Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review".

Madam President, I take this time--and I am going to be joined by several of my colleagues--to talk about a vote that we are going to have tomorrow on S.J. Res. 4. This is the resolution that would rescind the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

This is an issue that I have been working on for a long time, including during my time in the Maryland General Assembly in 1972, when the Maryland legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.

So this goes back a long time, and it is time to finish the work. I want to thank Chairman Durbin for his leadership on this issue, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the work he did so that we could reach this moment where we have a chance to take the step that is critically important, removing any ambiguity in regards to the ratification process.

I also want to thank Leader Schumer for making this time available so we will be able to vote on this issue tomorrow.

I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Lisa Murkowski, my coleader on this resolution. The two of us have worked together. This should never be a partisan issue. Equality should enjoy support, I would hope, from both Democrats and Republicans.

There is no time limit on equality. The 28th Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment, was approved by the U.S. Congress in both the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote, as required in the Constitution, and has been ratified by 38 States--that is, three-fourths necessary for the ratification of a constitutional amendment.

The sole purpose of S.J. Res. 4 is to remove any ambiguity, to remove the time limit that was included originally in the 1972 act of Congress of 7 years and previously extended to 10 years.

I want to acknowledge the help I have received on this through the incredible staff we all have here in the U.S. Senate. Bill Van Horne, who is my chief counsel, has been working on this issue since my days in the House of Representatives, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing all the groups together. Helen Rogers has helped a great deal in this effort. I just want to acknowledge the work both of them have done on the Equal Rights Amendment.

The ERA simply states:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or

abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

That is it. That is exactly what the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution says. Ratification would affirm women's equality in our Constitution, enshrining the principle of women's equality and explicit prohibition against sex discrimination in our Nation's founding document.

Currently, the only explicitly guaranteed right in our Constitution based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, which is the right to vote.

Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing systemic sex-based inequality in our society.

As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool for Congress, for Federal Agencies, and in courts to advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of LBGTQ+ individuals. Enshrining this protection in our Constitution also ensures enduring protections for all Americans across the country.

Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing the systemic sex-based inequality in our society.

It is also a signal to the courts that they should apply a more rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that discriminate on the basis of sex.

That is what the ERA is all about: equality--the most fundamental of American values.

We need to finally get the job done. Last Congress, a bipartisan majority in the Senate cosponsored this joint resolution, and the House of Representatives has already passed this legislation on two occasions--first in the 116th Congress and then in the 117th Congress.

Virginia became the 38th and final State required by the Constitution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on January 27, 2020.

Our resolution, S.J. Res. 4, would clarify once and for all that the Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements of article V of our Constitution.

Let me read what it says:

That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House

Joint Resolution 208, the 92nd 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 Constitution, whenever

ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

States.

It is a clarification resolution. Congress has the power to do it. Congress approved it by more than the required two-thirds majority in both Chambers, and three-quarters of States have now ratified it. Article V of the Constitution has been complied with.

You are going to hear legal arguments surrounding whether a Senate

joint resolution can remove a deadline, so let me talk about some of these issues.

First, in the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution that sets a time limit on ratification. Read Article V. It talks about the votes necessary in Congress--we have had that--and the votes of ratification by the States--we have done that. There is no time limit in the Constitution.

The 27th Amendment effecting congressional pay raise was ratified after two centuries, after being initially proposed by Congress as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, two centuries before--over 200 years before it was ratified.

Congress has the authority to act. There is precedent for Congress to extend the deadline for ratification of an amendment, as it did once before for the ERA. Note that the ERA deadline was contained in the preamble to the text of the constitutional amendment, not in the constitutional amendment itself.

There is precedent for Congress to declare that the requisite number of States have ratified a constitutional amendment, as the House and Senate did in 1992 by resolutions affirming the validity of the 27th Amendment regarding congressional pay raises. That is the one that took over 200 years to ratify.

In terms of Article V, the only question is whether a State has ratified. Ratification is something that happens at a moment in time. It either happens or it doesn't happen. History tells us that once a State has ratified, it can't take it back. The 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution after the Civil War even though two States had attempted to rescind prior ratifications. Those States were included on the list of States that ratified. The effectiveness of a rescission is ultimately a question for Congress. S.J. Res. 4 answers that question.

Then the most recent opinion by the Department of Justice, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, noted that Congress, as a coequal branch of government, is not precluded from taking further action regarding the ratification of the ERA.

So we have all of the legal requirements. We can act.

Now let me lay out a few more things here.

Most Americans believe the ERA is already part of our Constitution. Just ask them. They think it is there. Most of our States have provisions in the State constitutions to provide equal rights based upon sex. So we already have it in States, and it is working.

Most democracies--in fact, every constitution that has been written since World War II contains an equal rights amendment. The United States is an outlier on this issue. We are the leader of democratic values in human rights globally, but we don't have an equal rights amendment in our Constitution.

