[Pages H1419-H1432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REMOVING THE DEADLINE FOR THE RATIFICATION OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS
AMENDMENT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 17) removing the deadline for the
ratification of the equal rights amendment, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Beatty). Pursuant to House Resolution
233, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 17

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That
notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint
Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on
March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the
States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents
and purposes as part of the United States Constitution
whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 17.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 17 is long-overdue legislation to ensure
that the equal rights amendment can finally become the 28th Amendment
to the United States Constitution. The House passed identical
legislation last Congress on a bipartisan basis, and I hope it will do
so again today.
Madam Speaker, in 1923, Alice Paul first introduced an amendment to
the Constitution to guarantee full equal protection for women. The text
of the amendment is simple and clear: ``Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of sex.''
That amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the
House and Senate in 1972.
Unfortunately, it fell just short of being ratified by the requisite
number of States before the arbitrary deadline imposed by Congress ran
out in 1982. In the 40 years since, we have made great strides in this
country to ensure equality. Women have secured the right to vote,
protection against workplace discrimination, and through case law
decided under the 14th Amendment, many other critical protections
denied them for too long on the basis of sex.
Without the ERA, millions of women have still had to march in support
of their rights, their healthcare, their reproductive freedom and
abortion access, and their dignity as equal citizens. Through the Me
Too movement, we have had long-overdue, and sometimes painful,
conversations about the violence and harassment that women and others
experience--whether in the workplace, at homes, or in schools and
universities.
But still, to this day, the Constitution does not explicitly
recognize and guarantee that no one can be denied equal protection of
the laws on the basis of sex. The ERA would enshrine those principles
and take the final, critical step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging
women and gender minorities are subject to the most rigorous form of
scrutiny.
Last year, Virginia became the 38th and last necessary State to
ratify the ERA, and, today, in passing H.J. Res. 17, we will be one
step closer to enshrining it into law. This resolution removes a
previous deadline Congress set in the amendment's proposing clause for
ratifying the ERA, and will, therefore, ensure that recent
ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are given full effect.
We are on the brink of making history, and no deadline should stand
in the way. The Constitution itself places no deadlines on the process
for ratifying amendments. Congress, just as clearly, has the authority
to extend or remove any deadlines that it previously chose to set in
the first place.
The recent ruling by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia refusing to recognize the recent State
ratifications makes it even more imperative that Congress act now in
removing this deadline. We must make it absolutely clear that Congress
does not want language put in the proposing clause of a resolution 40
years ago to stand in the way of full equality now.
Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Speier for introducing this
resolution, which takes that important step. This resolution will
ensure, at long last, that the equal rights amendment can take its
rightful place as part of our Nation's Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
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

[[Page H1420]]

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.

{time} 1030

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman errs, the deadline for
ratification is not part of the amendment, it is part of the resolution
proposing the amendment. And if Congress can propose a deadline, it can
revoke that proposal since it is not part of the amendment at all.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, this is a glorious day for women in
America. With the passage of the ERA and the Violence Against Women
Act, we are making great strides forward.
This particular resolution does one thing. We want in the
Constitution, plain and simple.
Antonin Scalia, the great jurist, said once: Does the Constitution
require discrimination based on sex? The answer is no.
But if the question is: Does the Constitution prohibit discrimination
based on sex?
The answer is also no.
That should send a chilling feeling in each of us that in the
Constitution of the United States women are not protected.
In fact, we are the only country with a written Constitution that
does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. Shame on us.
There can be no expiration date on equality. This is a bipartisan
bill. We are proud to bring it to the floor.
My colleagues across the aisle may say we don't need the ERA, women
are already equal under the law, that it is redundant.
Well, tell that to Christy Brzonkala, who was raped by two football
players at Virginia Tech. She sought justice under VAWA, but the
Supreme Court struck down the civil suit provision, claiming Congress
lacked the power to pass it.
Or Tracy Rexroat, whose starting salary at the Arizona Department of
Education was $17,000 less than her colleague. They based the salaries
on what their prior salary was from whatever job they came, so she
receives $17,000 less than her colleague. She too filed an action under
the Equal Pay Act, and the courts held that there was some reasonable
expectation.
Well, there is nothing reasonable about that. And until we have the
ERA in the Constitution that provides the same level of scrutiny as
race discrimination, this will continue to be a problem.
Or ask Jessica Gonzales if she thinks it is redundant. Jessica's
estranged husband kidnapped and murdered their three young daughters
after the police refused to enforce a restraining order.
If we had the ERA, these cases would have had different outcomes. The
ERA will create stronger legal recourse against sex discrimination, it
will empower Congress to better enforce and enact laws protecting
women, and it will confirm the rightful place of gender equality in the
Constitution where it belongs.
I believe most of us recognize that this is the right thing to do.
The ERA is about building an America that we want. It is about forming
a more perfect union, it is about equality, survival, dignity, and
respect.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, some lawmakers continue to
ignore, trivialize, or deny the fact that abortion activists plan to
aggressively use the Federal ERA--as they have used State ERAs--in a
litigation strategy designed to overturn pro-life laws and policies,
including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans.
As the Marist Poll found recently in January: Seven in 10 Americans,
including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant
restrictions on abortions. While I fundamentally disagree with abortion
activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity,
worth and value, many on both sides now agree that how the ERA is
written will be used in court to massively promote abortion.
NARAL Pro-Choice America said the ERA would ``reinforce the
constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down
anti-abortion laws.''
The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly
interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed
restricting access to abortion. . . .''
Those laws include the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental
involvement statutes, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights,
and late term abortion ban, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
By now, my colleagues know that the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled
that the State was required--required to fund abortion, based solely on
the State ERA.
In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its
State ban on abortion funding based on its ERA.

[[Page H1421]]

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against
violence and exploitation requires laws, policies, and spending
priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals, without--I say
again, without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman recognizes that
equality includes the right of each woman and man to make their own
decision about their reproductive choices. There can be no equality of
the sexes when one class of people is denied the ability to control
their own bodies.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I celebrate this Women's History Month by reflecting
on the achievement of so many women who have blazed a trail for the
generations that followed them; women who didn't listen when they were
told that they couldn't, they shouldn't, or that they didn't belong.
American women have fought for the right to vote, the right to equal
education, the right to reproductive healthcare, and the right to
financially provide for our families and be compensated the same as
men. And we will continue these fights until our Constitution declares
that women are equal in the eyes of the law.
It is time for full constitutional equality. The American people
overwhelmingly support this bipartisan legislation. I am proud to vote
for it again today in honor of the generations of women that have made
strides toward equality. I know that we will soon achieve it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Speaker, I think it is a good discussion to have,
but I would suggest to my colleagues from the other side, if they do
believe this issue is still valid and necessary, to actually restart
this process from the beginning, because we are wasting our time right
here. A 1972 amendment cannot be ratified, it doesn't exist. It has
expired. It is unconstitutional. A lot of things have changed.
We can debate if it is necessary or not, but if we want to have a
real debate, we need to restart this from the beginning and not waste
time debating something that doesn't exist. So I would ask not to
support this amendment, and it is unconstitutional.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his time,
and I want to thank Mrs. Maloney and Ms. Speier for their long work on
this, and the many women before them who have worked hard on this
effort.
Congress created the limitation on years on the passage of the ERA,
and Congress can change it, and Congress should change it.
I am the product of the work of a woman, my mother, and her mother
produced her. We should not forget women and their commitment and
invaluable contributions at our birth.
Every woman should have the same rights as a man. They don't get paid
the same, they are discriminated in the workplace, they are harassed,
they are abused. They should have equal rights. That has not occurred
in America, and it won't happen until we pass this bill.
I favor the passage and I appreciate the spirit in which it is
offered.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This
push to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights
Amendment is an unnecessary and unconstitutional power-grab.
This bill is unconstitutional. Congress set a deadline for the ERA;
it was 1979. With only 35 of the 38 States needed for ratification at
the time, Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no other States
joined in, ending the ratification process for the equal rights
amendment.
Even the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the
deadline for the ERA ratification had long passed. She said: ``I would
like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's too
much controversy about latecomers--Virginia, long after the deadline
passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their ratification. So,
if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States
that said, ``We've changed our minds?''' If my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle want to ratify the ERA, they have to start over.
Women also already have equal rights under the law. In decision after
decision, the United States Supreme Court has underscored that the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution gives women equal rights
and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, rendering, I believe,
the ERA unnecessary.
Finally, if ratified, the ERA would be used to codify the right to
abortion, undoing pro-life protections, and forcing taxpayers to fund
abortions.
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that their State's ERA provision
required the State to fund abortions. Numerous pro-abortion groups have
already made the case for ratifying the ERA on the basis of expanding
their abortion agenda. Just listen to the words of the organizations
pushing this legislation themselves.
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NARAL,
has claimed that, ``With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the
constitutional right to abortion.''
Planned Parenthood and the Women's Law Project has said that State
bans and government funding of elective abortions are ``contrary to a
modern understanding of the ERA.''
The National Organization for Women has said, ``An ERA--properly
interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed
restricting access to abortion care and contraception.''
With this unconstitutional bill, my colleagues across the aisle are
hiding behind the rhetoric of equality for women to eliminate any and
all protections for unborn babies, half of which would be girls, then
women, if given the chance to live.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

{time} 1045

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee will control
the time.
Mr. COHEN. Unlike Alexander Haig, I am only here temporarily.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is from the East Side and who, as
chairperson, brought us the great hearing last year on the ERA.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, there is no time
limit on equality. The equal rights amendment passed the needed 38
States, including the great State of New York. Enough is enough. It is
long past time for women to be in the Constitution.
We may not always be able to control, nor should women's rights be
dependent upon who controls State governments, who is in the White
House or Congress, or who sits on the Supreme Court.
Our rights shouldn't be determined by these types of things. It
should be in the document, the document they interpret and that they
are bound by.
It is long past time to spell out equality in our Constitution with
the ERA.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the effects of gender inequality acutely
during this pandemic. An estimated 1 million more women than men have
lost their jobs, and a disproportionate number of those suffering are
Black women and Latinas.
We need to pass it. It is urgently needed. Let's just imagine if the
ERA had been ratified in the 1970s, as it should have been.
Would we have needed today a dramatic Me Too, Time's Up movement with
hundreds of thousands of women having to tell their often painful
personal stories in order to get justice?
Or would the Violence Against Women Act and other legislation
addressing sexual assault have been passed, if it had been passed much
sooner, without the risk of a Supreme Court ruling limiting a woman's
right to sue? Women could sue directly if they were in the
Constitution.

