Providing for Consideration of H.R. Colorado Wilderness Act of Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Removing Deadline for Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for nearly a century, advocates have tried to add a provision to the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to men and 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) is prepared to close. We are prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Arizona is prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source