendment
should be adopted, the fact remains that the equal rights amendment was
not ratified by the necessary 38 States by the deadline set forth in
the text of the amendment itself.
Just last night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certainly
not known as a conservative, said Virginia's recent adoption of an ERA
resolution was long after the deadline passed. She went on to say, ``I
would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's
too much controversy about latecomers. Virginia--long after the
deadline passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their
ratification.'' Remember the five I talked about. ``So if you count a
latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said
we've changed our minds?'' And deratified.
In addition, the Democrats' sneaky act to slip into this resolution
language that would deem that a mere majority vote instead of the two-
thirds vote needed on a constitutional amendment, has significant
constitutional and legal ramifications.
Should my Democratic colleagues wish to proceed with seeking to add
the ERA to the Constitution, the appropriate method would be to follow
the procedure outlined in the Constitution: Passage by a two-thirds
majority in both Houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-
quarters of the States. And it seems as recently as last night, Supreme
Court Justice Ginsburg agrees.
Secondly: The ERA amendment is not necessary.
Women's equality of rights under the law is already recognized in our
Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments.
Women do deserve fairness and equality under the law. Through
established law such as Title IX, the Equality Opportunity Act of 1963,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy Discrimination Act,
and Equal Pay Act, plus State and local laws, women have made huge
strides against institutional discrimination against women in
education, employment, sports, politics, and many other aspects of
society.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that both the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of
the Fifth Amendment guarantee women equal protection under the law.
That is why the ACLU women's rights director Lenora Lapidus wrote in
response to what Ms. Scanlon brought up about Justice Scalia, ``it has
been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits
discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored
by conservative Supreme Court Justices, this principle has been
reaffirmed.''
Third: If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to
undo pro-life legislation and lead to more abortions and taxpayer
funding of abortions.
Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what pro-abortion groups
have done and what they are saying now.
Abortion activists have already utilized State-level ERAs to require
taxpayer-funded abortion.
In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the
State ERA required the State to fund abortions since procedures sought
by men like, prostate surgery, are funded. A lawsuit in Connecticut
used similar arguments and achieved the same objective, full taxpayer-
funded abortion.
In 2019, Planned Parenthood and Women's Law Center filed a lawsuit in
Pennsylvania arguing that the Pennsylvania's ERA means abortion must be
included in medical coverage for women because men aren't denied
coverage for anything.
In another example, NARAL Pro-Choice America--which is a pro-abortion
group--in a March 13, 2019, national alert asserted that the ERA would
reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. It would require judges
to strike down anti-abortion laws.
Further, in a 2019 letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU
stated, ``The equal rights amendment could provide an additional layer
of protection against restrictions on abortion, contraception, and
other forms of reproductive healthcare.''
And the pro-ERA website itself, EqualRightsAmendment.org, explicitly
states that ratifying the ERA into the U.S. Constitution would
``provide a strong legal defense against a rollback of women's rights,
including but not limited to Roe v. Wade.''
In conclusion, H.J. Res 79 is unconstitutional. The ERA is
unnecessary since constitutional, Federal, State and local laws already
guarantee equal protections, and the ERA, if ratified, would be used by
pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life laws.
Also included in this rule is H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's
Wilderness Act.
My Republican colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have
expressed concern that each of the bills in this package will remove
large swaths of land in rural areas from development, threaten the
economic base of these regions, and reduce the effectiveness of fire
prevention plans.
My Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have
continued the disappointing trend of moving bills that are not
supported by the Members who represent the impacted lands. In fact, all
the wilderness designations in H.R. 2546 are located outside the bill
sponsor's district. Instead, most are located in Representative Scott
Tipton from Colorado's district, who opposes the bill.
One of the greatest concerns about this piece of legislation is that
significant opposition from local counties, communities, and
stakeholder groups seem to go ignored. The consensus is that these
bills will negatively impact individual homeowners, agricultural
entities, water providers, first responders, and the recreation tourism
industry.
Today, it seems what we simply have before us are examples of:
Legislating in other Members' districts without their support or any
attempt to collaborate.
Increased risk of wildfires due to the lack of management and
inability to use mechanical means to fight or prevent fire within all
newly designated wilderness areas.