[[Page H1422]]

We have the opportunity to make equal rights under the law a reality
for our mothers, our daughters, our granddaughters, and ourselves. We
must recognize that there is no time limit on equality and vote to pass
today's resolution now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentlewoman please pull her mask
up.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the chairman of the
committee, that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will control the balance of
the time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, discrimination against women is a part of
America's history, but it should not be our future. That is why we need
the equal rights amendment.
It was not an accident that women were left out of the Constitution.
The Founders very much believed us to be unequal and, as such, we could
not own property, vote, hold certain jobs, or even serve on a jury.
The impacts of that discrimination are still felt today. Women are
paid less than men and still face discrimination for being pregnant.
The Founders were wrong, and this is our chance to fix it by doing
what they refused to do: assert in the Constitution that women, too,
have rights.
The ERA will not end discrimination, but it will empower us to fight
it in court. Already, 38 States have ratified this amendment, which
satisfies the requirements in the Constitution. The vast majority of
Americans support it.
Congress set a deadline for ratification, which means we can repeal
it. It is time to affirm that there is no expiration date on equality.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the language of the equal
rights amendment is simple, but don't be deceived by its simple
language.
The reviving of the deadline and ratifying of this amendment would
destroy all distinctions between men and women, enshrine abortion, and
empower the woke feminist mob.
The equal rights amendment is dead and should remain dead. The States
and Congress missed the deadline to have the amendment passed in 1979.
The Trump Department of Justice issued a legal opinion in January that
the deadline for the ERA has already passed, by any legal measure.
The ERA would be a new constitutional right guaranteeing abortion on
demand. Have we not murdered enough people in the womb in this country,
over 62 million?
Guaranteeing abortion on demand is completely wrong. It is not a
constitutional right. As a matter of fact, the person in the womb
should have the constitutional right. It is not a ``my body, my
choice'' issue because the person in the womb is not the same body as
the woman.
Also, NARAL Pro-Choice America claims: ``With its ratification, the
ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.''
If anything, we should be guaranteeing a constitutional right to
people in the womb. They should have the constitutional right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Let's carry on. VAWA, Violence Against Women Act. Democrats have
hijacked a program designed to help marginalized women and have turned
it into a political weapon that erases gender and destroys all
religious freedom.
On the wall right here, it says: In God We Trust. God states that He
created male and female, not a plethora of genders that anyone can
choose from.

They want to let men calling themselves women sleep with women in
domestic abuse shelters. The Democrats will not be satisfied until
every battered woman is endangered so long as their sexual orientation
and gender identity ideology advances.
That is not science. Science says that there are only two genders,
male and female, according to the chromosomes.
Make no mistake about it, Democrats want to destroy our country. They
want to close every church and nonprofit that doesn't capitulate to
their oppressive agenda. Democrats want to put domestic violence
abusers in the same room as their victims. Democrats want to dissolve
all sex-based protection for women and girls through the relentless
onslaught of gender identity.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, every amendment since the 22nd, except for
the 27th, has had a deadline for ratification inserted in the
resolution. But if you look at the Constitution, Madam Speaker, you
won't find the deadline. That is because the deadline is part of the
congressional resolution proposing the amendment, not part of the
amendment itself.
What Congress can propose, Congress can alter, which is all we are
proposing to do today.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is
wonderful to see Members of Congress wearing white today to observe the
fact that we are making history by passing legislation about equality
in our country.
I thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her relentless championing of
this equal rights amendment in terms of the date that the distinguished
chair of the Judiciary Committee referenced. I also thank Carolyn
Maloney for her long-term advocacy of the equal rights amendment. I
thank Chairman Nadler for enabling us to have this legislation on the
floor today and for his leadership on this issue over time.
Madam Speaker, 100 years ago, in 1921, a solemn promise was made to
the women of our country, one honoring our most fundamental truth as a
nation, as the equal rights amendment was first introduced. When it was
first introduced, it said: ``Men and women shall have equal rights
throughout the United States and every place subject to its
jurisdiction.''
Simple, clear, fair, and just. Yet, a century later, that promise
remains unfulfilled. The equal rights amendment still has not been
enshrined in the Constitution, and American women still face inequality
under the law and, therefore, in their lives.
In recent years, American women have renewed the legal fight for the
equal rights amendment. Women of all backgrounds--students, mothers,
seniors, communities of color, indigenous women, et cetera--have taken
up the mantle of the suffragists before them, standing on suffragists'
shoulders as they marched, mobilized, protested, and picketed for their
rights. Because of their courage and commitment, 38 States have now
ratified the equal rights amendment.
But one final barrier remains: removing the artificial, arbitrary
time limit for ratification. As the distinguished chairman pointed out,
that deadline timetable is not in the Constitution. Until we remove
that arbitrary time limit, the ERA cannot become part of our
Constitution.
Last year, the House passed legislation to remove this arbitrary time
limit, but unfortunately, the Senate failed to do so. So, today, the
House will, once again, pass this legislation and send it to the Senate
for a vote. We are proud to be doing it in Women's History Month.
We salute again Congresswoman Jackie Speier, our champion on the
legislation on the floor today, and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who
has been our lead sponsor of the ERA for 25 years now.
Madam Speaker, I thank Members from both sides of the aisle,
including cosponsor Representative Tom Reed from New York, for their
bipartisan support in the Congress, which reflects the overwhelming
bipartisan support in the country. A full 94 percent of the public
supports the equal rights amendment, including 99 percent, nearly
unanimous support, among millennials and Generation Z.
Let us not forget that, in 1972, the equal rights amendment was
passed with bipartisan supermajorities in both Chambers of Congress,
and it enjoyed the strong support of President Nixon, who wrote in 1968
that ``the task of achieving constitutional equality between the sexes
is still not completed'' and pointed out that all Republican National
Conventions since 1940 have

[[Page H1423]]

supported the longtime movement for equality.
There is no reason why today, after 80 years of Republican support,
the ERA should not have full bipartisan support in the Congress. The
resolution on the floor today will pave the way to passage of the equal
rights amendment, which is one of the most important steps that we can
take to affirm and ensure women's equality in America.
The text of the equal rights amendment states: ``Equality of rights
under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of sex.''
``On account of sex'' recalls to mind the beautiful documentary about
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Passing the equal rights amendment will create essential avenues for
legal recourse for people who face discrimination under the laws on the
basis of sex. It will ensure that the Supreme Court applies the same
standard of review for sex discrimination cases as it applies to cases
of discrimination based on race and national origin. It will help
Congress pass laws for better legal protections against injustice,
including those related to sexual assault, domestic violence, and
paycheck unfairness. It will confirm the rightful place of gender
equality in all aspects of life.
There are some who say that the equal rights amendment is not needed.
To them, I quote the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said: ``Certainly
the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.
The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It does not.''
These are not just words. This is the daily reality for America's
women who face inequality and injustice in so many arenas of life, from
a massive wage gap, to pregnancy discrimination, to sexual harassment
in the workplace, to economic disparities that have worsened during
coronavirus.

