>> translator: i'm from financial news. my question goes to both of you, my first one to president yoon first. during the state visit, you've said that the alliance has strengthened to to cutting edge industries, to cutting edge science and also investments in businesses. these are some positives. however, to each individual of the public, how will this have a long-term imis that correct what will be the direct benefits pelt in and to president biden, many celebration of the -- >> you can continue watching this on our c-span now app. we'll leave this here to keep our over 40-year commitment to live gavel-to-gavel coverage of congress. the senate returning now for a vote on whether to the consider a vote -- to consider a vote on cannibal use. uorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for three minutes. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be viscerated and that i be

recognized for three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: last summer this body came together to deliver on a promise to toxic exposed veterans. we passed the sagget -- sergeant first class heating robinson -- heath robinson hon rorg our pact act. about an hour and a half ago we confirmed a person by the name of josh jacobs. he is that person who is going to be heading up v.a. benefits. he is that person with a steady hand, and i am glad that this body came together in a bipartisan way to make him the permanent leader of vba. the fact is having a permanent leader nnl role assures we can hold the v.a. accountable in their job, and that is critically important. i can't be prouder of this body to tell you that we have a

person who not only understands benefits but has worked in this capacity for the past several months. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: in fact it only brings us

dangerously closer to default. the default on america would mean fewer jobs, higher costs for the american people and will leave policeman, first responders and our veterans all hanging out to dry for those who worry about gun violence and crime and keeping our communities safe, the default on america will about 30,000 law enforcement while also going critical research resourcesto secure the border . the old republic is too deep

on law enforcement so that people on on due does just that that's what the peoples of america does not just that, at 840 200 jobs including 1800 900 jobs that have been created since the inflation reduction was passed. if you're a parent going to pay for childcare on a 105,000 childcare slots across the country making it harder for parents to find work, finished their education or even provide for their families. you know someone was bubbles with admission and worsening of the cutting programs over $10 billion in the next decade. that's the definition of cruelty. if you want to go to college the package will/ pell grants for all students $5000 and eliminate elements entirely for tens of thousands of americans . for those who worry about gun violence and keeping our

community say that people would wait 30,000 positions while driving resources to secure the border. again the told house republicans to the pond law enforcement and the default on on due does just that. put plainly house republicans are hell-bent on default one way or another, either a default or a default else, but our promise to carefor our kids and parents first responders . no matter what happens against our is real pain for families just what happened just a few hours ago in the week hours of the morning plainly see your mccarthy capitulated even further to the hard right again if anything this revised bill is

even more extreme, more radical versionof the default on america acts . it is no closer to awaiting a default on the national debt. democrats will not allow the public and doa to become law. it is doa, plain and simple and is republicans refuse to level with the public about the terrible things there default will do, democrats will do the work ourselves. we will let you know howbad this is if republicans are intent on fighting it . in the meantime see your mccarthy needs to recognize all the energy is putting into the taxing default will be wasted for the speaker should drop the brinksmanship, drop hostagetaking, come to the table, passed a clean bill to avoid default. where the republican proposal

is that the only way to go. time is running out on the era the senate will have a chance to take the next major step on an effort a century in the making ratifying the evil restaurant and the constitution. the story of american democracy has been uneven but inexorable art towards greater equality for all people . america's foundation contains a single practice. no matter where you come from you to deserve equal treatment under the law the senate will have a chance to bring our country closer to equity by the resolution regarding the evil restaurant and we will recognize 38 states have now legitimately ratified equal rights amendment meeting the threshold required under the constitution it would rule an arbitrary deadline invalidated a ratification that occurred in a few states. the states didn't work, just

not in the required time imposed upon them along time ago. i believe the senate should now remove that obstacle because, we must act now because the equal rights amendment has never been more necessarythan today . to the horror of people when fewer rights today than it did in your projections of roe versus wade article to the maga majority on the supreme court. people have to travel tens of thousands miles to access reproductive care. we cannot claim that america is a nation of equal justice when half of its citizenry languishes on with fewer rights, less dignity and limited recourse under the constitution is why the senate must vote in favor of the cra resolution so we can bring our mission one step closer to greater justice,

greater equality and people rights for allpeople regardless of gender .due to the sensors for check-in this resolution. i look forward to going in his favor tomorrow finally the senate will take the first procedural vote on legislation to care for our nation's veterans by hands or tester. the goal veterans program in 23 is the union of a number of important and full details will strengthen the va, improve his carrier program, expand community-based services ultimately restore greater dignity on those who defend our nation. the bipartisan veterans bill is the sort of legislation the senate should be building on. this is bipartisan, far-reaching difference inthe lives of our veterans , or

tester members from both sides of the aisle working on this veterans package high-yield floor >>

congress is out of control spending and avoid a dent default at the american people know this is a critical task asbecome more urgent by the day . the us is debt limit basically maxing out on our national credit card. we maxed out our credit card

on january the treasury department has been using what they called extraordinary measures to prevent the government from defaulting on its debt. because it depends on how much revenue is coming in the front door from taxes , we don't know exactly when these measures will be exhausted but experts say it could happen as soon as june which is only one month away so clearly it's time to get serious about solutions from the beginning of this discussion and debate two things have become abundantly clear. one, default should be avoided at all costs. this is something republicans and democrats both agreed to our economy is still stabilizing from the uncertainty caused by our banking system has endured two high-profile collapses and inflation continues to reach on family budgets. the latest real clear

politics average for the by an administration handling of the economy says only 37 percent of the american people believe president biden has done a good job on the economy so clearly they are feeling vulnerable to any shocks to the economy that might occur should the debt limit not be passed. we know that if the united statesdefaults on these debts, all our challenges will only get worse . social security and medicare benefits will be delayed. members of the military and federal employees would not get paid. we can see skyrocketing mortgage rates, sinking stock prices and instability all across our economy. in short this is not a time for a game of chicken. this is a time for

responsible people to step up and do their job. by default is the last thing our country needs congress and the administration need to ask before it's too late. so i'm glad we agreed on that point. but the second point is where there is clearly adifference of opinion . it's clear that america's borrowing and spending are unsustainable. with $31 trillion in national debt and almost $1 trillion a year being stands on interest to pay the bondholders hold that, we know that we can continue down this path. national debts d from $3.2 trillion in 1980 29.7 trillion in 2000. today it's $31.7 trillion. those numbers are so big.

i'm sure most of us have difficulty grasping them assuming we could all. $31.7 trillion in debt. while the national debt poses a significant economic risk is also poses significant security risks. every day is spending more and more money on interest payments, about trillion dollars for the bond holders on that debt. each dollar that goes towards servicing that that is the dollar that can't be spent on other keeping america safe. years are top defense officials warned about the risk of national debt continuing to grow. 2010 i remember then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff michael mullen said the most significant threat to our national security isour debt

. since then our national debt has more than doubled . that trend is not going to change on itsown. it requires a change of behavior . behavior by the administration and by members of the united states congress . so we need to ask as soon as possible to reignin our control spending america's financial state only and our national security . future generations are going to have to pay that money back and we ought to do everything we can to avoid that result if there are things we can do these to mitigate. so these are the two basic truths the majority of americans agreed on. evil is acceptable and secondly, we need to get our fiscal house in order.

unfortunately president biden refuses to engage on either one . this is really unbelievable to me. the president of the united states, the leader of the free world and he said not my problem. how irresponsible. how reckless is that? from the beginning, president biden drill outrageous redlines and trying to dictate what a solution would look like when it wasn't a solution, was just a patch. the president ruled out any negotiation overspending record and said he expected congress to raise the debt limit with no conditions attached. we know any bank or credit union in issues of credit card that once you have next out on your credit limit,

they want to know okay, it you want us to raise the limit you have to tell us how you're going to pay the money back you already know . but president biden said no, we want to keep spending and we want to keep raising the debt limit, but we don't want to do anything about reforming spending or changing the curve when it comes to writing and spending . these unrealistic declarations by the president don't make him look tough, they just make him look out such just because president biden wants something doesn't mean it will happen. the president knows democrats no longer control chambers of congress. during the first two years the president snapped his fingers and expects democrats to advance his agenda without a single vote and that happened most recently on two bills which were partisan

$2.7 trillion to our national debt and now president says it'snot my problem . this is a monarchy. we got rid of a cane along time ago. this isn't the by an empire and the presidents wishes only count for so much. the reality of the situation is a solution to the ceiling must be bipartisan and bicameral. it's got to be approved by him all lead house and a democratic led senate and president . right now president biden's clean debt ceiling increase simply has no way to pass. but we are at an impasse and there's only one way forward . that is the president must do what presidents have always done before this time and that means come to the

negotiating table. that's the only way to over crisis both political parties want to avoid. four months republicans urged president biden to sit down with harvey and compromise other than a single meeting where they literally touched gloves and walked away with two boxers and a ring , the president has been completely absent without leave. he's been awol. he continues to tender demands he knows are unreasonable he refuses to reality of the problem. well, since president biden took office over two years ago he spent on a spending binge . he pushed democrats to pass two massive partisan bills i mentioned a moment ago talking to central dollars.

these were strictlypartyline vote by the press with no republicans support .$2.7 trillion to the debt and now president biden says notmy problem ? once the debt ceiling as it? he stop taxpayers for a ridiculous set of pet projects everything from handouts for labor unions to subsidies for wealthy people so they would buy electric vehicles even though most americans can't afford one. president biden rely on democrats, just rely on democrats to resolve their spendinghabits, he also ran off with the taxpayers car by himself . the president single-handedly claimed to be able to spend $460 billion in an executive order erasing malone off the books for tens of millions of dollars that case is now pending in supreme court.

clearly he does not have authority but he claims to have it now we have a case pending before the supreme court so president biden has no trouble sending in addition to 2.7 and partisan spending bills he has no trouble adding to that debt and other $60 billion. but he doesn't want to negotiate the debt ceiling increase. he doesn't want to talk how do we get back on the path to more responsible spending habits. despite the presidents record spending like there's no tomorrow he chooses to talk about spending reforms at least so far. he said he won't even entertain the idea this is a topic worth discussing with the speaker of the house. that's completely reckless and irresponsible position to

take members of the president's own party are winding up to criticize him . the senator from minnesota recently said president biden should sit down with speaker party. senator klobuchar is right. debbie dingle said the administration can't keep waiting. senator manchin went so far as to criticize the inability to sit down with the speaker as a deficiency in leadership . with a default on alright and it's time for president biden to change his tune he needs to abandon this was my way or the highway to dowhat presidents have always done that is to negotiate a solution . from the beginning it was obvious to everybody that bipartisan compromise was the only path forward. that's the most fundamental

of divided. nobody can do it by themselves so you have to work outsolutions together . it's simply unacceptable for any president to stand by these kind outrageous redlines when we are potentially weeks away from a possible default considering especially the fragility of the economy that currently exists and this would make it catastrophic.