Lack of support from local leaders and stakeholders across each of
the bills in this legislation.
Concerns about threats to private property rights when the vast
majority of land proposed to be added to the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreational Area is nonFederal.
I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, certainly we see a laundry list of
reasons for opposition to this bill.
We hear that it is unconstitutional. Although, in fact, nothing in
the Constitution speaks to deadlines that Congress may set.
We usually hear our colleagues from across the aisle invoking Justice
Ginsburg to argue that for some reason we should start over with this
century-long process.
Justice Ginsburg has obviously been a champion on these issues, and
to the extent that remarks that she has made are being quoted, I
understand that they were expressing a personal view about the ideal
circumstances in which the ERA could pass, not a legal view about what
is required.
It is probably better to remember that Justice Ginsburg has been a
champion for the ERA since it was approved by both Houses of Congress
in a bipartisan way in the 1970s. And as she reiterated just yesterday,
``The union will be more perfect when that simple statement--that men
and women are persons of equal citizenship stature--is part of our
fundamental instrument of government.''
Please note, this is a tactic of distracting and dividing. Last night
I asked our colleague if he would be willing to vote for the ERA if, in
fact, we were to start over, which he said he would not. And we
certainly do not see members of the Republican party saying that they
would vote for the ERA if it would be reintroduced.
What we are seeing here is simply an effort to quash the ERA, to end
it, to put it to rest, to not have it be made part of our Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise today in order to form a more perfect union, and I do that by
supporting today's rule and the underlying
[[Page H1027]]
resolution which will finally allow for the 28th Amendment to the
Constitution, the equal rights amendment.
The equal rights amendment will enshrine the fundamental principle
that every American be afforded equal rights under the law, including
women.
In 1971 and 1972, Congress overwhelmingly passed the equal rights
amendment. And just a few weeks ago Virginia became the 38th State to
ratify it and the last State needed to amend our Constitution.
{time} 1245
H.J. Res. 79 would remove the deadline for States to ratify the equal
rights amendment, clearing the path for full equality of rights for
women.
Because women are still subject to significant pay disparities and
sexual harassment, our work is far from over.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support today's rule
and the underlying resolution and join me in voting for a more perfect
union.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my good friend.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose H.J. Res. 79. This resolution seeks to unconstitutionally remove
the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment.
In 1972, Madam Speaker, when I was 10 years old, Congress originally
set the deadline for ratification at 7 years by two-thirds vote. Before
the original time period expired, Congress then passed a 3-year
extension, which also passed before the necessary number of States
ratified the amendment.
Today, 37 years after the constitutional time has expired, it is
quite clear that, because of a new focus on a so-called right to
taxpayer-funded abortion, the equal rights amendment does not have
support from a two-thirds majority of Congress or, likely, from two-
thirds of the States, certainly, as we have seen at least five States
have already rescinded.
Instead of following the guidance of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsberg and starting the amendment process over again as the Founders
intended--and this is, let me just say, Madam Speaker, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsberg's legal view as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. It
is her legal view. It is her constitutional view. Instead, Democrats
are attempting, today, to retroactively and unconstitutionally remove
this deadline by a simple majority vote.
For decades, Congress has expressed the will of the American people
and not used taxpayer dollars for abortion. Whether they were Democrat
or Republican Presidents, split Chambers of Congress or one party in
control of both branches of government, there has been bipartisan
agreement on appropriations language to limit taxpayer-funded abortions
and support basic pro-life protections across our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, if the Democrat majority wants to test
that bipartisan agreement and upend decades of precedent, they are
welcome to use the simple, clear process laid out in Article V of the
Constitution to propose and adopt a new and legal ERA amendment.
Let me be clear, Madam Speaker. I support equal rights for women, as
does the U.S. Constitution, but skirting that process for partisan gain
sets a dangerous and un-American precedent.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our democracy and to
vote ``no.''
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I include in the Record a January 15 New York Times article,
entitled: ``Why the Equal Rights Amendment is Back.''