{time} 1100

Passing this resolution, and then the ERA, will not only help women,
but by unleashing the full economic potential of women, it will help
families and boost our economy, all while advancing justice and
equality in America for everyone.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote on this strong step
toward equality for women, progress for families, and a stronger
America--affirming the truth, Madam Speaker, that you have espoused
that when women succeed, America succeeds.
I commend the leadership on this issue, the distinguished chairman,
and the sponsors of the resolution, Jackie Speier and Carolyn Maloney.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Mrs. McBath) to control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia will control
the time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the
achievements women have made and reaffirm that we are already equal
under current law.
Women represent 51 percent of the population, comprise over half of
college students, make up the majority of medical and law school
students, and run 12.3 million women-owned businesses while generating
$1.8 trillion each year.
Little girls can be whatever they want to be, whether that is an
astronaut, a doctor, a full-time mom working at home, or a Member of
Congress.
The ERA would not add to the rights already guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but it could jeopardize them.
How? Two ways.
First, by making it discriminatory to offer benefits to women not
offered to men; women's scholarships, women's colleges, job protection
for pregnant women, and safe spaces may all be on the chopping block.
When the equal rights amendment was first proposed a century ago,
many women's rights advocates recognized the negative ramifications it
would bring. In fact, future First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt expressed
concerns that legislation protecting women in the workplace could be
eliminated should the ERA become part of the U.S. Constitution.
Secondly, because the 1972 definition of sex as male and female is no
longer accepted by many today and, instead, will require new
protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. This is a path
that has already proven to be a threat to women's privacy, safety, and
equality. Don't take it from me. Talk to the nine women in California
who were sexually harassed in a women's shelter by a biological male
identifying as a woman.
The equal rights amendment would not only codify inequality for
women, but also destroy the rights of the unborn. The ERA advocates
have been unequivocal about their support for abortion and for using
the ERA to overturn pro-life laws.
Courts have already used State versions of the ERA to force taxpayers
to fund abortions. A Federal ERA would threaten State pro-life laws,
Federal protections like the Hyde amendment, and conscience protections
for American medical professionals who may otherwise be forced to
perform an abortion.
Fortunately, the time limit to pass the ERA expired decades ago, and
there is agreement that Congress cannot go back and remove a deadline
from a previous constitutional amendment initiative. For example, the
Supreme Court has already recognized that the 1972 ERA expired, and the
Department of Justice issued a ruling saying: ``Congress may not revive
a proposed amendment after a deadline, for its ratification has
expired.''
Just over a week ago, a Federal district court ruled that the
deadline to ratify the ERA ``expired long ago.'' And the recent
ratifications of the amendment arrived ``too late to count.''
Pretending we can remove the deadline for passage is both futile and
deceptive. The ERA is a threat to the historical strides women have
made. It will eradicate State and Federal pro-life laws and policies,
and the process is blatantly unconstitutional.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution
and to, instead, uphold the Constitution, promote life, and protect
women's rights.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our esteemed leader of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Women's History Month, we do so with
an awareness that so much work in the fight for equality remains. Much
has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. This is one of
those.
That is what the House is focusing on this week, women's equality,
women's safety and justice, and women's opportunity. I am proud that we
are taking action to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act within
the first 3 months of the new Congress.
I was a cosponsor--and proud of it--of the original 1994 Violence
Against Women Act. We passed the original VAWA on a bipartisan basis
and reauthorized it with bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005.
Those were overwhelming votes of 371-1 and 415-4.
Now we are talking about the equal rights amendment, I understand.
In 2013, we did it again on VAWA, 87 Republicans joining all 199
Democrats in the House vote. Every time we reauthorized the law, we
made it stronger, ensuring protections for more women who were
victimized by domestic abuse, stalking, and other crimes.
Last Congress, our House Democratic majority passed a VAWA
reauthorization that included these expanded protections, but Senate
Republicans blocked it from consideration. Not that they offered an
alternative, not that they said: This is a problem and we need to solve
it. It has been bipartisan, so here is our view and we will go to
conference on it.

They simply blocked it.
It is essential, Madam Speaker, that Congress take action with a
long-term reauthorization of VAWA, made all the more critical by the
rise in domestic violence we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and
more people having to stay home; an epidemic of domestic violence.
Let's send a message to the women and men of America that Congress will
continue to do its part to root out domestic violence and abuse.
I was just with Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the sponsor and the chair
of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. Chairman

[[Page H1424]]

Nadler is now speaking. I said then, as I say now: It is critical that
we pass this legislation.
I agree with President Biden, the author of the original 1994
Violence Against Women Act, that strengthening and renewing VAWA is
long past due. Once we pass it in the House, I hope the Senate will
send it quickly to President Biden to sign it into law.
Madam Speaker, I am speaking on both VAWA, obviously, and the ERA,
two very critically important pieces of legislation.
Last year, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the equal rights
amendment. When I hear the opposition to the equal rights amendment,
you would think that we were organizing to defeat women's rights. I
think some of these speeches were written by Lewis Carroll.
After Virginia passed and became the 38th State, the House passed a
resolution to affirm that, with Virginia's action, the equal rights
amendment had been duly added to our Constitution as the 28th
Amendment. However, the Republican-led Senate refused to do the same.
Now, with the Democratic-led Senate, I am hopeful that Congress can
affirm the adoption of that amendment and provide strong, legal backing
to those seeking to have it recognized by our courts as a full part of
our Constitution.
What little faith we demonstrate in the courts of the United States
of America when it is going to be interpreted, according to some, as
not affirming equal rights for women, but somehow undermining equal
rights. That is why I say that I think these speeches were written by
Lewis Carroll.
The amendment simply states, as I am sure has been said: ``Equality
of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of sex.''
How can that be misinterpreted to say somehow we are enunciating a
proposition that would undermine rather than protect and lift up the
rights of women?
It is long overdue that we, as a Nation, affirm this truth: that all
men and women are created equal. Not the same, quite obviously, but
equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Madam Speaker, I have two granddaughters and I have three great-
granddaughters. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--the famous or, as
she would say from time to time, the infamous RGB--said this: ``I would
like to see my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to
see that notion--that women and men are persons of equal stature--I'd
like them to see that it is a basic principle of our society.''
Madam Speaker, that is what this amendment is about. It should have
been passed two centuries ago, but it is never too late to do the right
thing. And we can take a major step forward this week to make that
happen by passing the bipartisan resolution offered by Representatives
Jackie Speier and Tom Reed.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both H.J. Res. 17 and
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Both will
articulate our concern for women, for mothers, for daughters, for
sisters, for neighbors, for friends.
We have a chance this week to send a message that Congress will not
tolerate violence or discrimination against women, and we have an
opportunity to mark this Women's History Month, not just with words,
but with actions that mean something by making history in a very
positive way, benefiting not only women, but our Nation as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support these two very
important pieces of legislation.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) to control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will control the
time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, every person, regardless of sex, must
be treated equally under the law. H.J. Res. 17 reaffirms this core
American value. It makes clear that the arbitrary deadline in the equal
rights amendment may not stand in the way of achieving full equality
for women.
With women losing their jobs at disproportionately high rates, the
COVID-19 pandemic has only further revealed the need for this
amendment.
In 2020, American women lost more than 5 million jobs. A vote for
this resolution is a vote for equal access to healthcare. It is a vote
for equal pay for the same work. It is a vote for equal opportunity and
basic human rights in all other aspects of life for women in this
country.
Congress must act now to remove this arbitrary deadline. There must
be no time limit on guaranteeing equal rights under the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 17.

{time} 1115

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, nearly a half century ago, Congress
passed the equal rights amendment and sent it to the States with a 7-
year deadline for ratification. When that deadline expired in 1979, it
was three States short of passage.
Many States rejected it because it was duplicative of the Fifth and
14th Amendments to the Constitution. Our Constitution already
guarantees that all Americans receive equal protection under the law,
and indeed these provisions have driven our progress as a society.
More importantly, many felt that the ERA would unleash a crippling
avalanche of activist litigation that could have unforeseen and
unintended implications to issues ranging from abortion to freedom of
conscience and freedom of speech.
Today, 50 years after its adoption, the Democrats propose to
retroactively amend the ERA to remove its deadline. They argue that
Congress can alter amendments it has sent to the States, even a half
century later, and yet still count their ratification votes from a half
century ago.
This would allow them to add three States that voted to ratify long
after the deadline was passed for the very amendment that established
that deadline.
Of course, they don't explain how to deal with the five States that
have since rescinded their ratification votes.
The courts have already ruled against this approach as brazenly
unconstitutional.
As Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent supporter of the ERA, pointed out a
few years ago: ``So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can
you disregard States that said, `We've changed our minds?'''
If the majority were serious, it would reintroduce the ERA and debate
it openly and constitutionally, as Justice Ginsburg suggested. They
won't, because they know that in the nearly half century that has
passed since the ERA was proposed, the world itself has passed them by.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, as a young woman in Texas, I
marched with hundreds of other women in support of the equal rights
amendment. Today, I stand with all my colleagues here to affirm our
support for women's equality.
Women are behind some of the Nation's greatest achievements. We flew
across the Atlantic, fought for civil rights, set athletic records,
sent men to space, and then went there ourselves. We have forged our
own paths and put many cracks in the glass ceiling, but there is still
much more to do.
``Women deserve equality.'' ``Las mujeres merecemos igualdad.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 17.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of the equal
rights amendment and to debunk some of the nonsense being spouted by my
colleagues across the aisle.

[[Page H1425]]

This legislation is not about special rights, it is not about
preferential treatment, and it is not about erasing sex differences. It
is about finally guaranteeing equal rights, plain and simple.
Critics of the ERA know that, or at least they would if they actually
read the legislation. It is right there for all of us to see.
``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State on account of sex,'' period.
Everyone in this Capitol has a mother, and some of us are blessed to
have daughters. This amendment is about them. It is about completing
the work of generations of women before us who marched for full
equality, and it is about finishing that journey so that the next
generation will experience nothing other than full and fair rights
under the law.
I urge my colleagues to give our daughters that chance. Join us and
pass this resolution.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
removing this arbitrary time limit for ratifying the equal rights
amendment.
I ask all my colleagues: Are we going to tell our mothers, our
sisters, daughters, nieces, and granddaughters that there is an
expiration date on equality? I hope that answer is no.
This pandemic has only worsened the inequality that women are facing,
especially women of color. Making the equal rights amendment a part of
our Constitution guarantees that men and women are truly treated equal
under the law.
Today, the House can send a clear message that we will not tolerate
sexual discrimination, that gender equality should be the law of the
land.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, today, we confront one of
America's lingering legacies of discrimination.
At America's founding, women were intentionally left out of the
Constitution and, as second-class citizens, we did not have the right
to vote or own property.
Today, we still receive less pay for the same work, and we face
actual or imminent threats of violence and harassment daily.
But the equal rights amendment rejects that.
After over a century, the ERA is on the cusp of ratification, and we
finally have a President who will make this long overdue provision of
our Constitution a reality.