understand that's controversial is it directs the v.a. to explore medical cannabis as an alternative treatment for veterans experiencing chronic pain and symptoms of ptsd. why? so that we but more importantly the veterans have a better understanding of the role of medicinal cannabis plays in treating the wounds of war.

the jury is still out on this. this adds a two-year retrospective study that will take place prior to the v.a. beginning clinical trials outlined in this legislation. it grants the secretary of the v.a. authority to cancel clinical trials should the v.a. deem them to be unsafe based on that retrospective study i just talked about. it allows the secretary the authority to cancel trials in the event that it is determined that the trials were exposing participants to excessive risk and quite frankly, as i said in my opening trks allows veterans the access to relevant information to make informed decisions about their own health and will shine a light on an understudy topic which is already being used by our veterans nationwide. so the real question here is do i want our veterans to understand the benefits or possibly the non-benefits of medicinal marijuana? or do we want to leave them out

in the cold, not understanding what's going on? the truth is, as we all understand the impact opioids have had on this country. and if in fact it shows that medical marijuana or marijuana can have impacts that help people with chronic pain, we should know that information so we can pass it along to the veterans. it is as simple as that. the rest of these bills are absolute no-brainers, and i will tell you, i think the cannabis portion of this bill is a no-brainer. today -- today it's time to put political differences aside and do what's right for the our veterans. look, don't let the haircut fool you. i did not serve in the military. i don't use marijuana. but the truth is, those people who think it works for them, they ought to know. and that's what this bill does. i would encourage a vote for cloture on this bill. it's a good bill. it's a bill that the veterans service organizations have fought for and want to see

happen. with that, i yield the floor. mr. moran: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to address the senate for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. madam president, the legislation that's before us you the the veterans program improvement act of -- just came out of the veterans' affairs committee -- excuse me for stuttering. we are here on a motion for cloture, and this bill is a combination -- will be, as amended, a combination of bills that are both republican and democratic bills, including one from the senator who is presiding today. it includes a bill from senator rounds of south dakota dealing

with the loan process for native american veterans. it includes a couple of pieces of legislation, the respect act to help veterans with mental health or neurological conditions to get caregiver care. the elizabeth dole act to expand home and community-based long-term care programs so that veterans have more choices as they age. and the bill of the presiding officer that provides grants to county veteran service offices -- officers for outreach to veterans. in addition, it includes what has been perhaps the most discussed aspect of this piece of legislation, a bill that creates the authorization to allow for medical research for marijuana to be conducted -- for cannabis to be conducted by the department of veterans affairs, but it requires a retrospective research to take a look at the research that has already been conducted and to go and conduct research with veterans who are currently using cannabis.

the outcome of that study is unknown, but this is an effort to make certain that veterans are not doing something that is harmful to them and to make an informed decision several years from now about the relationship between veterans and cannabis. and the point i'd like to make in my few comments today is, i have encouraged my colleagues to offer amendments. there is a lot of items that my particularly republican colleagues -- but i understand there are democratic colleagues who have amendments -- and while we've had some success this year in amendments coming to the senate floor, i want to make certain that that's the opportunity that republican colleagues, democratic colleagues have as this bill, if it proceeds, that we have that opportunity. i had those conversations with both the majority and the minority, and i look forward to

enforcing as best i can the capability to make certain -- the capability to make certain my colleagues have that ability. if that's not the case, then i reserve the right to oppose this legislation. i yield the floor. mr. tester: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 326, a bill to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to carry out a study and clinical trials and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. 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. 326, a bill to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to carry out a study and clinical trials on the

effects of cannabis on certain health outcomes of veterans with chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder and for other purposes shall be brought to a close in the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is is not agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first, to inform folks, in my arcane processes in the senate, i have to switch my vote from the yes to no in order to consider this vote. the presiding officer: motion is entered. mr. schumer: and, madam president, it is regrettable that this bill, which so much helps our veterans, went down.

i hope our veterans need it. it was supported by all of our veterans groups. it had bipartisan, unanimous support in committee. and i hope that some of our members on the other side of the aisle who didn't vote for it will reconsider. i yield the floor. i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session, that the committee on environment and the public works be charged -- discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 11, that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that at 4:20 p.m., the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate. and that upon disposition of s.j. res., 11, the senate resume the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 4, the equal rights amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the committee on public works is discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 11,

the clerk will report the measure. the presiding officer: joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so forth. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, in october of this past year, the parents ants students of jana elementary school in the greater st. louis area woke to find news of an independent study that had found nuclear radioactive contamination inside the school building at jana elementary. now, sadly, this probably didn't come at a total shock to those residents who've lived in in regard i sant and the surrounding area for years this community has had to deal with the fallout of the federal

government's own nuclear program and the waste left over from it dating back to the 1940's. which was then effectively dumped in st. louis, made its way into the water, into the soil, and now into a stream that runs right by this elementary school. so the school board wisely said we should do a study, let's find out if it is in the school. independent results came back and say it was. in the dust, on the windowsills of the school, radioactive material. the school board met. they shut down the school. parents had kids at home for months. then come the first of this year, the school board said, we can't in good conscience reopen it. now what's happening? school is closed. the kids are having to be bussed to other locations, driven to schools outside of their neighborhood. mr. president, this is a working-class community. these are hardworking folks. they don't have the resources lying around to send their kids to other schools or to pay to

move. if they did, they would. they don't. they're just trying to live their lives, work a job, get their i had cans a accident education. instead, they've had to deal with this. the without part about it is the effect refused to clean it up. when this news broke, the ownership corps of engineers said, oh, there's nothing wrong with the school. we've tested it a million times. it's fine. in fact, they held a press conference today in which they said the same thing -- trust us. it's fine. it's fine. i don't think any of them are sending their kids there. but trust us, new england say. it's -- but trust us, they say. it's fine. when i and the school board and the parents said to the army corps of engineers, you need to retaste, then they pointed fingers and said, oh, no or, it's the department of energy. it is their problem. so when we went to the department of energy, they said, we can't do anything. it is the army corps' problem. the biden administration has spent the last eight months now pointing fingers at each other

saying why they can't do this, they can't do that a the kids are just out of luck. i just notice this -- when that bank in california full of billionaires who are also not incidentally major political contributors, when it had a problem, boy this government moved lickety-split to bail them out. how many billions did this government spend to bail out the svb shareholders and stakeholders and depositors? they got their bailout in no time flat. these kids? nothing. can't even get a response. do you know the biden administration won't even respond to me. so, fine. we'll do it ourselves. i've introduced legislation that will order testing in the entire school district, that will mandate a cleanup of the school, and, if necessary, building these kids a new school. the federal government caused this problem. the federal government should fix this problem, and just because these kids aren't

billionaires or big-time political contributors or connected politically doesn't mean that they can be ignored. it doesn't mean that their lives don't matter. i just would note this -- last week the secretary of energy, jennifer granholm, when i talked to her about this bill in a public forum, i asked here in the hearing, they said that she would support the legislation. and who couldn't, mr. president? who couldn't support having the federal government clean up its own mess and getting some justice for these kids at jana elementary? and i'll just say this -- this community in st. louis has been asked to live with the fallout of the federal government's actions for decades. this is just the latest instance. for decades. the cancer rates, the rates of disease, autoimmune disorders -- their off the charts in this community. for years these folks have been told, just shut and it'll p -- just shut up and it'll be fine.

today we'll start to get some justice for these kids can. today we'll start the cleanup process that should have happened decades ago. so i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 418 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 418, a bill to provide financial assistance to schools impacted by radioactive contaminants and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. hawley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. hawley: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all those in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. hawley: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be be considered made and laid upon the table the. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: --

mr. hawley: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1311, a bill to reauthorize the morris k. udall and stewart l. udall trust fund which was introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1311, a bill to reauthorize the morris k. udall and stewart l. udall trust fund and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. kelly: i further ask that the bill be considered read add third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: mr. president, this legislation would reauthorize a federal foundation, the morris k. udall and stewart l. udall

foundation act, which was established to honor the legacy of two great arizonans, morris and stewart udall. the udall foundation honors the legacy of the udalls by awarding scholarships, fellowships and internships for study related to the environment, for american indians and alaska natives to study health care and tribal public policy. the foundation also supports the udall center for studies in public policy and the native nations institute to conduct research on environmental policy, american indian and alaska native health care issues, tribal policy, and training. my predecessor, predecessor john mccain, was a longtime supporter of the foundation and its work and the foundation has honored senator mccain's legacy through the john s. mccain iii national center for

environmental conflict resolution. this legislation does not increase authorization levels for the foundation. it simply extends current levels through the end of fiscal year 2028 to allow the foundation to continue its important, would. -- it's important work. i yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thanks, mr. president. i rise in strong opposition to s.j. res. 11,otoresolution to disapproval of the biden administration's clean air standards for heavy-duty trucks. if enacted, this resolution would wipe allay epa's most final rule that addresses smog and smoot-forming pollution. the resolution could also

prevent the agency from ever issuing similar standards in the future. this congressional review act resolution is bad for public health. it's bad for our economy. as many of us know, the transportation sector is one of our nation's largest sources of nitrogen oxide emissions. heavy-duty vehicles such as our school buses and long haul trucks make up a third of mobile-sourced nox emissions. it is one of the main contributors to ozone pollution or smog and also contributes to soot pollution. these harmful air pollutants are linked to increased risks of sinema attacks, respiratory diseases and sadly, premature death. in december 20 2,i joined others and epa administrator regan as he signed this legislation for new heavy-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. this is the first time in more

than 20 years that epa had updated the heavy-duty vehicle nox requirements. it should not be confused with epa's recently proposed standards for vehicles. during the event, administrator regan told atten december that this rule would result in 48% reduction in nox by 2045, 48% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. these reductions will improve air quality nationwide. reducing vehicle pollution nationwide is especially personal for us in delaware where more than 90% of our air pollution comes from outside of our state. the heavy-duty vehicles nox rule is good for our health and good for our economy. with that, i want to give my colleagues three reasons why they should vote against senator senator fischer's cra resolution. first, the heavy-duty nox rule enables states to better meet the state's air quality standards. without the rule states would

have to make costly decisions and find more and i have ways t- to reduce nox emissions. that's why states, including those in arizona and ohio petitioned epa in 2016 to take action on nox emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. in the same vein i'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit to the, for the record a letter opposing s.j. res. 11 tbrt -- from the national association of clean air agencies which is an association that represents the state's clean air offices. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: these standards are achievable and provide predictability for industry which the blunt tool of the cra would undercut. companies such as cummings and others in the heavy-duty industry support the heavy-duty nox rule. the cra would reinstate