[From the New York Times, Jan. 15, 2020]
Why the Equal Rights Amendment Is Back
(By Patrick J. Lyons, Maggie Astor and Maya Salam)
Of all the laws the Virginia legislature may pass now that
Democrats have won control of it, none have been so long in
the making as the Equal Rights Amendment. First proposed
almost a century ago and passed by Congress in 1972, the
E.R.A., which would add a provision to the Constitution
guaranteeing equal rights to men and women, could have
sweeping implications if it takes effect.
Both houses of the Virginia Legislature approved the
ratification resolution on Wednesday. Supporters hope that
will lift the amendment over the threshold to become part of
the federal Constitution. But there is considerable dispute
over whether the state's action will have any legal effect or
merely be symbolic.
Here's what it is all about.
What does the amendment say?
The E.R.A. is three sentences long, and the key one is the
first: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex.'' The other two are about putting it into effect.
By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly
believe that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed
equal rights by the Constitution. But it currently does so
only for the right to vote. The amendment is intended to
remedy that omission.
Supporters say adopting the E.R.A. would, among other
things, sweep away discrimination in the workplace; help
women to achieve pay equality and allow men to get paid
paternity leave; require states to intervene in cases of
domestic violence and sexual harassment; and guard against
discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood. It may
bolster protections for gay and transgender people as well.
Opponents have argued that the amendment would, among other
things, undermine family structure; intrude on religious
practice; and lead to the outlawing of separate men's and
women's bathrooms, single-sex college dormitories and other
accommodations. Some also argue that the E.R.A. is
unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guarantees
everyone the ``equal protection of the laws.'' The Supreme
Court has indeed read the 14th Amendment to ban many forms of
sex discrimination. But supporters of the E.R.A. say there
are still gaps in existing laws, both at the federal and
state level, that need to be addressed comprehensively.
How did the amendment stall, and come back to life?
Amendments to the Constitution require the assent of three-
quarters of the states--these days, 38 out of 50--to take
effect. When Congress passed the amendment in 1972, it set a
deadline for reaching that goal--originally 1979, later
extended to 1982. But only 35 states ratified the amendment
in time, in large part because of an opposition campaign led
by Phyllis Schlafly, a proudly anti-feminist Republican.
There the issue lay until 2017, when a Democratic state
senator in Nevada, Pat Spearman, persuaded the Legislature to
ratify the amendment, even though the deadline had long
passed. That move revived interest across the country, and
Illinois followed suit in 2018. An effort in Virginia fell
short a year ago, but after Democrats won in November, they
promised to try again.
Is Virginia's assent enough to get to 38 states?
That's a bit cloudy. Virginia is the 38th state to approve
the Equal Rights Amendment, but over the years, five of those
states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and
Tennessee--have voted to rescind their ratifications, and it
is possible that opponents would challenge the amendment on
that basis.
They would not have precedent on their side. After the
Civil War, several states tried to take back their
ratifications of either the 14th or 15th Amendments, but they
were counted in the Yes column anyway, and all of those
states later re-ratified the amendments.
What about the deadline?
That is the big question now. It could be repealed, or
challenged in court, or both.
Most amendments to the Constitution have not had explicit
ratification deadlines. The most recent one, the 27th, had
been pending for more than 200 years before it was finally
ratified in 1992.
Supporters argue that the deadline for the E.R.A. is
unenforceable because it is stated only in the preamble to
the amendment, and not in the amendment itself.
The Supreme Court said in 1921 that amendments had to be
ratified within a reasonable time after passage, and that
Congress had the authority to set a deadline, as it has
almost always done since then. But in 1939, the court ruled
that the question of whether ratification of an amendment was
timely and valid was ``non-justiciable''--in other words, it
was up to Congress, and none of the courts' business.
Congress extended the deadline for the Equal Rights
Amendment once--by three years--and supporters say it could
do so again, or repeal the deadline entirely. A bill to do
that was introduced in the Democratic-controlled House in
April and attracted broad support. It would also have to pass
the Republican-controlled Senate, where its prospects are
less clear, though it has sponsors there from both parties.
Legal experts disagree, however, on whether Congress has
the power to remove the deadline retroactively, and that
issue could land in court.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for nearly a century, advocates have
tried to add a provision to the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights
to men and
[[Page H1028]]
women. By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe
that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed equal rights by
our Constitution, but it currently does so only for the right to vote.