Women's rights should not depend on which party is in power. These
basic fundamental rights must be guaranteed. We must secure equality
for women under the law, in the Constitution, and in our daily lives.
If we want to hand a more perfect union over to our daughters--and I
have two--this Women's History Month, let's seize the moment and end
sex discrimination once and for all.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution to remove the arbitrary and
outdated deadline for ratifying the ERA.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for nearly 50 years, our country has
strived to make equal rights for women a foundational value in the
United States Constitution through the equal rights amendment. Women
deserve nothing less than equal treatment, whether it be equal pay for
equal work, freedom from discrimination, freedom from sexual assault,
or freedom from domestic violence. The equal rights amendment will help
to fill those gaps.
We now have enough States for that to become the law of the land.
This resolution will help clear the path for this much-needed change,
and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution so that
every woman and every girl can have equal justice under the law.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: What are you
afraid of? Why? Why can you not affirm equal rights for women in the
United States of America? It is not a hard mountain to climb. But it
says every woman and every girl can have equal justice under the law.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.
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.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, Alice Paul's equal rights amendment was introduced in
both Houses of Congress way back in 1923. But 96 years later, the
United States Constitution still does not explicitly declare that women
have equal rights under the law.
We are the only western democracy without such a clause in its
Constitution. Today, we have an opportunity to rectify that glaring
omission.
The arbitrary deadline for ratification that Congress imposed, and
later extended, can be just as easily removed, and that is all this
legislation does. It can be just as easily removed, because it is not
part of the amendment, as some of our Republican friends said.
Every amendment since the 22nd Amendment, except for the 27th, has
had such a clause. And if you look at the text of the Constitution, it
is not there. That is because the deadline is part of the resolution
proposing the constitutional amendment, not part of the constitutional
amendment. If Congress can establish a deadline by resolution, it can
certainly, by resolution, extend or change the deadline. That is all
this resolution does.
Adopting the ERA would bring our country closer to truly fulfilling
values of inclusion and equal opportunity for all people. Adopting this
legislation would help make this a reality.
I urge all Members to support this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, we have just been engaged in
presenting to the public the Violence Against Women Act. But all of it
stands on the shoulders of the equal rights amendment, which has been
long overdue.
What an amazing journey that this legislation has taken, and how sad
it is to acknowledge that we are one of only a few nations that does
not have an equal rights amendment in its constitution.
I remember going to Afghanistan and working with the women of
Afghanistan to include the rights of women in their Constitution. I
want to say that again: To include the rights of women in their
Constitution.
So let me speak clearly to vital points of this resolution. This is
not an abortion bill. However, we realize that the right to choose is
embedded in the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment. But this is not
that.
It is a bill that says that women have a right, as Alice Paul said so
many years ago, to be able to have rights of equality under this flag,
under this Constitution. Are we suggesting that that should not be?
In addition, let it be very clear that any court decision that was
issued, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that is,
the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero, we can explain that case,
because the Court said the only authority to extend the deadline was
Congress, and here we are. Congress is now intending to extend that
deadline.

[[Page H1426]]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that. It is not embedded in the
amendment. And by Article V, we are able to deal with deadlines.
Deadlines are a simple process of statutory authority, and that is what
we are doing today.
I don't think my friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave
without recognizing the fact that women make 80 cents for every $1 a
man earns, and that they are treated unfairly in the workplace.
If you want equal dignity, if you want the rights of women to be
promoted, vote for the ERA.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17. H.J. Res. 17,
introduced by Representative Jackie Speier with 209 co-sponsors, would
take a critical step towards ensuring that the Equal Rights Amendment,
or ``ERA'', becomes part of the Constitution.
The resolution provides that notwithstanding the ratification
deadline of 1979 that Congress set for the ERA and later extended to
1982, the ERA ``shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of
the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States.''
The purpose of the ERA is simple and fundamental: It ensures that
everyone is treated equally under the law, regardless of sex or gender.
Almost one hundred years ago, Alice Paul, who helped lead the campaign
to secure women's right to vote, proposed the first version of the ERA.
She and her fellow suffragists knew that if women were to achieve
true equality, our Nation's founding document needed to be amended to
reflect that core principle. Nearly a century later, it is long past
time to make that dream a reality.
In 1971 and 1972, the House and Senate, respectively, passed the ERA
by well more than the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds majority in
each chamber.
It contained these simple words: ``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 the years that quickly followed, dozens of States
ratified the ERA through their legislatures.
By the end of the 1970s, the ERA was just a few States short of full
ratification. But then progress slowed, and the deadline Congress had
set for ratification passed. A well-organized counter-movement scared
the American people into thinking that a guarantee of equality would
somehow harm women who stay at home to raise their children or would
erode American families. What had started as a matter of broad
consensus became another divisive wedge in the culture wars.
Today we know better. We know that in the year 2021, it is
unacceptable that women still make only 80 cents for every dollar men
earn. We know that when women are treated with equal dignity and
respect in the workplace, in the home, by our institutions of
government, and in our society at large, all of the American people
stand to benefit. And we know that a simple but fundamental guarantee
of equality should be welcomed rather than feared.
Thankfully, the momentum for ERA ratification has picked back up.
Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, and Illinois followed suit the next
year. Then, in January 2020, Virginia made history and became the 38th
State to pass a resolution ratifying the ERA. So long as these last
three ratifications are valid, the ERA will become law.
Unfortunately, a federal district court ruled two weeks ago that
these states were too late because the ratification deadline that
Congress set had expired already in 1982.
Importantly, that court affirmed that Congress has the power to set
ratifications deadlines, as Article V of the Constitution, which
governs the constitutional amendment process, does not itself provide
for ratification deadlines of any kind. Of course, the power to set
deadlines necessarily includes the power to remove those deadlines.
By removing the ratification deadline that Congress set previously,
H.J. Res. 17 ensures that the recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois,
and Virginia are counted and that the ERA becomes part of our
Constitution.
We are on the verge of a breakthrough for equality in this country,
despite all the obstacles in our current political and social climate.
This resolution will ensure that no deadline stands in the way.
Therefore, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17 and urge its passage by the
House.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong
support for H.J. Res. 17, a resolution removing the time limit for
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Women in the United States make extraordinary contributions to our
workforce and communities--and even more so in the face of the COVID-19
pandemic. Yet, unfortunately, we remain unprotected under the law from
discrimination. This long-overdue legislation will enshrine in our
Constitution the principle of women's equality and explicitly prohibit
discrimination based on sex.
The Equal Rights Amendment states simply: ``equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of sex.'' And in this simple text is guaranteed the
following:
Avenues of legal recourse for people who face sex-based
discrimination,
Prompting of Supreme Court to consider cases of sex discrimination
with rigorous standards, and
The power for Congress to enact laws that ensure sex equality in all
aspects of life.
It is for these reasons, and many others not listed, that we must act
to remove the arbitrary time limit for ratification and codify this
Amendment.
As a member of the Democratic Women's Caucus, I am steadfast in my
commitment to advancing women's rights both in my district and across
the nation. My tenure in Congress has been in part defined by my
advocacy on behalf of women and their successes--but I stand on the
shoulders of generations of heroines fighting for equality. It is in
their honor that I support this legislation today.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 17.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include the following letters of
endorsement for H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) into
the Record.
Letters are from: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, The National Center on
Violence Against Women in the Black Community, YWCA, End Sexual
Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National
Congress of American Indians, LegalMomentum: The Women's Legal Defense
and Education Fund, JWI, and Casa de Esperanza.

