Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. H.J. Res. 17 is not a resolution to revive the equal rights amendment; it is a messaging vehicle. That is why Democrats bypassed the Committee on the Judiciary and brought this resolution directly to the floor, a common theme for this majority. There was no process for this resolution, a resolution that Democrats claim is a priority. We are here today for a headline so the Democrats can say they supported the ERA when it was in the House. But the fact is, Madam Speaker, that men and women in the United States are already equal under law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution require as much, guaranteeing equal protection for all under the laws of this country. To me, the ERA is unnecessary, redundant, and divisive. The only thing it will do is empower the far- left special interest groups and lead to activist litigation. Just last year, the head of Planned Parenthood declared: ``There is no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.'' Or according to NARAL Pro-Choice America: ``With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.'' Madam Speaker, we should take them at their word. For years, groups like Planned Parenthood and others have advocated for adoption of the ERA so they can use it to pursue their pro-abortion agendas. If the ERA became law, it would allow these organizations to advance the radical policies through the courts without being in full view of the American people. These groups have hijacked the ERA and are seeking to use it as a tool to challenge States' pro-life laws. But the reality is that this resolution is unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution empowers Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. After Congress proposes an amendment, the amendment is sent to the States for ratification. Three-fourths of the States must ratify the amendment in order for it to become effective. The equal rights amendment was proposed in 1972. The amendment set an explicit deadline. It gave the States 7 years, until 1979, for ratification. Setting a deadline for ratification is part of Congress' authority to determine the mode of ratification under Article V. In 1920, the Supreme Court held in Dillon v. Gloss that there was no doubt that Congress can set a date for ratifying an amendment. The deadline to ratify the ERA has long since passed, and the amendment fell short of the required number of States. When proposing a constitutional amendment, the deadline for ratification is just as important as the substance. The District Court for D.C., less than 2 weeks ago, denied an effort by Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois to force the adoption of the ERA, despite the 1979 deadline. In denying the effort of those States, the courts said that a deadline for ratification still receives the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and putting it in the resolving clause does not evade Article V's procedural requirements in any way. Because setting a deadline takes a two-thirds vote of Congress, it would be absurd to say that changing that deadline requires anything less. If a simple majority of Congress could alter a proposed amendment after it has been sent to the States, the two-thirds requirement of Article V would be meaningless. A partisan majority cannot rewrite a proposed amendment at will after there has been an agreement in Congress. However, that is just what H.J. Res. 17 and the Democrats propose to do. The ERA expired in 1979, and this joint resolution is a legal fiction advanced for political purposes. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I oppose H.J. Res. 17. I believe that the speakers we have had here today on our side have agreed with that and made very, very effective points on why to oppose this resolution. Men and women are already equal under the Constitution. This legislation would make us no more equal. It is merely a vehicle for the far-left's special interest groups to use to enact their pro-abortion agenda. It is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary. And it should not become law. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I reiterate my opposition to H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Democrats filled this legislation with politically charged, highly controversial provisions that dramatically expanded its scope, and erased the bipartisanship that originally passed this bill. Many of those points were pointed out by the speakers on the Republican side, and unfortunately, it does nothing to address the problem of domestic violence, it threatens religious freedom and undermines the legislation's original intent. Resources should be targeted to help women affected by the horrors of domestic abuse and help prevent further abuse. This bill does neither. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).