The equal rights amendment will help remedy that omission.
It is necessary that Congress consider this amendment to the
Constitution to help women achieve pay equality, require States to
intervene in cases of domestic violence and sexual harassment, and
guard against discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood.
Contrary to the arguments we are hearing today, this is not an
abortion amendment; this is equal rights for women.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for another speaker, but I
will yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that my colleague from
the Rules Committee, Ms. Scanlon, said. She said something to the
effect of nothing in the Constitution sets a deadline. Well, I have to
disagree with that. Actually, it is not just me; it is the Supreme
Court. A 1921 Supreme Court decision, Dillon v. Gloss, affirmed that:
Congress has the power to fix the definite time limit for
ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment under its
authority to determine the mode of ratification for an
amendment under Article V of the Constitution.
As I said before, this expired back in 1979. I mean, that is 41 years
ago. Then, of course, back then, Congress came forward, and my
understanding is they just did a majority vote instead of the two-
thirds that I believe is needed to deal with a constitutional
amendment.
But no other States had ratified. In fact, by the 1979 deadline, five
States had withdrawn their ratification. So you were at 35, then it
went down to 30, and it is dead.
When my colleague says Justice Ginsberg supports the ERA, I know
that. That is my point. She does support the ERA. But even she said we
need to start all over again because the deadline has passed.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to make in order a resolution to prevent any
moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracking on Federal lands unless
authorized by Congress.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this amendment would affirm that States
should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and
prevent any President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Many of the Democratic candidates for President have pledged to ban
hydraulic fracturing in the United States, a campaign promise straight
out of the ``keep it in the ground'' playbook.
While this widely used practice is often vilified by proponents of
the Green New Deal, in fact, hydraulic fracturing is heavily regulated
by the States and governed by stringent industry standards throughout
the country.
Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, U.S. gas bills have fallen by $13
billion collectively every year from 2007 to 2013. The U.S. is leading
the way in emissions reductions through innovation in the energy
sector. In 2017, U.S. carbon emissions reached the lowest level ever
since 1992, and per capita emissions reached the lowest level since
1950.
And, very importantly, the U.S. has become an energy exporter, and we
no longer have to rely on OPEC oil like we did in the 1970s. Fracking
and U.S. energy independence strengthens our national security.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong), my good friend.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding,
and I join the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) in urging my
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider H. Res.
659.
Hydraulic fracturing provides enormous benefits to the American
people, including energy security, national security, economic growth,
and reduced carbon emissions.
The Baaken oil patch, stretching across western North Dakota, is an
essential contributor to producing 1.5 million barrels of oil per day
and over 2 billion cubic feet of associated gas per day.
The United States is uniquely situated in the world economy. We are
one of the very few if not the only country that is both food and
energy secure. I am proud that North Dakota is a big part of that
energy security.
Let us not forget that a mere 10 years ago, if Iran would have shot
down a U.S. drone, seized the British ship in the Strait of Hormuz,
conducted a terrorist attack on a Saudi oil facility, and shot rockets
at U.S. troops in Iraq, oil would have skyrocketed to over $115 a
barrel and stayed there.
Do you know what happened the day after those attacks? Oil went down
$1.29.
Fracking directly employs over 2 million Americans, including 35,000
people in my home State.
In 2020, the U.S. is expected to become a net energy exporter.
In 2019, we doubled our natural gas exports.
Fracking offsets other carbon energy sources, which the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted was an important
reason for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
With continued technological advancements like carbon capture storage
and utilization, we can continue to develop these American energy
reserves while decreasing carbon emissions.
Simply put, America is stronger and our enemies are weaker because of
fracking. Any attempt to ban or limit fracking makes us less safe and
less prosperous.
A fracking ban will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions--in fact,
it will do the opposite--but it will destroy my entire State's economy
and send us back to the days where we rely on OPEC to fuel our economy.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) is prepared to close. We are prepared to close.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Part of one of the underlying bills, H.R. 2546, the Protecting
America's Wilderness Act, includes language to expand the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area by some 191,000 acres, an area known
as the Rim of the Valley Corridor.