March 8, 2021.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representative Fitzpatrick,
and Chairman Nadler: The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, (NCADV) applauds you for introducing the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. The Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) is one of the three pillars of the
Federal response to domestic violence. First passed in 1994
under the leadership of then-Senator Biden, VAWA has been
reauthorized three times since then, most recently in 2013.
VAWA's authorization lapsed in 2018.
Every reauthorization included critical updates to enhance
America's response to domestic violence and other forms of
gender-based violence. These enhancements reflect the
evolution of our understanding of the dynamics of violence
and the needs of impacted communities. The Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 is the successor bill to
these previous reauthorizations and is a slightly updated
version of the H.R. 1585/S. 2843, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2019, which passed the House of
Representatives with strong bipartisan support before dying
in the Senate.
Like its predecessor, the updated 2021 bill invests in
prevention; keeps guns out of the hands of adjudicated dating
abusers and stalkers; promotes survivors' economic stability;
ends impunity for non Natives who commit gender-based
violence on Tribal lands by expanding special tribal criminal
jurisdiction beyond domestic violence; and increases
survivors' access to safe housing. The Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2021 also recognizes the disparate
impact of gender-based violence on communities of color due
to systemic racism and increases funding for culturally
specific organizations serving these communities. The
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 expands
VAWA's life-saving provisions to increase access to safety
and justice for all survivors.
It is particularly critical to reauthorize and improve VAWA
as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent
survey of domestic violence programs, 84% reported that
intimate partner violence has increased in their community
during the pandemic. Fifty percent reported the use of
firearms. against intimate partners has increased, and one-
third reported intimate partner homicides have increased in
their communities. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2021 responds to the needs of survivors and supports
the programs that serve them.
We thank you, again, for your leadership, and we urge the
House to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2021 as a matter of upmost urgency.
Sincerely,
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

[[Page H1427]]

____
National Resource Center

on Domestic Violence,

Harrisburg, PA, March 8, 2021.
Hon. Jerry Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee and Fitzpatrick:
On behalf of the National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence, which has worked since 1993 to strengthen and
transform efforts to end domestic violence, I am writing to
express our support for the Reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2021 and our gratitude for your
leadership in ensuring that survivors are able to access
lifesaving programs and services.
With each reauthorization of VAWA, Congress has made
important steps forward to better address the needs of
survivors and communities. Based on extensive conversations
with and feedback from local programs and advocates about
current strengths and disparities in VAWA, we--along with our
partners in the domestic and sexual violence movements--
recommended several key enhancements to the current statute.
We are very pleased that your legislation includes the
targeted improvements that programs across the country need
to do their jobs and support survivors.
According to the Centers for Disease Control's National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 1 in 4
women and 1 in 9 men are the victim of physical violence,
contact sexual violence and/or stalking by an intimate
partner and experience negative impacts such as injury, fear,
concern for safety, or a need for services. In just one day
in 2019, 77,226 domestic violence victims and their children
received services at a local program in their community,
including emergency shelter, transitional housing,
counseling, legal advocacy, and children's support groups.
However, on that same day, 11,336 requests for services went
unmet because programs lacked the resources to meet victims'
needs. Of those unmet requests for services, 68% were for
housing. Indeed, safe housing is among the most pressing
concerns for survivors who have left or are planning to leave
an abusive relationship. Thirty-eight (38) percent of all
domestic violence victims become homeless at some point in
their lives. And among mothers with children experiencing
homelessness, more than 80 percent had previously experienced
domestic violence. We are particularly grateful that your
legislation would strengthen protections for survivors in
public housing, including by ensuring that survivors can
transfer units when necessary for safety reasons, as well as
other housing protections that are critical for survivors
seeking safety and stability.
We are also supportive of other key proposals in your
legislation, including:
Supporting Communities of Color;
Investing in prevention;
Ending impunity for non-Native perpetrators of sexual
assault, child abuse co-occurring with domestic violence,
stalking, sex trafficking, and assaults on tribal law
enforcement officers on tribal lands;
Improving enforcement of court orders that require
adjudicated domestic abusers to relinquish their firearms;
Improving access to housing for victims and survivors;
Protecting victims of dating violence from firearm
homicide;
Helping survivors gain and maintain economic independence;
Updating the federal definition of domestic violence for
the purposes of VAWA grants only to acknowledge the full
range of abuse victims suffer (does not impact the criminal
definition of domestic violence);
Maintaining existing protections for all survivors; and
Improving the healthcare system's response to domestic
violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.
Again, thank you for championing the needs of victims and
survivors and for supporting the work of domestic and sexual
violence programs across the country. We look forward to
continuing to work with you and your colleagues in Congress
to ensure bipartisan support for VAWA 2021 and to pass
legislation that will provide needed services and supports to
survivors and their families and communities.
Sincerely,
Farzana Q. Safiullah,
Chief Executive Officer.
____

The National Center on Vlolence Against Women in the
Black Community,
Washington, DC, March 10, 2021.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
US. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Jackson Lee, Fitzpatrick, and Nadler:
Ujima Inc., The National Center on Violence Against Women in
the Black Community (Ujima, Inc.) is pleased to support H.R.
1620, the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2021. Ujima, Inc. is a national Culturally Specific
Services Issue Resource Center that mobilizes the Black
community and allies through its education and outreach;
training and technical assistance; resource development;
research; and public policy efforts. We work with local,
state, and national partners to promote strategies to improve
responses to Black survivors of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and community violence. We appreciated the
opportunity to give voice to the needs of Black survivors
during the collaborative process of H.R. 1585 and we are
encouraged to see the enhancements in H.R. 1620 as COVID-19,
racial justice movements, and economic strife have presented
complex challenges for those we serve since the passage of
H.R. 1585 in 2019.
Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has made
significant shifts in the cultural and legal landscape for
prevention and intervention strategies to address gender-
based violence. Specialized courts, prosecution units, law
enforcement departments, community-based programs,
coordinated community responses, and discretionary grant
funding for innovate solutions have been the central tenets
of ground-breaking legislation to save lives. However, Black
women still experience the highest rates of homicide related
to intimate partner violence compared to other racial and
ethnic populations. In 2018, Black females were murdered by
males at a rate nearlv three times higher than white females.
Despite the prevalence of domestic violence, Black survivors
are less likely to seek help from systems-based stakeholders
because institutional bias coupled with racial loyalty/
collectivism directly impact how she perceives, reacts to,
and reports violence in her life. Institutionalized and
internalized oppression at the intersections of race and
gender have created the foundation for unrecognized,
unaddressed trauma and violence in the lives of Black women
and they have been denied adequate resources and access to
legal systems, funding, crisis services, and other programs.
Thank you for not only hearing the needs of Black
survivors, but also addressing them in H.R. 1620 which
provides measured enhancements for the bipartisan support and
passage of such critical provisions as strengthening and
enforcing public housing protections, improving access to
healthcare options, expanding civil legal representation,
promoting firearm surrender protocols, reducing bench
warrants for victims who fear to appear in court, creating
restorative practices that are solutions-based, expanding
tribal sovereignty over specific crimes committed by non-
Native perpetrators, and prioritizing sexual assault
prevention to ameliorate intervention.
Additionally, the following provisions will greatly improve
services for Black survivors and we deeply appreciate the
inclusion of: a $40 million authorization for the Culturally
Specific Services Program; economic justice programs that
include access to unemployment insurance; and protections for
all survivors accessing services thereby preventing
discrimination.
Thank you for your unyielding and tireless efforts and
bringing the margins to the center to ensure that VAWA, after
twenty-seven years, continues to prioritize the safety of
survivors and hold perpetrators accountable in a way that is
survivor-centered, honors self-determination, and reduces re-
victimization by systems. We are deeply moved by your
commitment to social change that promotes access to services
and justice for all people, and we embrace the opportunity to
stand with you.
We are available to assist you at any time to facilitate
the passage of this landmark bipartisan bill that is the
hallmark of our work.
Respectfully,
Karma Cottman,
Executive Director.

YWCA,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2021.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of YWCA USA, a network
of over 200 local associations in 45 states and the District
of Columbia, I write today to urge you to pass the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2021 (H.R. 1620).
As identified in YWCA's Legislative Priorities for the 117th
Congress, YWCA is committed to the swift passage of VAWA in
the first 100 days of the new legislative session. We urge
you to vote yes and support strengthening services for
survivors and their children.
For over 160 years, YWCA has been on a mission to eliminate
racism, empower women, and promote peace, justice, freedom,
and dignity for all. Today, we serve over 2 million women,
girls and family members of all ages and backgrounds in more
than 1,200 communities. As the largest network of domestic
and sexual violence service providers, over 150 YWCAs across
44 states remain on the front lines providing gender-based
violence services. We are proud of our staff and volunteers
in providing these life-saving services. YWCAs get up and do
the work of providing safe and secure housing, crisis
hotlines, counseling, court assistance, and other community
and safety programs to more than 535,000 women, children, and
families each year.
Informed by our extensive history, the expertise of our
nationwide network, and our collective commitment to meeting
the needs of survivors and their families, we have seen
first-hand the importance of maintaining protections for all
survivors in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This bill
works

[[Page H1428]]

to maintain the safety, resources, and protections critical
to all survivors, particularly women of color and other
marginalized communities. Of particular importance, VAWA
includes the following YWCA supported provisions critical to
survlvors:
Improves services for victims by reauthoring programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S.
Health and Human Services to prevent and address domestic
violence, sexual violence, dating violence, and stalking
while preserving and expanding housing protections for
survivors;
Increases authorization levels for response and wrap-around
services especially important following a year of increased
strain on existing providers due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
Invests in prevention through increased funding for
programs such as the Consolidated Youth grants which support
engaging men and boys as allies and addressing children
exposed to violence and trauma with specialized services.
This bill also provides support to State-level health
programs to partner with domestic and sexual violence
organizations to improve healthcare providers' ability to
work with advocates, help victims, and strengthen prevention
programs;
Closes loopholes by improving enforcement of current
federal domestic violence-related firearms laws and close
loopholes to reduce firearm-involved abuse and intimate
partner homicide, which has received bipartisan support;
Increases funding for culturally-specific service providers
and increases authorization levels to hold current providers
harmless;
Improves the economic security of survivors by expanding
eligibility for unemployment insurance, strengthening
protections against discrimination in employment based on
survivor status, and increasing education on economic abuse
and economic security related to survivors.
Immediate action by Congress is needed as the COVID-19
pandemic continues to put a strain on resources and the
demand for assistance continues to rise with this silent
epidemic. Survivors cannot wait another day for the critical
protections identified in the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2021. We urge you to vote yes
on this critical bill.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact
Pam Yuen, YWCA USA Director of Government Relations if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Catherine V. Beane,
Vice President of Public Policy & Advocacy.
____