technology while potentially blocking epa from ever, from ever adopting stronger standards. finally, if enacted, this cra would negate the $200 billion in net benefits that the rule would generate between 2027 and 2045. these are the annual health and economic benefits that by 2045 include up to, listen to this, up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths in one year. in one year. also in one year, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions in emergency room visits. also in one year, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma and finally in one year 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma. these improvements will be especially beneficial for the 72 million people living near truck-freight routes where many historically disadvantaged and underserved communities are

disproportionately exposed to harmful ozone pollution. mr. president, let me conclude by saying that the hef is -- the heavy duty rule benefits our economy. these protective and achievable clean air standards reduce dangerous smog and soot pollution and provide certainty for our nation's heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and for our state. walking away from all the benefits generated by this rule doesn't make sense. that's why i call on my colleagues to join me in opposing s.j. res. 11. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in a couple minutes the senate will vote on my cra resolution to overturn the biden administration's rule establishing stricter emission

standards for heavy-duty vehicles. my republican colleagues have joined me in this effort, and senator manchin announced today that he's cosponsoring my legislation. i hope more of my democratic colleagues will join us as well. the epa rule is an allege degreesive mandate on -- an aggressive mandate on truckers that would force them to purchase new expensive equipment. the epa's own economic analysis projects that the costs associated with the new regulation could reach up to $5 billion from 2027 to 2045. $55 billion. during this administration, inflation has hit record highs. additional inflationary burdens on the trucking industry will mean that any product transported by trucks, whether it's food, clothing, or other commodities, each one of those products will cost more. smaller more affordable trucking

businesses will close up shop, and the ones that can afford higher prices, they're going to raise their rates. this means that consumers will be paying more money to a smaller group of businesses. every american consumer will feel the effects of this rule and its price increases. every agricultural producer and every local business will feel the effects. during a period of high inflation and supply chain disruptions, the last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer truckers. my cra will stop this biden administration rule in its tracks before it has a chance to damage the livelihood of truckers and especially consumers across our country. i encourage my colleagues to join me in prioritizing the economic well-being of americans over this politically charged and ineffective top-down regulation from the epa.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, the clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: s.j. res. 11 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, and so forth. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of s.j. res. 11. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 49. the joint resolution is passed. 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 clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 3, s.j. res. 4

joint resolution for the joint deadline of the ratification of the equal rights amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: last week the house voted for a commonsense proposal that was supported by the majority of americans. the house voted to protect female athletes. this week it's time for the senate to do the same thing. before my time here, i spent many years as a coach, educator and mentor. i've seen how sports can change people's lives. athletic scholarships open up a lifetime of opportunities for men and women alike. yet, today those opportunities for women are being threatened by a radical political agenda that is being forced upon the american people. when i was growing up, there

were a lot less opportunities for female athletes. 51 years ago congress passed title 9 to ensure that male and female athletes both had access to lessons, life skills and opportunity to advancement that comes from participating in sports. it's been one of the most successful pieces of legislation every to -- ever to come out of congress. as a coach, i saw its impact first hand. one of my first jobs out of college was coaching junior girls basketball. what a thrill. title 9 was just starting to be implemented when i took the job. i was there to see the incredible impact it had on young girls all over this country. for the first time young women i coached had equal access to facilities, resources, and

competition. i saw those hardworking athletes go on to earn college scholarships, start careers, and become leaders in their own communities. i still keep in touch with a lot of them. i'm deeply proud of them. i wonder if they would have had the same opportunities without title 9. would they have the same access to the ability for success? before title 9, a lot of schools, there was no such thing as college women's athletics. very few collegiate championships for women's sports existed, limiting opportunities for female athletes to achieve greatness. before 1972, when title 9 was enacted, there were only about 90,000 female athletes in college sports and only 290,000 in high school sports.

for comparison, at the same time, 3.7 million males were playing high school sports. however, after title 9's enactment, that changed very quickly. because of title 9, female participation at the college level has risen more than 600%. yet, now female athletes are going being told to give up their ability to compete and compete for second place. women and girls are suffering at the hands of an ideology. the biden administration has taken a sledgehammer, a big sledgehammer tole title 9. a few weeks ago, on good friday, of all days, joe biden's department of education issued a new rule completely reinterpreting title 9. as usual the biden administration is trying to legislate from the white house,

the executive branch, because they know their radical ideas would not -- and i repeat would not -- make it through this congress. this type of change should require a bill, but biden, again, wants to change federal law by simply publishing a new rule. biden's rule change says schools cannot ban boys from participating in women's sports or else they'll lose their funding. i can't believe we're even talking about this. the proposed rule is 116 pages long. it is so vague that schools, they're not going to know what to do. they're not going to know how to interpret it. the vagueness is going to let the biden administration selectively enforce rules and intimidate schools into taking the most cautious position. it is a backdoor national

mandate for schools to allow biological males to play in women's sports. schools that choose to protect female athletes would face punishment from the government if they didn't allow it. the rule is expected to go into effect this coming fall, 2023. that means teachers and coaches will have to begin opening their girls and women's teams, field, and locker rooms to biological males. it's unfair, it's unsafe, and it's down right wrong. to be honest, it's moronic. as a former coach, i can tell you, coaches will do what it takes to win. coaches want to keep their jobs. the only way to keep your job as a coach and to deal with the pressure is to win games.

college athletics a big business -- a big, big business. there are con infrequences -- conferences that make near $100 million per school a year just for television rights. so there's a lot at stake. under the biden rules, all of the incentives are for biological males to dominate women's sports. there are only a very small percentage today, only one study shows that transathletes make up 000.25 of athletes in women's college sports today, very small percentage. but, frankly, one championship or one opportunity ripped away from a female by a biological male is one too many, and the democrats are here to argue differently, and if they do that, it's shameful. ten years from now i suspect the

situation will be very, very different. the supreme court last year voted to allow college athletes to get paid for their name, image and likeness. a few years from now kroaches and -- coaches and players would stand to make millions to play males against women. winning is the only thing that counts. biological males will and would dominate in virtually every woman's -- women's sports. women's sports, as we know it, would be over. biological girls would simply drop out of sports or never choose to play in the first place. is this really what the democrats want? is this really their plan? do democrats really want to end women's sports?

do democrats really want to ruin the dreams of young girls who want to be the next world famous gym gymnast like soony leigh or olympic swimming legend like katie kate katie. is that when they want? i'm grateful many female athletes are speaking out. i spoke with one of the greatest athletes, katelyn jenner, who is fully supportive of this bill, of keeping men out of women's sports. we saw reilly gaines who watched her championship dreams taken away by a biological male. this is after she was forced to share a locker room with that

adult, biological male, against her will. reilly was at the university of kentucky on an athletic scholarship. what would happen if a young girl is forced to compete against a male in high school shrks she could -- high school is she could watch her dreams taken away. already this has been taken away at the hands of biological males. you've got to be kidding me. males have 40% to 50% upper body greater -- greater body strength. it is dangerous to put them on the same field as women. this is basic biology. what do we see from the party of science last week? exactly zero democrats in the house voted for this bill.

zero. the party of science seems to have skipped biology class. now the question is, will any democrats in the senate show a little bit of courage and stand up for women? just a little bit. will any senate democrats vote to protect their daughters, their granddaughters, or great granddaughters? i'm anxious to see this. will any of them do that today? democrats have been talking a lot about women on the senate floor lately. democrats seem to think the only thing women care about is abortion, ending the life of a child. what about women and girls who want to be athletes or go to school on an athletic scholarship. does that matter? not a sing the house democrat voted to protect girls and women in sports. today we're going to be find out where the senate democrats stand. the bill the house passed last

week would stop this administration from forcing schools to let biological males compete against women. the act protection, does the opposite, it prevents a school from receiving funds if it let's boys compete in women's sports. americans do not want the federal government footing the bill for a policy that is a slap in the face to women who have worked so hard to become athletes. a clear majority of americans support this bill. a clear majority. pool after pool has proven that -- poll after poll has proven that. it's time to act before the situation gets worse, and it's going to get much worse. so now i'm going to give this body to stand up for women athletes. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration

of h.r. 734 which was received from the house. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, reserving the right to object. i rise today in opposition to s. 613, legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender. my republican colleagues falsely claim that allowing transgender women and girls to play sports is harmful to women and girls. they continue to hurl insulting lies about transgender girls dominating sports. but what is true is that these bans are deeply harmful to transgender girls, particularly

transgender girls of color, girls who are gender nonconforming and sisgender as well. these violate every girls' privacy and open the door to harassment for anyone who is perceived as different. if my republican colleagues were actually worried about women and girls in athletic, they would join in our efforts to address unequal athletic opportunities in school, unequal pay, sexual abuse and harassment, and more. but this isn't about supporting women and girls. this is about power and control. my republican colleagues railroad obsessed with controlling women's bodies and our lives as we are seeing yet again today. but instead of being honest about what they're doing, many of the other -- many on the

other side claim that this bill is somehow a defense of title nine. that couldn't be further from the truth. title nine says and i quote, no person in the united states shall on the basis of sex be exclude from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. end quote. as someone who knew and was friends with patsy mink, the author of title 9, i can tell you she would be standing right next to me to say title 9 in no way or shape supports what my colleague is attempting to do. patsy spent her entire life fighting to advance equal opportunity for women and girls. it would pain her to know that the bill she fought so hard to

make law is being twisted by republicans to discriminate against the very people it was designed to protect. republicans have the wrong priorities. we shouldn't be banning anyone from playing sports. we should be fighting the discrimination that all women and girls, trans, cis, or otherwise continue to face in athletics, in the classroom, and in the workplace. for these reasons i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: i'm truly disappointed but expected that the democrats are going to block this legislation to protect young girls and women. again, it's shameful. it really is. i see my colleague from iowa is on the floor, and i want to thank her for joining me in this effort to protect women, and i yield the floor to senator

ernst. ms. ernst: thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa, you're recognized. ms. ernst: thank you. i would like to thank the senator from alabama for leading this effort. madam president, iowa has celebrating a history of exceptional girls sports programs. we recently saw the iowa hawk eyes women's basketball team make it to the national championship after taking home their fifth big 10 tournament title just days after cheering on the high school girls competing in the state tournament. last year the iowa high school girls athletic union proudly sanctioned girls wrestling opening up new opportunities for girls to be part of a team and

recognized for their achievements. madam president, title 9 not only makes these events possible, it guarantees an opportunity for our female athletes, whether it's growing as a leader, winning a championship, or securing a scholarship to college, sports opens doors for young women. but right now president biden is working overtime to force institutions to allow biological males to share spaces with females and compete in women's sports. doors that were opened over 50 years ago are being slammed in the faces of girls across the country because of the

progressive left's gender ideology. girls' locker rooms have now become a battleground for the democratic party, and parents continue to be iced out of the issue. thankfully, last year governor reason nomeds protected girls sports -- reynolds protected girls sports across iowa from elementary school all the way up to the collegiate level. here in the senate i'm proud to join my friend from alabama and our colleagues in supporting the protection of women and girls in sports act. under this legislation any athletic program that receives federal funds and permits a biological male to participate in competitions designated for women or girls would be in violation of federal law.