In 2008, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study
whether to designate all or a portion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor
as part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. In
2016, the National Park Service recommended an expansion of 173,000
acres.
The bill today expands the area by more than that to 191,000 acres,
including new areas that were not listed in the study. They are
completely disconnected from the Rim of the Valley Corridor; yet they
are included in the exclusion.
{time} 1300
In addition, the National Park Service testified in June 2019 against
the proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, citing a need to focus resources on the deferred
maintenance backlog.
The proposed land expansion would include Soledad Canyon, a mineral-
rich area where the Bureau of Land Management has issued contracts to
mine millions of tons of sand and gravel for southern California. Our
strong economy has led to an increase in manufacturing and
construction. The problem is that the supply of construction materials,
like those that can be found in this area, is declining.
This legislation, the underlying legislation, would make it
incredibly onerous for contracted companies to move forward with
agreed-upon projects. Democrats often talk about the importance of a
large infrastructure bill, yet the passage of this bill would increase
the costs of essential materials that such projects do require.
[[Page H1029]]
The bottom line is that the land under consideration is currently in
dispute, and decisions that will significantly change the landscape and
activity of an area should not occur without consensus.
Last night, the Rules Committee reported a rule that included
consideration of two amendments that may help address these concerns.
Representative McClintock offered an amendment to allow the Secretary
of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior to exclude from wilderness
designations any areas that do not meet the definition of wilderness as
defined in the Wilderness Act.
Representative Westerman offered an amendment to strike all
designations of potential wilderness under the bill.
Those are commonsense amendments, and when the appropriate time
comes, I urge all Members to support the amendments. The underlying
bill is flawed, and I will oppose it on passage.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman
from Arizona is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge my Democratic colleagues to
halt their attempts to change the rules and bring back an expired
amendment that would rewrite our Constitution. Not only is this
unprecedented, but it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional.
I believe Congress should oppose pointless legislation to remove the
deadline and focus, instead, on upholding women's rights, dignity, and
opportunity.
I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and work together to
promote truly helpful legislation for women.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and
``no'' on the underlying resolution, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 79 is a long-overdue, bedrock civil rights
effort, while the Protecting America's Wilderness Act is an effort that
took input from a broad coalition of stakeholders to end up with a bill
to positively impact local communities and further our national
interest in preventing climate change.
As Members of Congress, we have a duty to uphold and protect the
Constitution and the charge of our Founders to continue to form a more
perfect Union. Passing the equal rights amendment is truly
representative of that oath to ensure that all Americans are treated
equally and afforded equal rights under the law.
I would like to recognize some of the women in organizations who have
gotten us to this point: Alice Paul, who graduated from college in my
district; Crystal Eastman; Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott,
who issued the first public call for women's equality at Seneca Falls
in 1848; the National Organization for Women and the League of Women
Voters, which organized and activated so many Americans of both parties
in support of this movement; and so many of the other countless
advocates who have fought tirelessly for women's equality.
This resolution is for all of them and for all the women and girls
seeking to further advance equality and fighting for a more just
America.
This resolution is a bold step forward in the ongoing fight for equal
rights. I recognize that I would not be here without the sacrifices
made by the women who came before me. Their passion and strength paved
the way for me and for so many of my colleagues to get to where we are
today.
But the battle is not yet won. Let's pass this rule, pass this
resolution, and show our children that all Americans deserve equal
rights and protection under the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 844
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution,
the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 659) affirming that States should maintain primacy
for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for oil and
natural gas production on State and private lands and that
the President should not declare a moratorium on the use of
hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands (including the Outer
Continental Shelf), State lands, private lands, or lands held
in trust for an Indian Tribe unless such moratorium is
authorized by an Act of Congress. The first reading of the
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the resolution are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the resolution shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the resolution are
waived. When the committee rises and reports the resolution
back to the House with a recommendation that the resolution
be adopted, the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to adoption
without intervening motion. If the Committee of the Whole
rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the
resolution, then on the next legislative day the House shall,
immediately after the third daily order of business under
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for further consideration of the resolution.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 659.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________