National Alliance to

End Sexual Violence,

March 4, 2021.
Hon Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Jackson Lee and Fitzpatrick: On behalf
of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV)
representing 56 state and territorial sexual assault
coalitions and more than 1500 local rape crisis centers, I am
writing to convey our wholehearted support for the Violence
Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2021 reauthorizing
and improving the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and our
gratitude for your willingness to move forward to ensure we
renew VAWA as swiftly as possible.
With each iteration of VAWA, Congress goes the next step to
address the needs of survivors and communities. Based on
extensive conversations with local programs and advocates, we
brought forward several key enhancements, and we are very
pleased that your legislation includes many of these. From an
increased investment in sexual violence services and
prevention programs and culturally specific organizations
that serve communities of color to provisions to hold
offenders accountable on tribal lands to efforts to make our
criminal justice system more responsive to the needs of
victims, this legislation includes the realistic policies our
programs need to do their jobs.
According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey, one in five women has been the victim of
rape or attempted rape. Nearly one in two women has
experienced some form of sexual violence and one in five men
has experienced a form of sexual violence other than rape in
their lifetime. The study confirmed that the impacts on
society are enormous. Over 80% of women who were victimized
experienced significant short and long-term impacts related
to the violence such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), injury (42%) and missed time at work or school (28%).
The CDC report shows that most rape and partner violence is
experienced before the age of 24, highlighting the importance
of preventing this violence before it occurs.
High profile cases of sexual assault on campuses, our
military bases, military academies, and professional sports
have resulted in unprecedented media attention. This has also
resulted in a tremendous increase in sexual assault survivors
seeking assistance from local rape crisis centers and
educators as well as community organizations requesting
prevention and training services. The media attention also
points to the need for comprehensive community responses to
sexual violence. According to data from a 2020 survey
conducted by NAESV, 62% of local sexual assault programs have
a waiting list, sometimes months long, for counseling
services and 35% lack a full time sexual assault therapist on
staff.
For these reasons, we are incredibly grateful that your
legislation increases the authorizations for the Sexual
Assault Services Program and the Rape Prevention and
Education Program. The local programs in our network see
every day the widespread and devastating consequences of
sexual violence, and this additional funding will help them
respond to community requests for services and prevention
education.
Of deep concern to NAESV, tribal governments are currently
unable to prosecute crimes of sexual assault, trafficking,
child abuse, and stalking by non-native offenders on their
lands. A 2016 study from the National Institute for Justice
(NIJ), found that approximately 56% of Native women
experience sexual violence within their lifetime, with 1 in 7
experiencing it in the past year. Nearly 1 in 2 report being
stalked. Contrary to the general population where rape,
sexual assault, and intimate partner violence are usually
intra-racial, Native women are more likely to be raped or
assaulted by someone of a different race. 96% of Native women
and 89% of male victims in the NIJ study reported being
victimized by a non-Indian. Native victims of sexual violence
are three times as likely to have experienced sexual violence
by an interracial perpetrator as non-Hispanic White victims.
Similarly, Native stalking victims are nearly 4 times as.
likely to be stalked by someone of a different race, with 89%
of female stalking victims and 90% of male stalking victims
reporting inter-racial victimization. The higher rate of
inter-racial violence would not necessarily be significant if
It were not for the jurisdictional complexities unique to
Indian Country and the limitations imposed by federal law on
tribal authority to hold non-Indians accountable for crimes
they commit on tribal lands.
We stand with you in affirming tribes' sovereignty to
prosecute non-native offenders of sexual assault, child
abuse, trafficking and stalking. VAWA 2013 restored the
authority of Tribes to arrest and prosecute offenders,
regardless of their race, for acts of domestic violence
committed within the boundaries of their jurisdiction. Since
enactment, at least 16 Tribes have undertaken the steps to
exercise the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction
{SDVCJ) restored by VAWA 2013--leading to over 120 arrests.
Tribal victims deserve justice, and we fully support these
provisions.
Many survivors of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment
have housing needs. For some survivors, home may not be a
safe place and they may need to leave due to sexual violence
they are experiencing in their home that is perpetrated by a
household member, landlord, or neighbor. Other survivors may
need to find safe housing to heal and lessen the effects of
sexual violence they have experienced either in their home or
they may need to find new housing if the perpetrator knows
where they live to stay safe. VAWA includes important
protections for survivors of sexual assault in public
housing, and these provisions are a critical part of the
safety net for survivors.
We are very pleased to support your vital legislation that
moves us forward in our work to end sexual violence. Please
contact our Policy Director, Terri Poore, with any questions.
Sincerely,
Monika Johnson Hostler
President.
____

March 8, 2021.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representative Fitzpatrick,
and Chairman Nadler: The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence (NCADV) applauds you for introducing the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. The Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) is one of the three pillars of the
Federal response to domestic violence. First passed in 1994
under the leadership of then-Senator Biden, VAWA has been
reauthorized three times since then, most recently in 2013.
VAWA's authorization lapsed in 2018.
Every reauthorization included critical updates to enhance
America's response to domestic violence and other forms of
gender-based violence. These enhancements reflect the
evolution of our understanding of the dynamics of violence
and the needs of impacted communities. The Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 is the successor bill to
these previous reauthorizations and is a slightly updated
version of the H.R. 1585/S. 2843, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2019, which passed the House of
Representatives with strong bipartisan support before dying
in the Senate.
Like its predecessor, the updated 2021 bill invests in
prevention; keeps guns out of the hands of adjudicated dating
abusers and stalkers; promotes survivors' economic stability;
ends impunity for non-Natives who commit gender-based
violence on Tribal lands by expanding special tribal criminal
jurisdiction beyond domestic violence; and

[[Page H1429]]

increases survivors' access to safe housing. The Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 also recognizes the
disparate impact of gender-based violence on communities of
color due to systemic racism and Increases funding for
culturally specific organizations serving these communities.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021
expands VAWA's life-saving provisions to increase access to
safety and justice for all survivors.
It is particularly critical to reauthorize and improve VAWA
as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent
survey of domestic violence programs, 84% reported that
intimate partner violence has increased in their community
during the pandemic. Fifty percent reported the use of
firearms against intimate partners has increased, and one-
third reported intimate partner homicides have increased in
their communities. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2021 responds to the needs of survivors and supports
the programs that serve them.
We thank you, again, for your leadership, and we urge the
House to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2021 as a matter of upmost urgency.
Sincerely,
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
____

National Congress of

American Indians,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2021.
Re: Support for Passage of HR 1620, the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2021.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Jackson Lee and Representative
Fitzpatrick: I am writing on behalf of the National Congress
of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and largest
organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal
governments, to thank you for your leadership in introducing
HR 1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
(VAWA) of 2021, and to convey our support for your efforts.
NCAI has been actively involved in the development of the
tribal provisions of VAWA in each of the past
reauthorizations of the bill. Each time VAWA has been
reauthorized, it has included important provisions aimed at
improving safety and justice for Native women.
In 2019, NCAI adopted resolution ECWS-19-005 (attached),
which sets forth five priorities for reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act:
(1) include provisions, like those included in the
bipartisan Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act and
Justice for Native Survivors of Sexual Violence Act, that
amend 25 U.S.C. 1304 to address jurisdictional gaps
including: child abuse and endangerment; assaults against law
enforcement officers; sexual violence; stalking; trafficking;
and the exclusion of certain tribes from the law;
(2) create a permanent authorization for DOJ's Tribal
Access to National Crime Information Program and ensure that
TAP is available to all tribes;
(3) improve the response to cases of missing and murdered
women in tribal communities;
(4) identify and address the unique barriers to safety for
Alaska Native women and provide access to all programs; and
(5) reauthorize VAWA's tribal grant programs and ensure
that funding is available to cover costs incurred by tribes
who are exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1304.
We are pleased to see that your legislation continues to
build on VAWA's promise and includes the key priorities that
have been identified by tribal governments and advocates to
further enhance safety for victims in tribal communities.
As you know, tribal communities continue to be plagued by
the highest crime victimization rates in the country. A
recent study by the National Institute of Justice found that
over 80% of Native Americans will be a victim of intimate
partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in their
lifetime. The study also found that 90% of these victims were
victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. Sadly, Native
children are particularly affected by this violence. Native
children are 50% more likely to experience child abuse and
sexual abuse than white children. The complicated
jurisdictional framework at play in Indian Country continues
to undermine safety for victims of violence in tribal
communities.
Eight years ago, when Congress passed VAWA 2013, it
included a provision, known as Special Domestic Violence
Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ), that reaffirmed the inherent
sovereign authority of Indian tribal governments to exercise
criminal jurisdiction over certain non-Indians who violate
qualifying protection orders or commit domestic or dating
violence against Indian victims on tribal lands. Since
passage of VAWA 2013, we have witnessed the ways in which
tribal jurisdiction has transformed access to justice for
some domestic violence victims, and also the ways in which it
falls short for victims of sexual violence, stalking,
trafficking, and child abuse. We welcome introduction of your
bill, which would address many of the gaps in the existing
law and make important strides toward restoring public safety
and justice on tribal lands.
We are particularly grateful that your legislation
recognizes that Native children are equally in need of the
protections that were extended to adult domestic violence
victims in VAWA 2013. The Tribal Nations implementing SDVCJ
report that children have been involved as victims or
witnesses in SDVCJ cases nearly 60% of the time. These
children have been assaulted or have faced physical
intimidation and threats, are living in fear, and are at risk
for developing school-related problems, medical illnesses,
post-traumatic stress disorder, and other impairments.
However, federal law currently limits SDVCJ to crimes
committed only against intimate partners or persons covered
by a qualifying protection order. The common scenario
reported by Tribal Nations is that they are only able to
charge a non-Indian batterer for violence against the mother,
and can do nothing about violence against the children. Your
bill would change that.
Your bill will also make strides in improving the
coordination and collaboration between tribal, local, and
federal jurisdictions, particularly with regard to criminal
justice information sharing. These reforms are desperately
needed and will make a real difference for victims of crime
in Indian Country. We look forward to continuing this
important work with your offices and thank you for your
commitment to tribal communities.
Thank you,
Fawn Sharp,
President.
____