the house just passed this commonsense bill last week, and we should not waste any more time in passing it here in the senate. peyton mcnabb is a senior in high school. she loves volleyball but was severely injured last fall because a biological male spiked the ball into her face. riley gains barker, a 12-time nca all-american athlete -- ncaa all-american athlete was forced to compete against a biological male leah thomas in the 200 free style. the two -- freestyle. the two tied -- they tied for fifth place with thomas taking home the trophy. no kidding.

thomas took home the trophy. the ncaa told riley it was necessary for photo purposes. madam president, leah thomas is a 6 foot 4 biological male who swam on the men's team at the university of pennsylvania for three years before switching to the women's team for his final year. thomas beat female 2020 olympic silver medalists and american record holders to win an ncaa division one title. man, you might feel like a woman but you aren't one. we must protect our young girls and make sure they aren't pushed off the podium.

title 9 is the law of the land. whether the far left likes it or not. the law was created to offer the same playing field to female athletes as their male counterparts, not to be subjected women to second place and the sidelines. in defense of our iowa daughters and female athletes across the nation, i am standing with riley gaines who was recently attacked by radical activists on a college campus. and her message? biological men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. our female athletes deserve fairness, safety, and the ability to win those top

scholarships and titles. as title 9 intended. no amount of harassment from the radical left will stop strong women from standing up for the truth and for what is right. if senate democrats pushing the so-called equal rights amendment were really interested in equal rights for women, they would protect women's sports and spaces from biological men. madam president, every time a girl steps on to the mat, on to the court, the field, or the track, she should know that she has every opportunity to compete and win. i'm proud to work with my friend

senator tuberville and my colleagues in fighting to pass the protection of women and girls in sports act. and with that i will yield back to senator tuberville. mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, senator ernst for your comments. i would like to yield the floor to my colleague senator budd. mr. budd: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. budd: i rise today to support senator tuberville's protection of women and girls in sports act. for more than half a century, title 9 has expanded opportunities for women and girls from the classroom to the playing field. according to the women's sports foundation, our country went from a ratio of one in 27 girls playing sports in 1972 to one in

five today. we went from fewer than 30,000 female collegiate athletes in 1972 to nearly 230,000 female athletes today. now that's progress that should be celebrated. however, women's sports are fundamentally undermined when biological males are allowed to compete against them. there are biological differences between men and women. if we ignore those differences, we threaten future opportunities for female athletes and the entire notion of women's sports. it's unfair. it's unsafe. and it's unacceptable. that's why senator tuberville's bill is so important. it simply ensures that title 9 protections are clearly defined by a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. bottom line, female athletes should compete against other female athletes.

it's that simple. i yield the floor. mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, i want to thank senators ernst and budd for their comments today. i also want to thank the 25 cosponsors that we have signed on to my bill in the senate. rest assured this is not the end. we will continue to fight this legislation for all the girls and women across this great country. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: first, madam president, i would like to thank my colleagues who are on the floor today and senator tuberville for his leadership, senator budd, senator ernst for their efforts in the protection of women and girls in sports. as a doctor, i share their concerns, share their passion in terms of fairness, in terms of safety, and i congratulate them on their efforts and continue to join them in those efforts to provide the protection for women and girls in sports. madam president, i come to the

floor today to talk about the high price of democrats' misguided energy agenda. it is a high priced crisis entirely of president biden and the democrat party's own making. last year when energy prices were already at historic highs, what did democrats do? well, they voted ten times, time after time after time against increasing american energy production. instead democrats jammed through the senate and the house the largest climate bill in american history. the climate extremists applauded this. well, let me just say hold the applause because the american public is suffering. families all across this great land are hurting. democrats' reckless spending in the past two years has driven up the cost of energy and, of course, as everyone knows, this has fueled inflation.

inflation reached a 40-year high because of democrats' spending. prices today are over 15% higher than they were the day joe biden took office. energy prices have gone up even more than that. americans are paying 36% more for energy today than they were just january of 2021. gas prices to fill the taping, they're up 46%. that's a five-month high. they're going to continue to go up during the summer driving season. the lower gas prices that the administration desperately and irresponsibly deplete our nation's strategic petroleum reserve to achieve last year has hurt our economy and has hurt our country and it's hurt our national security. democrats were wrong to raid our emergency supplies of petroleum products in a desperate attempt to lower gas prices leading up

to the november 2022 elections. the strategic petroleum reserve is our nation's emergency reserve. now it's out of gas. it's down to the lowest level it's been at in 30 years. not refilling it. oh, no. joe biden knew we needed more energy than that, so he went on bended knee to foreign dictators becking them to produce -- begging them to produce more oil but not producing it here at home, and we have plenty. the president did everything he could to try to lower gas prices except the thing that the american people know would work -- and that's to produce more american energy. so american families are once again facing that double whammy of an energy crisis coupled with an inflation crisis. democrats are doing absolutely nothing to help solve the

problem. remember, the biden administration began working on day number one to choke off america's energy resources. killed the keystone pipeline. canceled oil and gas leases. america's energy revolution turned us into the world's energy superpower. our economy had a wonderful, competitive advantage. it was food for families, good for -- it was good for families, good for workers. we challenged dictators without having to worry about our energy supply. we had affordable, reliable, and available american energy. this administration and the democrats in this body squandered the gains we had achieved. they attacked american oil, natural gas, and coal along every turn. then they raised taxes to make it even more expensive. they instituted burdensome regulations to make it more -- to make it more difficult to produce the american energy.

they put up roadblock after roadblock on every type of american energy, and yet joe biden and the democrats open-mouthed looked with surprise, why had the prices skyrocketed in -- skyrocketed? anybody could have predicted that choking off our energy supply would lead to increased dependence on our adversaries -- russia, china, iran, venezuela. last week secretary of energy jennifer granholm testified before the energy committee. i specifically asked her about the administration's plan to lower gas prices and energy prices across the board because they're up across the board. they're up for heating energy, they're up for driving energy. her solution? government mandates. phase out anything powered by oil, natural gas, or coal. take away our gas stoves.

take away our gas-powered waterheretos -- waterheaters. force us to buy electric companies, people that can afford to pay $16,000 more for a vehicle than a traditional car. but for wyoming families and farmers and ranchers they just don't work. people want affordable, reliable vehicles, and for people all around rural america, electric cars are not. americans don't support the democrats' climate extremism. look at the polls. nearly two-thirds of americans say they don't want to buy an electric car. they don't want to be force-fed by joe biden, don't want to have government in the driver's seat. they say the price is too high. $64,000 on average. the batteries are unreliable. charging them is inconvenient. it's time-consuming, takes a

long time to get a battery charged and it can't go all that far. and then who benefits from all of this? china. that's because most of the critical minerals that are needed to build these batteries come right out of china. just look for the made-in-china sticker on the batteries of the electric vehicles. this country should be focusing on strengthening our energy independence, not finding ways to become more dependent to china. or russia. so the reality of secretary granholm's so-called solution to lowering prices is that americans will just pay more. not really concerned about affordability. i didn't hear that word at all. the way to lower prices is to unleash american energy. the house recently passed legislation to do just that. and i support their efforts.

senator capito and i are going to soon introduce our own legislation in the senate. the energy and natural resources committee is going to hold a hearing on the critical issues in the coming weeks. we can only unleash american energy if we fix our broken permitting system and process. right now new energy projects are bogged down by a maze of read tape and lawsuits. our legislation will include enforceable timelines on environmental reviews and filing legal challenges. we're going to move forward faster with an all-of-the-above american energy agenda. we need it a our democrat colleagues have stated before that they do want permitting reform. well, we'll see. they're going to have an opportunity to speak up and to vote, because if they're serious, real reform is possible. if they're serious, we can tell the american people that real relief is on the way. we do need a long-term commitment in this country to

american energy. making life more affordable for every american should be a bipartisan priority. it hasn't been for the first two years of the biden administration, and now going into the third. we need to get back to a point where we can make energy affordable, available, and reliable instead of focusing, as the democrats do, on only renewable energy regardless of the cost and regardless of the consequences. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have it the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cardin: madam president, i take this time and i'm going to be joined by several of my colleagues to talk about a vote that we're going to have tomorrow on senate joint

resolution 4. this is the resolution that would rescind the deadline for for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. this is an issue that i've been working on for a long time, including during my time in the maryland general assembly in 1972 when the maryland legislature ratified the equal rights amendment. so this goes back a long time, and it's time to finish the work. i want to thank chairman durbin for his leadership on this issue as chairman of the judiciary committee, the work that he did so that we could reach this moment where we have a chance to take the step that's critically important to remove any ambiguity from the ratification process. i also with aens to thank leader schumer for making this time available so we'll be able to vote on this issue tomorrow. and i particularly want to

acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of senator lisa murkowski, my coleader on this resolution. the two of us have worked together. this should never be a partisan issue. equality should enjoy support, i would hope, from both democrats and republicans. there is no time limit on equality. the 28th amendment to the constitution, the equal rights amendment, has been, was approved by the united states congress in both the house and senate, by a two-thirds vote as required in the constitution, and has been ratified by 38 states. that is three-fourths necessary for the ratification of a constitutional amendment. the sole purpose of senate joint resolution 4 is to remove any ambiguity, to remove the time limit that was included originally in the 1972 act of congress of seven years and previously extended to ten years. madam president, i want to acknowledge the help that i have

received on this through the incredible staff that we all have here in the united states senate. bill van horn, who is my chief counsel, has been working on this issue since my days in the house of representatives, and i thank him for his leadership in bringing all the groups together. helen rogers helped a great deal in this effort, and i just want to acknowledge the work that both of them have done on the equal rights amendment. the e.r.a. simply states equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of sex. that's it. that's exactly what the equal rights amendment to the constitution says. ratification would affirm women's equality in our constitution enshrining the principle of women's equality and explicit prohibition against sex discrimination in our nation's founding dowm. currently the only explicit

guaranteed right in our constitution based upon sex is the 19th amendment, which is the right to vote. existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing systemic sex-based inequality in our society. as the 28th amendment, the e.r.a. would serve as a new tool for congress, for federal agencies and in courts to advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of the lgbtq-plus individuals. enshrining this protection in our constitution also ensures enduring protection for all americans across the country. existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing the systemic sex-based inequality in our society. it's also a signal to the courts that they should apply a more

rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that discriminate on the basis of sex. that is what the e.r.a. is all about -- equality, the most fundamental of american values. we need to finally get the job done. last congress a bipartisan majority of the senate cosponsored this joint resolution, and the house of representatives has already passed this legislation on two occasions. first in the 116th congress and then in the 117th congress. virginia became the 38th and final state required by the constitution to ratify the equal rights amendment on january 27, 2020. our resolution, senate joint resolution 4 would clarify once and for all that the equal rights amendment has met all the requirements of article 5 of our constitution. let me read what it says. that notwithstanding any time limit contained in h.j.r. 208,

