A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

I rise to introduce the Rural Energy for America Program Reauthorization Act, along with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa.

Farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to Minnesota's culture and economy. In fact, in my State, one out of every five jobs is related to the agricultural economy.

We all rely on farmers for our food. It is thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many other countries. While family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions. Weather and disease can wipe out a crop, profit margins can be small, and fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farmer.

Farm work is also very energy intensive, so when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. High energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing crop prices, if they can, and squeezed budgets all around. To make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack and on the budget chopping block.

REAP, or the Rural Energy for America Program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. The bill I am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program that will help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site.

Let me go through a few examples of what REAP projects can look like. It is putting solar panels on barns. It is wind turbines in fields. There are wind turbines all over Minnesota. It is anaerobic digesters on dairy farms which actually use waste to create methane gas and electricity. It means energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps in factories. It means agricultural producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. It means rural America can make high-tech investments, create jobs, and lead the world in producing clean energy. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy biomass and the low carbon footprint that represents.

The Rural Energy for America Program is a modest program, but it is a wise investment that effectively leverages private funds. Since it was

created in 2002, this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the Nation invest in alternative energy projects. The program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. By providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and State investments. Plus, the Rural Energy for America Program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. These are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work--good jobs that rural America needs. It also bolsters American energy independence and fosters homegrown energy sources such as wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil.

Shirley Hovda's rural wood finishing and coating business, Quality Decorating, in Roseau, MN, is one of the 6,000 that benefited from the Rural Energy for America Program over the years. Roseau, in northern Minnesota, is cold in the winter and in the fall and in the early spring. When Shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating and cooling system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000 square foot facility.

With the help of a $7,920 grant from the Rural Energy for America Program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. Over the past 5 years, Shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40 percent, saving thousands of dollars she has invested in more productive parts of her business.

The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program to continue helping farmers and small business owners such as Shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It makes improvements to the program too. While the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me they are facing challenges accessing it. So our bill removes barriers while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

First, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the program's grants and loans. The new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. That way, farmers and the USDA can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it.

Second, my bill removes a regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. In these tight fiscal times, I think it is important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent, so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants.

Third, our bill requires the USDA to include stronger health and environmental criteria when evaluating potential projects, and it expands startup support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning.

We are very grateful for the strong support from the agricultural community, including the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Agriculture Energy Association, the Distributed Wind Alliance, the Minnesota Corn Growers, and the Minnesota Soybean Growers.

With the Chair's indulgence, I have about 30 seconds left. I have an inner clock. I think I am up against my 2 minutes, so I wish to say I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the Senate. Going forward, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill.

I see Senator Johanns, the former Secretary of Agriculture, on the floor, whom I hope to work with on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the states' ratification of the equal rights amendment, ERA. I thank Senators Boxer, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harkin, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Mikulski for joining me as original cosponsors.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by \3/4\ of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress,

but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982.

Congress can and should give the States another chance. In 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires ``equal protection of the laws,'' and the Supreme Court has so far held that most sex or gender classifications are subject to only ``intermediate scrutiny'' when analyzing laws that may have a discriminatory impact. In 2011 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave an interview in which he stated that ``certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' Ratification of the ERA by state legislatures would provide the courts with clearer guidance in holding gender or sex classifications to the ``strict scrutiny'' standard.

The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect two years after ratification by the States.

March is Women's History Month. And today is the 40th anniversary of passage by the Senate of the joint resolution to extend the ERA ratification timeline on March 22, 1972. Today, nearly half of the States have a version of the ERA written into their State constitution. My own State of Maryland's constitution reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.''

I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, which is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the National Organization for Women, and the American Association of University Women. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the states' ratification of the equal rights amendment, ERA. I thank Senators Boxer, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harkin, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Mikulski for joining me as original cosponsors.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by \3/4\ of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress,

but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982.

Congress can and should give the States another chance. In 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires ``equal protection of the laws,'' and the Supreme Court has so far held that most sex or gender classifications are subject to only ``intermediate scrutiny'' when analyzing laws that may have a discriminatory impact. In 2011 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave an interview in which he stated that ``certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' Ratification of the ERA by state legislatures would provide the courts with clearer guidance in holding gender or sex classifications to the ``strict scrutiny'' standard.

The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect two years after ratification by the States.

March is Women's History Month. And today is the 40th anniversary of passage by the Senate of the joint resolution to extend the ERA ratification timeline on March 22, 1972. Today, nearly half of the States have a version of the ERA written into their State constitution. My own State of Maryland's constitution reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.''

I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, which is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the National Organization for Women, and the American Association of University Women. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.