The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #ECWS-19-005

Urging Congress to Pass a Long-term Reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act that Includes Key Protections
for Native Women
Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of
American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine
blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in
order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the
inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United
States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are
entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States
and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, to enlighten the public toward a better
understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian
cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and
welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit
the following resolution; and
Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest
national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native
tribal governments; and
Whereas, NCAI resolution STP-00-081 established the NCAI
Task Force on Violence Against Native Women, which has worked
since that time to identify needed policy reforms at the
tribal and federal levels, including in the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA);
Whereas, VAWA was first passed in 1994, reauthorized in
2000, again in 2005, and 2013 and each of these bills
included important provisions aimed at improving safety and
justice for Native women;
Whereas, the last long-term reauthorization of VAWA expired
on September 30, 2018 and Congress has passed a series of
short-term extensions that leave VAWA currently scheduled to
expire on February 15, 2019;
Whereas, Native communities continue to experience high
levels of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse,
stalking, murder, and trafficking, many of these crimes are
committed by non-Indians, and there is a need to amend
federal law to improve access to justice and safety for
victims in tribal communities;
Whereas, VAWA 2013 included a provision that reaffirmed the
inherent sovereign authority of Indian tribal governments to
exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain non-Indians who
violate qualifying protection orders or commit domestic or
dating violence against Indian victims on tribal lands;
Whereas, by exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian
domestic violence offenders many tribal communities have
increased safety and justice for victims who had previously
seen little of either;
Whereas, the Department of Justice (DOJ) testified before
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016 that VAWA 2013
has allowed tribes to ``respond to long-time abusers who
previously had evaded justice,'' but that there are
significant additional gaps that need to be addressed;
Whereas, the tribes implementing VAWA 2013 report that
children have been involved as victims or witnesses in their
cases nearly 60% of the time and federal law prevents tnbal
courts from holding non-Indian offenders accountable for
these crimes;
Whereas, according to DOJ, American Indian and Alaska
Native children suffer exposure to violencci at rates higher
than any other race in the United States, and this violence
has immediate and long term effects,

[[Page H1430]]

including: increased rates of altered neurological
development; poor physical and mental health; poor school
performance; substance abuse; and overrepresentation in the
juvenile justice system;
Whereas, a 2016 report from the National Institute for
Justice (NIJ) confirmed that 56% of Native omen experience
sexual violence within their lifetime and nearly 1 in 2
report being stalked;
Whereas, according to NIJ Native victims of sexual violence
are three times as likely to have experienced sexual violence
by an interracial perpetrator as non-Hispanic White victims
and Native stalking victims are nearly 4 times as likely to
be stalked by someone of a different race, but federal law
prevents tribal courts from holding non-Indian offenders
accountable for these crimes;
Whereas, VAWA 2005 included. a provision directing the
Attorney General to permit Indian tribes to enter information
into and obtain information from federal criminal information
databases;
Whereas, in 2015 DOJ announced the Tribal Access Program
for National Crime Information (TAP), which provides eligible
tribes with access to the Criminal Justice Information
Services systems;
Whereas, there has never been funding authorized for the
TAP program and some tribes report that they are unable to
access the program;
Whereas, on some reservations, American Indian and Alaska
Native women are murdered at more than 10 times the national
average;
Whereas, in many cases, law enforcement has failed to
adequately respond to cases of missing arid murdered American
Indian and Alaska Native women, leaving family members to
organize their own searches and community marches for justice
and without access to support or services; and
Whereas, Alaska Native women experience some of the highest
rates of violence in the country and geographical remoteness,
extreme weather, the lack of transportation infrastructure,
and unique jurisdictional complexities present unique
challenges to Native women's safety;
Whereas, certain tribes subject to restrictive settlement
acts have not been able to implement the tribal jurisdiction
provision of VAWA 2013.
Now therefore be it resolved, that NCAI calls on Congress
to move swiftly to pass a long-term reauthorization of VAWA
that will:
Include provisions like those included in the Native Youth
and Tribal Officer Protection Act and Justice. for Native
Survivors of Sexual Violence Act that amend 25 USC 1304 to
address jurisdictional gaps including: child abuse and
endangerment; assaults against law enforcement officers;
sexual violence; stalking; trafficking; and the exclusion of
certain tribes from the law;
Create a perment authorization for DOJ's Tribal Access to
National Crime Information Program and ensure that TAP is
available to all tribes;
Improve the response to and classification of incidents of
missing and murdered Indian women consistent with NCAI
Resolution PHX-16-077;
Identify and address the unique barriers to safety for
Alaska Native women, based upon meaningful findings, and
provide access to all programs; and
Reauthorize VAWA's tribal grant programs and ensure that
funding is available to cover costs incurred by tribes who
are exercising jurisdiction pursuant to VAWA;
Be it further resolved, that NCAI will oppose any VAWA
reauthorization bill that undermines tribal sovereignty,
unfairly penalizes tribes in accessing federal funds, or that
diminishes tribal inherent authority to define and address
crimes of domestic or dating violence, sexual violence,
stalking, or trafficking; and
Be it finally resolved, resolution shall be the policy of
NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent
resolution.

certification

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Executive
Committee at the Executive Council Winter Session of the
National Congress of American Indians, held at the Capital
Hilton, February 12, 2019, with a quorum present.
Attest:
Juana Majel Dixon,
Recording Secretary.
Jefferson Keel,
President.
____

LEGAL MOMENTUM--The Women's Legal Defense and Education
Fund,
New York, March 8, 2021.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Jackson Lee and Representative
Fitzpatrick: Legal Momentum, the Women's Legal Defense and
Education Fund commends you for introducing the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. Legal Momentum is
the nation's first and longest-serving advocacy organization
dedicated to advancing gender equality. We make these
advancements through targeted litigation, innovative public
policy, and education. Preventing and responding to gender-
based violence is a core pillar of Legal Momentum's work, in
recognition of the fact that freedom from violence is central
to achieving true equality.
Legal Momentum is proud to have been closely involved in
developing the landmark bipartisan legislation that became
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. Our
organization played a critical role in drafting and
advocating for VAWA's passage, beginning this effort with
then-Senator Joe Biden in 1990. We have since worked in
coalition with the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence to see enhanced services and protections
included in each.reauthorization of VAWA, each of which had
bipartisan support. Legal Momentum is grateful to you for
your dedication to reauthorizing VAWA-in a way that responds
to the needs of all those affected by gender-based violence.
The updates to the existing Violence Against Women Act that
are included in your bill reflect the real needs of victims
and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. In particular, we are pleased that
this reauthorization of VAWA meets the needs of communities
of color. We applaud your commitment to pass a bipartisan
reauthorization of this critical legislation. We support
introducing the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2021 and hope that your colleagues across the political
spectrum will recognize the importance of these enhancements
and join in supporting it.
Thank you for your leadership and dedication to protecting
victims and survivors.
Sincerely,
Lynn Hecht Schafran, Esq.,
Senior Vice President.
____

JWI,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representative Fitzpatrick,
and Chairman Nadler: Jewish Women International (JWI), the
leading Jewish organization working to end gender-based
violence, applauds your steadfast dedication and leadership
in introducing the bipartisan Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2021 (H.R. 1620).
As a Steering Committee member of the National Task Force
to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, convener of the
Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and
Clergy Task Force to End Domestic Abuse in the Jewish
Community, and co-chair of Faiths United to Prevent Gun
Violence, JWI supports this bill that builds on VAWA's
previous successes and adds key enhancements to ensure the
safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is our nation's
single most effective tool in responding to the devastating
crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking--providing lifesaving programs and services.
Since its initial passage, VAWA has dramatically enhanced and
improved our nation's response to violence against women.
VAWA is essential in the funding of programs and services
that survivors rely on every day. This commonsense
legislation protects victims and survivors, helps save lives,
and makes our communities safer places to worship, heal, and
thrive.
Even with all of the advancements in the last twenty-seven
years, there is still a tremendous amount of work that
remains. One third of all women (nearly 52 million women) in
the United States have been victims of physical violence by
an intimate partner. In 2016 alone, there were 1.1 million
domestic violence victimizations, 54% of which involved
domestic partners. The Department of Justice's Criminal
Victimization 2016 Bulletin found that more than 10% of all
violent crime is due to intimate partner violence.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021
responds to the urgent issues survivors face every day by
supporting programming to prevent gender-based violence,
closing Tribal and firearms loopholes to protect all
survivors, strengthening public housing protections for
survivors, expanding the ability of providers to respond to
sexual harassment, and prioritizing support for Communities
of Color.
JWI and our 75,000 members and supporters greatly
appreciate your dedication and leadership in advancing the
critical mission of passing a targeted bill that will have a
broad impact on all survivors. Congress now has an
opportunity to come together and pass meaningful legislation
to help save the lives of victims of gender-based violence--
we are grateful that you are spearheading this effort.
Thank you again for being tireless champions of survivors.
Sincerely,
Meredith Jacobs,
JWI CEO.