92nd congress as agreed to in the senate on march 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed in states in that joint resolution is valid to all intents and purposes as part of the constitution having been ratified by the leches of three -- by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states. congress has the power to do it. congress approved it by more than the required two-thirds majority in both chambers and three-quarters of the states have now ratified it. article 5 of the constitution has been complied with. you're going to hear legal arguments surrounding whether senate joint resolution can remove a deadline, so let me talk about some of these issues. first in the constitution, mr. president, there is nothing in the constitution that sets a time limit on ratification.

read article 5. it talks about the votes necessary in congress. we've had that. and the votes of ratification by the states. we've done that. there is no time limit in the constitution. the 27th amendment affecting congressional pay raise was ratified after two centuries after being initially proposed by congress as part of the bill of rights in 1791. two centuries before, over 200 years before it was ratified. congress has the authority to act. there's precedent for this. congress extended the deadline for the ratification of amendment as it did once before for the e.r.a. note that the e.r.a. deadline was contained in the preamble to the text of the constitutional amendment, not in the constitutional amendment itself. there is precedent for congress to declare that the requisite number of states have ratified a constitutional amendment. that's -- as the house and senate did in 1992 by

resolutions affirming the validity of the 27th amendment regarding congressional pay raise. that's the one that took over 200 years to ratify. in terms of article 5, the only question is whether a state has ratified. ratification is something that happens at a moment in time. it either happens or it doesn't happen. history tells us that once a state has ratified, it can't take it back. the 14th amendment became part of the constitution after the civil war even though two states had attempted to rescind prior to ratification. those states were included on the list of states that ratified. the effectiveness of rescission is ultimately a question for congress. senate joint resolution 4 answers that question. and then the most recent opinion by the department of justice, the opinion by the office of legal counsel noted that congress as a coequal branchl of government is not precluded from

taking further action regarding the ratification of e.r.a. so we have all the legal requirements. we can act. now let me add a few more things here. most americans believe e.r.a. is already part of our constitution. just ask them. they think it's there. most of our states have provokee state constitutions to provide equal rights based upon sex. so we already have it in states, and it's working. most democracies, in fact every constitution that's been written since world war ii contains an equal rights amendment. the united states is an outlier on this issue. it's in the -- we're the leader of democratic values in human rights globally but we don't have an equal rights amendment in our constitution. the pew research center did a survey on this.

78% of americans support the equal rights amendment being added to the constitution. this is overwhelmingly popular among all of our constituents, democrats, republicans, independents, men, women. 250 national local groups support the e.r.a. including the league of women voters, the national urban league, the national council of jewish women, seiu, and many, many, many other civil rights, labor, and civic groups. this resolution language removes any doubt of ratification, and it is the right way to go under our constitution. we have the advice of constitutional scholars that support what we are doing. irwin letrinsky, katherine mc mckinnon, victoria norse, former senator russ feingold all have endorsed the way that we are proceeding.

the e.r.a. is needed not only to keep progress going moving but also to protect against incursions on the progress we've already made. based on recent additions by the supreme court, some justices ascribe to the view that the meaning of equality under the equal protection clause should be pros -- frozen in time in 1868, when the 14th amendment was ratified. that approach may cast in doubt even the limited precedent holding the equal protection clause applies to sex discrimination. it's been more than 100 years since women won the right to vote and nearly 100 since the effort to enshrine the e.r.a. into the constitution began. generations have fought to achieve major points of progress in our laws in our society since then, however it's undeniable that work remains. finally, enshrining the e.r.a. into the constitution would be one major step that we could take towards a society that is truly equal on the basis of sex. i therefore urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to

invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to senate joint resolution 4, the women of america have waited long enough. don't filibuster equality. you don't want to be on that side of history. there should be no time limit on equality. let us use this opportunity to complete the being of equality -- complete the action of equality based on sex in our constitution. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president,. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 121. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, michael farbiarz to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. mr. schumer: i send a motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 121, michael farbiarz of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey, signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it and the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 122. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye, all opposed say no, the ayes appear to have it. the motion disagreed -- is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, robert kirsch of new

jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 122, robert kirsch of new jersey, to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey, signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 123. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, orelia eleta merchant of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york

mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 123, orelia eleta merchant of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york, signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it and the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: finally i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today april 26 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 175. the clerk: recognizing the importance of the 70th anniversary of the signing of the mutual defense treaty between the united states and the republic of korea on october

1, 1953. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be greamed to, the preamble agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: tomorrow it will be a great honor of the house and senate to welcome president yoon of the republic of korea to the it capitol. ahead of the visiting, we will welcome him through a bipartisan resolution reaffirming the strong support that exists for the u.s.-korean relationship. 70 years of this partnership have made both our nations safer, more prosperous and more intertwined than ever. today, millions of americans know and love korean music, korean cinema, food, and k pop goes viefl, and for many americans, their favorite movies are not in english, butane.

this embodies what the american dream has always been about, coming to our country, building something of yourself, building strong families to enrich our communities and make our makes more prosperous. new york is proud to have one of the largest korean communities in the country. i've been proud to fight for them in the senate. they're a wonderful addition to new york. the more koreans there are in new york, the better we're going to be. make no mistake, the u.s. and republic of korea need each other more than ever as we compete with china, the republic of korea is among our closest partners. as we confront a belligerent north korea, we must work with the republic of korea for our mutual safety. applaud president yoon for beginning to revitalize his relationship with jane. working together we make -- with japan. working together, we make good prosperity in the indo indo-. i thank my colleagues for working with us on this resolution. we thank president yoon for

coming to the capitol. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: first, i thank my colleague, senator cartin, and senator murkowski, for -- senator cardin and senator murkowski for bringing joints are lusion 4 we -- joint resolution we will vote on tomorrow. we need this more than ever. what we see is the far right using every opportunity to roll back women's rights. we see this in real time with access to abortion care. we know it won't stop there. it's shameful in 2023 there are so many extremists who want to make women second-class citizens. that's why we need a disiewnl amendment to protect -- a constitutional amendment to protect women and guarantee their equality under the law. few states understand this better than my home state of nevada. nevada put the equal rights amendment back on the table when

it became the first state in the modern era to ratify the e.r.a. in 2017. nevadans stood up and played it clear our state believes men amendment women should have -- men and women should have equal legal rights. this he didn't stop there. in 2022, nevada adopted the most comprehensive e.r.a. in the country in its state constitution, putting protections in place to ensure equal rights for all. over and over again, nevadans have led the charge for equality and women's rights at both the state and the federal level. since nevada kicked off the push in recent years to ratify the e.r.a. federally, we have the 38 states we need to codify the equal rights acted in the -- equal rights amendment in the united states constitution. the only thing stopping us is the deadline congress made up in 1972. that was already extended once.

that's why we must vote to reprove this deadline and adopt the equal rights amendment into our constitution, because, quite honestly, mr. president, there's too much at stake. to let an arbitrary time limit hold women's rights hostage is just wrong. so with that, along with my colleagues here this afternoon, i too urge the adoption tomorrow of senate joint resolution, bipartisan joint resolution 4. thank you, and i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i'm so proud to be here with my colleagues today, and senator cortez masto with our leaders, senators cardin, murkowski, in a bipartisan resolution. frankly, it's long overdue. there's a sign you often see at rallies for reproductive rights. women my age or older will often

be holding it. it reads something like this -- i can't believe we're still fighting for this crap. now, it usually has a different word on it than crap. as i stand here on the senate floor in the year of our lord 2023, i can't believe we are still fighting for equal rights for women under our american constitution. we are 100 years out from when the equal rights amendment was first introduced in 1923, a full century, a hundred years since it was first introduced. and a lot of things have changed since 1923, for sure. women are ceo's and astronauts, professional athletes and chemistry professors and governors and vice president of the united states. a quarter of the members of this chamber are women -- not nearly

enough, but we're getting there. yet, still 100 years later women are not guaranteed equal legal protections it, equal legal rights under our constitution. that needed to change in 1923. that certainly needs to change a hundred years later, in 2023. michigan was ready for change back in 1972. that's when my state ratified the e.r.a. a congresswoman from michigan helped lead the way. congresswoman martha griffiths of detroit was the first woman in history to serve on the house ways and means committee. in 1970, she filed a discharge petition to send the legislation to the full house of representatives for consideration.

it passed, only to die in the senate. we've heard that story before. but representative griff gris undaunted. she introduced an amended version, the house and the senate both passed it, and it was sent to the states for ratification. in 1972. congresswoman griffiths later served as michigan's first elected lieutenant governor and became known as the mother of the e.r.a. congresswoman griffiths sadly didn't live to see her amendment written into the constitution, but there is no doubt we need it today even more than we did in 1972. women in this country are watching our reproductive freedoms be dismanlted -- dismantled. the dobbs decision attempts to

ban the abortion pill, and harsh abortion restrictions in states have left women in this country winning fewer freedoms than our mothers and even our grandmothers enjoyed. the e.r.a. is really simple. it simply says equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. that's it. and this resolution is equally simple, the one before us. all it would do is to remove an arbitrary deadline that was included when this was passed the congress preventing the

e.r.a. from being ratified. the e.r.a. is simple, but it's -- but its protections would be profound. it would protect all people, regardless of sex, from discrimination. it would defend against the rollback of our fundamental rights and freedoms. congresswoman martha griffiths from michigan passed it. the states ratified it. now we just need to add it to our constitution. our daughters and our granddaughters can't wait another 100 years. they deserve equality now. so, i hope colleagues will join with us to pass this resolution and finally ensure all people are equal under our law.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i want to thank senator stabenow for her leadership in the senate and in our community on these issues. i serve with her and senator courtest-masto on the committee, and i see the duo fighting for the discrimination in our health care system, that women are discriminated against. both senators do a great job being here, protecting the rights. but it's so important that we have in our toolbox the constitutional amendment to help us in fighting discrimination so that we have a fair playing field in the courts to protect the rights of women. i thank her. we're also joined by senator klobuchar. she's been -- we were elected at the same time to the united states senate. she's been an advocate on behalf

of equality for all communities, but particularly here, her efforts on behalf of women are known throughout the nation. i'm glad she could join us today. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise to join senator cardin, thank, him for his leadership, for so many years, as well as senator murkowski, and to my colleague, senator stabenow, in support of this bipartisan resolution to remove the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment so we can finally enshrine equal rights for women into our constitution. what are people afraid of? minnesota ratified the e.r.a. 50 years ago. since then, women and men who stand with them have never rested in the fight to guarantee equality in the constitution of the united states of america. after a half century of overcoming seemingly

insurmountable obstacles, that long-fought battle for equality must not come down to an arbitrary deadline. passing the resolution brings us one step closer to ratifying the e.r.a. and finally enshrining permanent protections for women and girls in our constitution. the equal rights amendment would make clear once and for all that women are guaranteed equal rights under the united states constitution. the core of the amendment is only 24 words long, guaranteeing that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. in 1972, the amendment passed both houses of congress with bipartisan support. the senate voted to send the amendment to the states by a vote of 84-28, with seven not voting, and the house passed it 354-24.

congress initially set a seven-year deadline for the required 3/4 of states to ratify the amendment and it later extended that by three years. by the time that deadline expired, only 35 states had ratified, leaving the amendment three states short of the 38 needed. but the deadline did not stop the growing support for the e.r.a. and women's equality. since then, three additional states have voted to ratify the e.r.a., including nevada, illinois, and virginia. it is long past time that the equality of women be enshrined in the constitution. i have been proud to join a bipartisan group of senators in cosponsoring this resolution. this resolution is part of a long tradition of bipartisan support for the e.r.a. the past year has made it painfully clear that protecting equality remains fundamental to the lives of each and every american.

as my colleagues have noted, the women of this country still face a gender pay gap that leaves them economically behind. women still earn around 82 cents of every collar a man makes -- every dollar a man makes, and for women of color it's even less. ten months ago we saw the supreme court issue a rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. now women are at a patchwork of state law governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and grandmas. every branch of government has a responsibility to protect people's rights, and if one branch fails to do so the constitution gives congress and the people the power to step in by proposing and ratifying a new amendment. ratifying the e.r.a. would affirm that sex discrimination is inconsistent with the

nation's core value of equal protection under the law. we know that the majority of americans on our side, 78% of americans according to pew research center, support the e.r.a. being added to the constitution. 78% of american. we know this proposal is common sense. this year marks the 101st anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote, a critical milestone in our democracy. at this moment in our country's history, i am as committed as ever to fighting to ensure that all americans are guaranteed equality under the law. let's show the world that the united states of america is a place where equality is the law of the land. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i thank my colleague from

minnesota, and i especially thank my colleague from maryland, -- the senator from maryland has been working on this issue for a long time and, ben, thank you for your leadership, and lisa murkowski, making it a bipartisan effort. i've got a good speech here, but i want to tell you a story. and the story goes back to my graduation from law school and the first job i ever had. i was working for the lieutenant governor for the state of illinois, paul simon. simon, as governor of illinois, presided over the illinois state senate. we met one another and he said he would offer me a job when i graduated law school and lo and behold hold, i was the part. pearmt -- parliamentarian of the

state senate. simon thought there was a course in law school called parliamentary law. there wasn't. i had to learn it by reading the rule book over and over again. eventually i was good at it and i needed to be because there was a big debate in springfield, illinois, in the early 1970's, about something called the equal rights amendment. it was different than the debate in many state capitols because there was a real identification. some republicans supported it, many democrats supported it, but there was opposition on both parties too. what fired up the troops on this particular debate was the presence of a woman from alton, illinois, named phyllis shafley. i remember what she tiewfd to say, if you pass -- used to say,

if you pass the equal rights amendment, men and women will use the same bathrooms and not only that women will be forced to combat in the military. they'll be drafted and have to fight in the military. and i look back and think, is that it? is that what equality for women in america came down to those two issues. i walked into a school i was visiting and they are a single member rest room and i thought her dream came true, we are sharing the same rest room in some places and when it comes to the military, many women have fought for the right to do so and served honorably. but those are the arguments and the differences in the day which led to not ratifying the equal rights amendment in the 1970's. that didn't happen until recently. we had a hearing on this in the

senate judiciary committee, and i listened to the critics of the equal rights amendment today. i didn't hear anything about same-sex restrooms and nothing about combat in the military, but one lady raised the prospect if we pass the equal rights amendment, it would ruin her daughter's field hockey team in high school because there may be some transgender individuals who might want to play on her team. i thought it comes down to that. it's no longer rest rooms or combat. when i reflect on the reality of what this amendment does, it seems those things pale in comparison. the language of it is so express and so clear that most people in the united states really would be surprised to know it's not already in the constitution. no discrimination against people on the basis of sex. most people assume that's the

fact, but it's not. we have to do something about it. tonight we're seeing the senate at its best. a bipartisan effort on the floor of the united states senate to finally make this right by america. the equal rights amendment is literally a century in the making and over the years generations of americans have done their part to push it forward. they've marched on washington, they've met with congressmen and senators, and as of 2020, they crossed a crucial threshold, the exact number of states to ratify it. now it's time for lawmakers in congress to do our part in supporting the e.r.a. we need clear a path to equality. this bipartisan proposal from senator ben cardin of maryland and senator lisa murkowski of alaska is a chance to do it. it will remove the arbitrary

deadline on the e.r.a. more than 50 years ago and it has never been more important. as we learned over the past year, there's no room for uncertainty when it comes to protecting equal rights. right now women all across the america are living with the reality that their fundamental health is under attack. thousands have been robbed of their reproductive rights. activist judges and far-right politicians have replaced the will of the people and the expertise of medical professionals with their own radical beliefs. women in states like texas, oklahoma, and most recently florida and north dakota have fewer rights today than their parents and grandparents did decades ago many all of this chaos and confusion is jeopardying the lives of women and upending our health care system. we had another hearing today. there was testimony in that hearing by a young lady from texas who went through an awful

ordeal at the end of a pregnancy, one that she wanted desperately. it would have been her first child, willow would have been her name, and later in the pregnancy, complications arose and willow couldn't be born and her mother almost died. i'm going to remember that testimony for a long time. without e.r.a. protections, even basic rights are on the chopping block. protections against discrimination in the workplace, classroom and courtroom. unless women's rights are protected, there's nothing stopping the right-wing majority on the court from ripping them away. that's why congress must restore and protect women's rights in all facets of life. we must do it this week to clearly define it in the constitution. i had a hearing in the senate judiciary committee several weeks ago.

we heard from a young woman named thursday williams. first generation american. board member of the e.r.a. coalition, senior at trinity college in hartford, connecticut. she plans to attend law school. she says she developed a passion for the law when she fell in love with the united states constitution in high school. in her words, and i quote her, what i love the most about the constitution is how brilliantly it was designed to adapt to the changing needs of its people and today we deserve a constitution that guarantees equality regardless of sex, a constitution that we can use as a tool to fight discrimination. that was her testimony. ms. williams concluded by asking members of the committee a question. it's a question i would like to now ask every member of the senate. how can we be the beacon of freedom and democracy we claim to be if we do not declare that sex discrimination contradicts the american dream?

that was thursday williams' question to the senate judiciary committee. ds my question to the -- it's my question to the senate on her behalf. if we want to live up to the promise of america, we need to protect the rights of every american. let's start with the e.r.a. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: first i want to thank senator durbin, the chairman of the judiciary committee, for his leadership on this issue, but just as importantly his leadership on so many human rights and civil rights issues. thank you for the hearing you conducted in the judiciary committee. it shed light on a lot of the ridiculous arguments some have made against the ratification of the equal rights amendment. but more importantly it showed why it's important for us to remove any ambiguity on the ratification of the equal rights amendment. but i also want to just acknowledge your extraordinary leadership around the world. when there's a human rights

struggle, senator durbin is going to be the spokesperson for those otherwise who would not be heard, and i joined him many times in those efforts. i'm proud to be on his team and i thank him for really giving us the leadership here in the united states senate, the best values of america, here at home and abroad. i thank him for his leadership on issue and so many other issues. mr. president, we're joined by a couple of my other colleagues. first, senator blumenthal, from connecticut, and i want to acknowledge senate van hollen from maryland. both are leaders on equal rights amendment for women and both on civil liberties and rights. both are good friends. one i had the honor of representing the state of maryland in the house and the other we have been together on the helsinki commission fighting globally for human rights.

i thank them both for being on the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm so honored by that introduction and to be here on the floor with a great colleague, a champion in the house as well as now in the senate, chris van hollen of maryland, and i thank the senior senator -- we're both senior senators from our respective states -- from maryland for yielding first to me, and more important, i want to thank him for his leadership on human rights and civil rights here in the united states. he has been such a powerful advocate, but also around the world through the helsinki commission. i've had the great privilege of working with him and serving with him on that commission where he has put front and center the crimes against

humanity committed in ukraine, as well as other parts of the world where the rule of law, unfortunately, is lacking, and so i am very, very proud to be with him on the floor today. like my colleague, senator durbin, who has been rightly lauded by senator cardin for his work on rights, i rise to ask this body and all who are hearing this message to commit to making the equal rights amendment the law of our land, a part of the constitution. outside of the right to vote, the constitution has no mention of gender equality. it was enshrined, the right to vote, just over a century ago by the 19th amendment, pu the united states -- but the united states constitution does not seclude an -- exclude an

explicit provision on equal rights for women, and that is a sad omission that cannot be allowed to stand. we must fix it. the e.r.a., as you know, was introduced to congress in 1923 by the suffragette leader, alice paul, that after securing the right to vote, women needed equal rights. the e.r.a. was passed by congress and in 2020, virginia was the final state required by the constitution to ratify it. in january of 2022, we passed the two-year waiting period. president biden has supported making it the law of the land. we should heed president biden and this body in doing so and recognizing the importance of a

resolution ratifying the e.r.a. now, the hard blunt truth is -- truth here is that significant progress in sex equality has been made thanks to a generation of advocates, actually several generations, but women and girls still face horrendous life-changing barriers and challenges derived by sex discrimination every day, and i became more aware of it as a dad to a young woman listening to her, seeing the world through her eyes as well as my wife cynthia, both of them strong advocates, and thankfully my three sons as well. who are ard -- who are champions of gender equality. gender equality hardly budged.