[[Page H1431]]

____
Casa de Esperanza,

March 8, 2021.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee and Fitzpatrick: I
am writing on behalf of Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@
Network for Healthy Families and Communities to convey our
support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2021 (VAWA Reauthorization, H.R. 1620). We greatly appreciate
your leadership and effort to fulfil the promise of the
landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Casa de Esperanza was founded in 1982 in Minnesota to
provide emergency shelter and support services for women and
children experiencing domestic violence. In 2009, Casa de
Esperanza launched the National Latin@ Network for Healthy
Families and Communities, which is a national resource center
that provides training & technical assistance, research, and
policy advocacy on addressing and preventing gender-based
violence in Latin@ communities. Through offering direct
services in Minnesota and nationwide advocacy, we are very
aware of the critical role that VAWA has played in enhancing
access to services, safety, and justice for all survivors.
VAWA Reauthorization is a necessary part of our nation's
commitment to ending gender-based violence. It includes
narrowly focused, yet critical, enhancements to address gaps
identified by survivors and direct service providers. Among
many provisions, the measure maintains vital protections for
all survivors, invests in prevention, improves access to safe
housing and economic independence, and includes long overdue
funding for culturally specific communities.
Since the enactment of VAWA in 1994 and during each
subsequent reauthorization of VAWA in 2000, 2005, and 2013,
Congress has continued to support and improve protections for
survivors in a bipartisan manner. During this time in which
we are experiencing the dual crises of the Coronavirus and
gender-based violence, we are reminded of the fragility of
life. It is not now or ever acceptable to merely maintain the
status quo, let alone undermine current protections and
reduce access to safety and justice for victims and
survivors, particularly those from vulnerable communities
which also have been more deeply impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic.
In addition to ensuring important pathways to safety,
justice, and well-being for all survivors, H.R. 1620 includes
important enhancements that improve access to intervention
and prevention services. We are enthusiastic about the
funding for legal and housing services that are life-saving
resources for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. We
are also very encouraged by the funds provided for culturally
specific programs in H.R. 1620.
We appreciate your commitment to moving this bill forward
with bipartisan support and continue the longstanding
commitment of Congress to support enhanced services and
protections in each reauthorization of VAWA. Thank you for
being a champion on behalf of all victims and survivors and
for your commitment to improving the well-being of
individuals, families, and communities.
Sincerely,
Patricia J. Tototzintle,
CEO.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1620, the
``Violence Against Women Act of 2021,'' that will reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.
The Violence Against Women Act is landmark legislation first enacted
in 1994 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton which has--
through policy reforms, interstate cooperation and grant allocation--
been pivotal in providing a national response to protecting half of the
population.
Equally important, it has ushered in a seismic transformation on how
society perceives violence against women.
VAWA was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual
violence, and the significant impact of such violence on the lives of
women.
I remember those days well because I was serving on the board of the
Houston Area Women's Center (HAWC), at that time the sole shelter in
the Houston area offering sanctuary to victims and women at risk of
domestic violence.
Despite its import, VAWA has been expired since September 30, 2018,
and we as a body are now called upon by survivors to reauthorize it.
VAWA has a proven success record--in the quarter-century since it
passed, domestic violence has decreased by approximately two-thirds,
and intimate partner homicides decreased by approximately one-third.
However, despite these gains, domestic violence and sexual assault
cases I have rapidly increased during this COVID-19 crisis, where
perpetrators are spending significant amount of time at home with their
victims.
This landmark, transformative legislation is needed now more than
ever.
Police departments around the country have reported increases in
domestic violence: 18 percent increase in San Antonio; 22 percent
increase in Portland, Oregon; 10 percent increase in New York City.
A recent meta-analysis of 18 different studies concerning domestic
violence during the pandemic found that domestic violence cases have
increased an average of over 8 percent across the country.
In the United States, an estimated 10 million people experience
domestic violence every year, and more than 15 million children are
exposed to this violence annually.
According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about
20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner.
About 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner
physical violence, sexual violence, and/or partner stalking with
injury.
Today, in Texas, 35.10 percent of women and 34.5 percent of men are
subjected to domestic violence.
We cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Yashica
Fontenot, who was murdered in Harris County, Texas, by her husband just
one day after Christmas last year while she was trying to escape her
relationship.
Nor can we forget Debra Seidenfaden, who was murdered by her husband
in Houston after an argument.
Nor can we forget the Houston woman who was tied up and sexually
assaulted in her own home just last week; or the Houston woman who was
shot multiple times by her husband at a medical office this month; or
the Houston mother and grandmother who was murdered by her son-in law
while she attempted to protect her daughter and grandchildren.
There are countless stories like this throughout this country, which
is why it is imperative to reauthorize VAWA by passing H.R. 1620.
The stories of these women remind us of the urgency to protect
survivors now, before it is too late, because many of these deaths are
preventable.
Since VAWA's codification in 1994, more victims report episodes of
domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate
partner violence against women has decreased by almost two-thirds.
VAWA has also led to a significant increase in the reporting of
sexual assault.
From 1994 to 2015, the rate of women murdered by men in single
victim/single offender incidents dropped 29 percent.
In the first 15 years of VAWA's validity, rates of serious intimate
partner violence declined by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for
men.
Research suggests that referring a victim to a domestic violence or
sexual assault advocate has been linked to an increased willingness to
file a police report--survivors with an advocate filed a report with
law enforcement 59 percent of the time, versus 41 percent for
individuals not referred to a victim advocate.
Prior to VAWA, law enforcement lacked the resources and tools to
respond effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault, and this
progress cannot be allowed to stop.
Congress must continue sending the clear message that violence
against women is unacceptable.
VAWA has been reauthorized three times--in 2000, 2005, and 2013--with
strong bipartisan approval and overwhelming support from Congress,
states, and local communities.
Each reauthorization of VAWA has improved protections for women and
men, while helping to change the culture and reduce the tolerance for
these crimes.
H.R. 1620 continues that tradition, and therefore, is intended to
make modifications, as Congress has done in the past to all previous
reauthorizations of VAWA.
H.R. 1620 is a bipartisan bill, reflecting a reasonable and
compromise approach to reauthorize grant programs under the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA).
These moderate enhancements will address the many growing and unmet
needs of victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking.
H.R. 1620 addresses the needs of sex trafficking victims while
creating a demonstration program on trauma-informed training for law
enforcement.
H.R. 1620 increases access to grant programs for culturally specific
organizations and ensure culturally specific organizations are included
in the development and implementation of service, education, training,
and other grants.
H.R. 1620 adds a purpose area to assist communities in developing
alternatives to housing ordinances that punish survivors for seeking
law enforcement intervention.
H.R. 1620 expands protections for vulnerable populations such as
youth, survivors without shelter, Native American women, and LGBTQ
persons.
H.R. 1620 ensures Deaf people are included in grants relating to
people with disabilities.
VAWA is central to our nation's effort to fight the epidemic of
domestic, sexual, and

[[Page H1432]]

dating violence and stalking, and we as a body are now called upon by
survivors to reauthorize it.
It is important to note that H.R. 1620 did not happen on its own.
It was the product of a collaborative effort of stakeholders,
including victim advocates.
It was the product of those willing to share their stories of the
abuse suffered at the hands of those who were entrusted to love, but
instead harmed.
The courage, strength, and resilience displayed by survivors has
reminded all that we must continue to foster an environment for victims
of violence to come forward and expose episodes of violence against
women.
Having listened to concerned stakeholders from all pockets of the
country, we have put pen to paper and produced a bill that is endorsed
by the bipartisan National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence (NTF), which is a national collaboration comprising a large
and diverse group of 35 national, tribal, state, territorial, and local
organizations, advocates, and individuals that focus on the
development, passage and implementation of effective public policy to
address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.
This bill recognizes the urgency and dire need faced by the victims
and survivors throughout this country during a significant moment of
ongoing domestic violence caused by this pandemic and experienced by
both women and men.
The love for a spouse, the comfort of a mother and the best wishes
for a sister know no political allegiance.
I am determined to work with my colleagues and others to complete the
mission I accepted in the 115th Congress when the House passed the VAWA
legislation I authored, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2018, all the way this time through passage by
the Senate and to presentment for signature to President Biden, a
strong supporter of the bill and the original creator of VAWA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Spanberger). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to Resolution 233, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

____________________