women now earning 84 cents for every dollar a man earns. that's a statistic from the department of labor and it is even more for women of color, latinos and native american women earn 67 cents. we should be ashamed and embarrassed. ashamed and embarrassed. the e.r.a. is a critical step toward ensuring equality and protecting women's fundamental rights, including the right to abortion and conception. the supreme court overturned five decades of precedent, eliminated the constitutional right to abortion in dobbs saying roe was wrong, a decision that will go down in infamy as one of the most destructive to the court's credibility, as i

mentioned today, a tribute to the disingenuous of three nominees before this body, the three most recent nomes who said they would -- nominees who said they would respect precedent and then voted to completely overturn dobbs within a couple of years. about one in three girls and women in the united states of reproductive age are living in states where abortion is either unavailable or severely restricted. and the adverse consequences of women, for women's health are already clearly visible. amanda zurowsky testified before the judiciary committee about how she nearly died, nearly perished from sepsis because of texas' cruel, barbarous prohibitions against women's health care through abortion. without the freedom to control their own lives, bodies, and

futures, true meaning of equality will remain illusive and out of reach. as justice ginsburg put it, full and equal citizenship, quote, is intimately connected to a person's ability to control their reproductive lives. end quote. e.r.a. would also provide additional tools against violence committed all too often against women. gender-based violence is a form of sex discrimination as well as a violation of human rights. 35% of all women who are killed by men are a result of violence from intimate partners with guns. one in three women have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. one in five women in the united states have been raped. you can dispute the specific

numbers, but the overwhelming truth of sex discrimination in violence, in denial of health care, in job inequality, in pay discrimination is there for all to see. we all know it exists. we must act against it, and that is why i'm proud to stand here with my colleagues and argue that ratification is an idea long overdue. it's not an idea whose time has come. it came long ago. and we have an obligation to act as a matter of conscience and conviction. if we care about women in the united states of america in the 21st century, we need to bring the law into the 21st century and do what should have been done long ago to protect women's health and security as well as fundamental equality. let me just close with a favorite quote of mine from

susan anthony. and she stated, the true republic mend their rights and nothing more. women their rights and nothing less. sex equality deserves a permanent home in the constitution. the time to make it happen is now. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president, let me thank my colleague from connecticut for his words in support of the equal rights amendment and for his fight for justice. and let me also thank my colleague, my maryland partner and friend, senator cardin, for teaming up with senator murkowski to push for passage of

this legislation year after year. it's long overdue that we take this up and that we pass it in the united states senate. if you look at our history during the darkest of times and against the longest of odds, americans from all backgrounds have stood together to insist that america live up to its promise. the promise of equality, the promise of equal rights for all. in fact, if you think about the story of america, it really is the story of the struggle to make good on that fundamental promise, to ensure that every individual receives equal dignity. we talk about how we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that's true. they're not more rights for men. not supposed to be more rights

for any particular group. it's supposed to be about equal dignity. and equal dignity should include equal treatment under the law. now, in their fight for voting rights, our nation's suffragettes faced unjust arrest. they faced persecution. they faced resistance from a nation that was not yet willing to fulfill that full promise when it came to voting rights. and despite it all through protests, through demands, through arrests, the suffragettes prevailed and made sure that we passed the 19 rgt amendment -- 19th amendment, at least fulfilling the right to vote for women. but we have a lot of unfinished business. it's not just all men who are created equal. it's all people who are created equal. we have accomplished that when it comes to the ballot box,

although as we in this body know, we also have a long way to go to make sure that that is made real in practice on the ground. that's why we've been fighting to pass voting rights legislation. but we also need to make sure that when it comes to women's rights, we enshrine it in the highest law of the land. in order to give the rhetoric legal teeth and legal backing. alice paul who really is the founder of the movement for the equal rights amendment knew that a century ago when she said, and i quote, i never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. most reforms, most problems are complicated, but to me, she said, there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality. and there is great truth in the

simplicity of that statement. and that's what the equal rights is all about. it's not a lot of words but they're the likely chosen words. quote, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. end quote. that's it. a simple statement but a powerful statement because it's a true statement if we really want to live up to our full promise. and that's why the overwhelming majority of the american people support it. 75% of our fellow americans support the e.r.a. 38 states have ratified it enough to make our e.r.a. an amendment. despite this broad support, the ratification and the rat caix of the necessary number of states we have not yet made that part

of our constitution. and the results are painfully clear every day. my colleagues have talked about some of them. the persistent pay gap which disadvantages not only women but also the families that they support. recent rulings by supreme court on reproductive rights have shown that the lack of an explicit protection against gender discrimination put women's fundamental rights at risk and on the chopping block. so this is the moment to finally get this done. i again want to thank senator cardin, senator murkowski for their efforts to move forward on this. i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. and as i close, i do want to say a few words about my friend and colleague from maryland's long-term fight for this. and applaud him for over a decade of working to make sure that we get the e.r.a. across

the finish line. it's been one very important aspect, in fact the cornerstone of many of his efforts here in the united states, but it's a reflection of his fight for civil rights, for women's rights, for racial rights, and for human rights around the world. and i want to thank him for his persistence on this and so many issues that call upon us to be what we say we are as americans, people who believe in the equal dignity of every individual and the rights of every individual. so i want to thank my colleague. i want to thank him for teaming up with senator murkowski from alaska and thank her for her efforts. i said at the beginning that we have been defined as an american story by our struggle to make good on that original promise,

the idea of equal rights. many people have tried to interpret it different ways but i think we all understand at the end of the day the north star is equal rights means equal rights for everybody, not just equal rights for some people over here because that's not equal rights. and that's simple as what brings us here to the floor, and i want to thank my colleague again from maryland for keeping this fight going. i really hope my republican colleagues will take this moment despite what we expect to enshrine that simple proposition into the constitution of the united states. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm glad today to stand with my colleagues to support senate joint resolution 4 affirming the

validity of the equal rights amendment. we have heard from senator cardin and senator murkowski why it is so important for congress to pass this resolution and enshrine protections against sex-based discrimination in our constitution. the e.r.a. would bolster efforts to ensure equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protections for lgbtq individuals. although we have indeed made strides in each of these areas, we know how fragile these gains can be without the durability of a constitutional amendment. take, for example, the current supreme court's approach to the constitution. as the dobbs decision makes clear, a majority of the current court believes that the meaning

of equality under the equal protection clause was frozen in 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. well, in the hundred years after 1868, the supreme court has adopted and permitted all sorts of state laws that excluded women from jury service, that excluded women from admission to the bar as lawyers, that excluded women even from employment as bartenders and allowed all of those laws under the 14th amendment. this business now of the supreme court looking back at historic -- history and tradition is a backward look to bad history and regrettable tradition. so with this supreme court it is particularly important that we not rely on its interpretation

of the 14th amendment alone to guarantee equal rights. congress needs to stand up and act, and we have the power to do so. congress has broad authority over the amendment process. if congress has the power to impose a time limit, congress has the power to extend or remove that time limit. i join my colleagues to urge swift passage of this resolution. as one witness at the senate judiciary committee hearing on the e.r.a. eloquently put it, gender equality is not a zero sum game. we are all uplifted when everyone's rights are protected. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i want to thank senator whitehouse for his leadership on the equal rights amendment, but he is our leader on protecting our democratic institutions, which include equality for all.

senator white house -- whitehouse's leadership in protecting the election process and protecting us against dark money and an independent judiciary will go down in history as one of the great contributions made. and i thank him for his help in regards to the equal rights amendment, and i thank him for his leadership on so many issues here in the united states senate. mr. president, let me just conclude this part of our discussion. we'll have a chance tomorrow to vote on this. what we're asking is very simple. simple, to remove the time limb. we've done everything necessary for the ratification. this a precious document, the constitution of the united states. most americans believe the equal rights amendment is in this document. it's not. the cobs againsts are that we're not protecting women's rights, discrimination against sex in the manner we should be protecting it. now, the vote tomorrow is going to be on a cloture motion.

you see, mr. president, the majority of the members of the senate support the resolution that senator murkowski and i are bringing forward, and the way the minority can stop it is by denying us an opportunity to vote up or down on the resolution. this is matter of rights. i would hope that my colleagues would support the resolution to at least allow the majority of this body to make the decision on this resolution. i hope my colleagues will vote for the cloture motion so that we can have a vote on the floor of the united states senate on this resolution, which will once and for all make clear equal rights is part of the american constitution, part of our commitment to future generations. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm back now nor the 288th time with my trustied, battered, time to wake up poster, to call attention to the climate crisis. over the ten-plus years that i

have been doing these speeches, i've shown how climate change affects our ecosystems, industries, economy, public health, kids, workers, our elderly. i've even conducted a science experiment right here on the senate floor, to the dismay of the senate staff. one near constant in these speeches has been the oily, often covert hand of the fossil fuel industry lurking behind the opposition to climate action through its campaign of climate denial, delay, and obstruction. from the late 1980's, when congress first became aware of climate change, through the period after 2010 citizens united decision, when special interests could anonymously pour unlimited money into elections, the fossil fuel industry has blocked every serious climate bill in congress, until the inflation reduction act.

key to this obstruction was the strategic insight that they only needed to capture one political party to strangle legislative action. so the fossil fuel industry captured the republican ry and has prevented climate action for over three decades, except when we were able to use the extraordinary process of reconciliation. that was just last year. democrats had control of the house and senate and passed the inflation reduction act via budget reconciliation. congress finally acted on climate. there's lots more that congress still needs to do on climate, but the ira was a big, meaningful bill that powered up tax incentives for clean energy and put a price on oil and gas methane emissions. in the ten-plus years i've been documenting the fossil fuel industry's hold over the republican party, i provided lots of concrete examples, from

election spending to phony front groups by the flotilla to polluter lackeys installed at the trump epa. but nothing stops the debt limit proposal speaker mccarthy released last week, the default on america act, which the house just passed. maga house republicans like to claim to care about debt and deficits, except of course in 2017 when they passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations that added trillions to the debt. and except when the debt increased by more than $7 trillion under president trump. they are a fountain of fiscal hypocrisy. so no surprise that the mccarthy package has little to do with reducing debt and deficits and everything to do with providing goodies to big

republican donors, in particular the fossil fuel industry. before i get into all the oily corrupt deals for big polluters, a few words about the rest of the proposal. mccarthy calling this monstrosity the limit save grow act would make george orwell blush. in reality, mccarthy's plan would result in unlimited carbon pollution, massive losses to the federal government, and americans families and businesses, and very likely crashes in whole sectors of the economy. some limit save and growth. first, it would rescind the extra funding we provided to the irs to go after wealthy tax cheats. this would add $120 billion to the deficit. for them, limit save and grow means limit irs enforcement, save their big donors money

paying their taxes, and grow their own campaign contributions. federal programs would face indiscriminate cuts of up to 33%, across research, housing, science, addiction treatment did national parks, transportation, law enforcement, border security, drug enforcement, and criminal prosecutions. if you want to defund the police, speaker mccarthy's your new poster boy. the public hates all that stuff. so, why pursue stuff that the public hates? why threaten to set off the u.s. default hand grenade to get this done? who wins? creepy billionaires, who hate the federal government and fund kevin mccarthy. chief among them, the fossil fuel industry. for his big fossil fuel donors,

mccarthy delivers four huge giveaways. first, they take away the clean energy tax credits we passed in the ira. second, they let fossil fuel industries leak methane emissions with no pollution fee. third, they prop up dying fossil fuel infrastructure with so-called permitting reform targeted to help only fossil fuel. and fourth, they make it harder to protect against water and air pollution. this oily wish list is not about debt or deficits, and it's not about growing the economy as it risks serious economic downturns. it's about taking care of the industry whose dark money funds their party. look at the clean energy tax credits which mccarthy claims are wasteful spending. it now appears that knows tax credits will incentivize more investment than expected. so, what's mccarthy's

argument? there will be too much investment? seriously? already, in less than a year, the ira's clean energy tax credit encouraged over 100 projects that will create north of 100,000 jobs. with times, the ira could easily create over a million jobs. high-paying manufacturing jobs, the kind we should want. many projects are in districts in the south and midwest, represented by republicans. indeed, many house republicans have cheered the very ira catalyzed projects they are now trying to torpedo. seriously. back home, they celebrate the jobs for their constituents. here in d.c., they vote to eliminate the very tax credits that created them. all to serve fossil fuel

polluters. here are some of my favorite house republican quotes celebrating ira catalyzed investments in republican home districts. this is the largest very much in the state of georgia's history, one said, one that will diversify and expand our economy while providing strong job opportunities for georgians today and for generations to come. and then a no vote against the ira. i'm thrilled that honda has once again committed to ohio and our workers with today's announcement of a $3.5 billion investment in e.v. production and a new battery plant within ohio's 15th congressional district. i look forward to working honda and l.g. energy solution to bring 2200 new jobs to the buckeye state. and then voted to wipe out the program. it i am thrilled to welcome entek to terre haute and to the

hoosier state. as the only american company to own and produce wet-process lithium ion battery separator materials, entek will help to pave the way in indiana and reduce american manufacturers' reliance on imported products. their operation in terre haute will create hundreds of new jobs. and then voted to strip out the tax credits behind that. i am honored to stand with other state and federal leaders during this groundbreaking event as the first solar energy microgrid-powered industrial site project is unveiled in jackson county. i know this important project will stimulate economic growth that will create new jobs in west virginia. and then voted against the tax credits.

where are the common themes here? well, clean energy investments grow the economy and create jobs. these investments will help america compete against imports from overseas. usually republicans can't stop talking about how we need to reduce our dependence on chinese imports and build up our own manufacturing industry. until their fossil fuel overlords tell them otherwise. then they vote against the credits that encourage domestic manufacturing of the clean energy technologies that will dominate the economy of tomorrow. what a terrible bet. republicans can't beat china with the energy and technologies of the last century. no amount of fossil fuel funded obstruction here at home is going to stop the clean energy revolution happening in the rest of the world. in europe last year more than 12% of cars sold were fully

electric, up from 2,000% in 2019. they are investing in solar and hydrogen particularly after the war in ukraine showed how dangerous dependence on fossil fuels can be. in china 22% of goals were fully electric. china is by far the largest installer of wind and solar power with ambitions to dominate the clean energy technologies of tomorrow. in most places renewable energy is now the cheapest form of energy, far cheaper than fossil fuel. so the rest of the world is going all in on wind, solar, batteries, green hydrogen and other clean technologies for the low-cost energy. and that too savings doesn't even count the trillions of

dollars of value from avoiding the costs and harms of fossil fuel pollution. the future is clean tech, and there are fortunes to be made. many of these clean-energy technologies were developed right here by our scientists and engineers at our companies and national labs. but the fossil fuel industry wants america to lose our technological leadership and all the business opportunities that flow from it. remember, limit, save, grow? if you want that for real, limit pollution. save clean-energy jobs, and grow the economy. the fossil fuel industry behind this is the most subsidized industry on the planet. it lives off public money and political influence. it gets to pollute for free. just today in the budget committee, we heard testimony

that fossil fuel combustion by warm rg the planet and -- warming the planet and polluting the air costs america over $800 billion per year in health costs. the international monetary fund puts the effective subsidy in the u.s. for fossil fuels at almost $700 billion per year. if fossil fuel funded republicans want to talk about picking winners and losers, which it on. the -- if fossil fuel funded republicans want to talk about free markets, bring it on. market economics 101 teaches that the cost of your pollution should be in the price of your product. but fossil fuel funded republicans protect free polluting for fossil fuel. it's not just costs that fossil

fuels impose on the rest of us, it's risks, economic risks associated with climate change. central bankers, economists, insurance ceo's, financial experts, and other witnesses, serious grownups whose judgments are fish -- are fiduciary have come to the budget committee to warn of systemic risks to the economy, including a collapse in coastal properties and a carbon bubble. systemic risks sounds pretty mild. it's not. it's when catastrophes spreads from one troubled sector across the entire economy. much as the 2008 meltdown in the mortgage market spread across the country to become the financial crisis and great recession. , which, by the way, resulted in

additional $5 trillion in government debt. disaster avoidance is debt reduction. the stakes are huge. the consulting firm deloitte estimates that the global costs of doing nothing on climate is around $180 trillion in economic damage. $180 trillion, but they go on to say if we act responsibly and limit warming to 1.5-degrees celsius, we can save ourselves from that and actually grow the global economy by $40 trillion. so you want limit, save, and grow? in this case, if you do it right by limiting pollution and saving clean energy jobs and growing the economy, the swing is

$220 trillion between a bad climate outcome and a responsible climate outcome. but the corrupt fossil fuel industry says jump and kevin mccarthy and maga republicans say, how high? here's a high how. they eliminate the fee on wasteful methane emissions that i worked to include in the ira. it will raise $6 billion against the deficit an save even more from -- and save even more from air damage. it was all about delivering for the fossil fuel overlords, so out goes the methane program. methane traps 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide, at least in the short run, and it creates air pollution that sickens people across the country. this is a satellite image of a

methane plume. you can actually detect methane plumes from space now, which is why charging a fee for polluting makes so much sense because you can find the polluter quite easily. this one is being released from around oil well. now, the operator of this oil well could capture this methane and sell it. it's natural gas. but instead oil companies like this just release it, pure waste, pure pollution. putting a price on methane emissions will dramatically reduce this pollution and raise budget balancing revenues. but mccarthy doesn't care. the industry funds his caucus, so out goes the budget-balancing pollution methane fee. now in the parade of horribles

is a permitting reform stuffed with giveaways to, you guessed it, the fossil fuel industry. what the hell permitting reform have to do with the debt limit, you ask? good question. does building in more fossil fuel even make sense? the world is moving off fossil fuel. peak oil will occur and demand will begin to decline. once demand begins to decline, the oil cartel will collapse in a rush for the exits, causing serious economic turbulence as fossil fuel assets are stranded, particularly in high-production cost countries like the united states of america. this is the global production cost curve for oil. as you can see, persian gulf oil is far cheaper to produce than

u.s. oil. here we are. so when there's a rush for the exits, and instead of cheating the world with cartel pricing, they go to cost-plus pricing, we're out of business in the u.s. fossil fuel industry. and american fossil fuel infrastructure becomes hundreds of billions of dollars worth of useless, stranded assets. but fossil fuel says jump, and house republicans say, how high? last in this fossil fuel wish list is a provision to make it next to impossible for the epa to promulgate regulations limiting air and water pollution. again, deregulating polluters has nothing to do with the debt limit, but the fossil fuel industry wants it so it's in.

in just the last few months we've seen what republican deregulation means for american families and businesses. we saw it in east palestine, ohio, when a train rerailment resulted in a major spill of toxic chemicals, we saw it in northern california when silicon valley bank went belly-up. both of these situations could have been prevented with better regulations, both harmed american families and businesses. protecting americans are air and water pollution with good regulation, always pays because the costs associated with air and water pollution are enormous. but fossil fuel does a lot of air and water pollution so here's another fat giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. if you ever needed proof that the republican party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the

fossil fuel industry, mccarthy's debt limit package is that proof. amazingly almost 280 pages out of a 320-page bill are devoted to fossil fuel industry giveaways. here are 320 pages. 280 of these pages are blue. the remaining 40 are white. so this is a visual image of how much of the default on america built is devoted to making nice for the fossil fuel industry versus everything else. it's like a bunch of delivery boys for the fossil fuel industry over there. this bill isn't about debt and

deficits, it's not about limiting or saving or growing, it's about serving fossil fuel, the source of the money that keeps them in power, period. oil and gas extraction represents only about 5% of our gdp, farming, manufacturing, food and beverage, insurance, finance, restaurants, retail, housing, health care all represent a larger share of gdp. clean energy actually now accounts for more employment than the fossil fuel industry, but for subsidies nothing compares to fossil fuel. so for political influence to protect those massive subsidies, nothing compares to fossil fuel. there's actually a -- a bug, madam president, an insect that

infiltrates another bug and takes over the other bug's nervous system, and from inside the other bug it drives it around. it's kind of a creepy natural development. it happens in the insect world and it looks like it happened on the other side of the building because what the fossil fuel industry has done is to take over the republican party and now just drive it around. so fossil fuel money makes the mccarthy package serve its big oil master. it is a deeply sad and dangerous state of affairs when one of america's two main political parties abandons pretense of responsible governance just to

serve -- to service its prime political benefactor. that is what speaker mccarthy and house republicans are doing. that is this bill. they threaten default, propose terrible cuts, deny climate warnings, and are willing to kneecap the american economy all in service to the fossil fuel industry and its dark money. it's time to fix our democracy so that it functions honestly and this nonsense stops. it is time, madam president, to wake up.

mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the president of the senate be authorized to appoint to the part of the house of representatives to escort his excellencecy, yoon suk yeol, president of the republic of korea into the house chamber for the joint meeting on thursday, april 27, 2023. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced earlier today, senate resolution

176, senate resolution 177, and senate resolution 178. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc. without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on thursday, april 27, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 3, s.j. res. 4, that the

cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 12:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: for the information of the senate, there will be two roll call votes starting at approximately 12:30 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until oday the senate confirmed joshua jacobs to be veterans affairs undersecretaryor benefits. failed to move forward on a bill sdy the effects of medicinal cannabis used by veterans lawmakers pse legislation to rea an epa rule on admission standards for heavy trucks. later this week they will debate the equal rigs amendment and a relution condemning former presidt from skull to the fbi and justice department. as always, why the coverage of senate cspan2.

♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as when the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building a 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the very first president to attend that white house correspondents dinner was calvin coolidge in 19204. i had just been elected to the united states senate. >> the white house correspondents dinner washington's premier black tie event is saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern heard what she spends a live coverage of the washington