The Pew Research Center did a survey on this. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support the Equal Rights Amendment being added to the Constitution. This is overwhelmingly popular among all of our constituents--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, men, women. Two- hundred fifty national and local groups support the ERA, including the League of Women Voters, the National Urban League, the National Council of Jewish Women, the SEIU, and many, many other civil rights, labor, and civic groups.

This resolution language removes any doubt of ratification, and it is the right way to go under our Constitution. We had the advice of constitutional scholars who support what we are doing--Erwin Chemerinsky, Larry Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catharine MacKinnon, Victoria Nourse, former Senator Russ Feingold. All have endorsed the way we are proceeding.

The ERA is needed not only to keep progress moving forward but also to protect against incursions on the progress we have already made. Based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, some Justices ascribe to the view that the meaning of equality under the equal protection clause should be frozen in time in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. That approach may cast in doubt even the limited precedents currently holding that the equal protection clause applies to sex discrimination.

It has been more than 100 years since women won the right to vote and nearly 100 since the effort to enshrine the ERA in the Constitution began. Generations have fought to achieve major points of progress in our laws and our society since then. However, it is undeniable that work remains.

Finally, enshrining the ERA into the Constitution would be one major step that we could take towards a society that is truly equal on the basis of sex.

I therefore urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 4. The women of America have waited long enough. Don't filibuster equality. You don't want to be on that side of history.

There should be no time limit on equality. Let us use this opportunity to complete the action of equality based on sex in our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

First, Madam President, I thank my colleagues who are on the floor today--Senator Tuberville for his leadership, Senator Budd, and Senator Ernst--for their efforts in the protection of women and girls in sports. As a doctor, I share their concerns, share their passion in terms of fairness, in terms of safety, and I congratulate them on their efforts and continue to join them in those efforts to provide the protection for women and girls in sports.

Energy

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the high price of Democrats' misguided energy agenda. It is a high-price crisis entirely of President Biden and the Democratic Party's own making.

Last year, when energy prices were already at historic highs, what did Democrats do? Well, they voted 10 times--time after time after time--against increasing American energy production. Instead, Democrats jammed through the Senate and the House the largest climate bill in American history. The climate extremists applauded this.

Let me just say, hold the applause, because the American public is suffering. Families all across this great land are hurting. Democrats' reckless spending in the past 2 years has driven up the cost of energy and, of course, as everyone knows, this has fueled inflation.

Inflation reached a 40-year high because of Democrats' spending. Prices today are over 15 percent higher than they were the day Joe Biden took office. Energy prices have gone up even more than that. Americans are paying 36 percent more for energy today than they were in January of 2021. Gas prices to fill the tank are up 46 percent. That is a 5-month high. They are going to continue to go up during this summer's driving season.

The lower gas prices that the administration desperately and irresponsibly depleted our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to achieve last year has hurt our economy and has hurt our country and has hurt our national security.

Democrats were wrong to raid our emergency supplies of petroleum products in a desperate attempt to lower gas prices leading up to the November 2022 elections.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is our Nation's emergency reserve. Now it is out of gas. It is down to the lowest level it has been at in 40 years. Not refilling it. Oh, no.

Joe Biden knew we needed more energy than that. So he went on bended knee to foreign dictators, begging them to produce more oil to help lower gas prices here in America but not letting us produce it here at home--and we have plenty.

This President did everything he could to try to lower gas prices except the thing the American people know would work, and that is to produce more American energy. So American families are once again facing that double whammy of an energy crisis coupled with an inflation crisis.

Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to help solve the problem. Remember, the Biden administration began working on day No. 1 to choke off America's energy resources: killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, canceled oil and gas leases.

America's energy revolution turned us into the world's energy superpower. Our economy had a wonderful, competitive advantage. It is good for families, good for workers.

We challenged dictators without having to worry about our energy supply. We had affordable, reliable, and available American energy. This administration and the Democrats in this body squandered the gains that we had achieved.

They attacked American oil, natural gas, and coal at every turn along the way. Then they raised taxes to make it even more expensive. They instituted burdensome regulations to make it more difficult to produce the American energy.

They have put up roadblock after roadblock on every type of American energy. And yet Joe Biden and the Democrats, open-mouthed, looked with surprise: Why have the prices skyrocketed?

Anybody could have predicted that choking off our energy supply would lead to record-high energy prices and to increase dependence on our adversaries--Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela.

Last week, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm testified before the Energy Committee. I specifically asked her about the administration's plan to lower gas prices and energy prices across the board, because they are up across the board. They are up for heating energy; they are up for driving energy.

Her solution: government mandates, phase out anything powered by oil,

natural gas, or coal. Take away our gas stoves, take away our gas- powered water heaters, force-feed us expensive electric cars that don't work for many people across the country.

They may be OK for rich people in the big cities who don't have to drive very much, who can afford to pay $16,000 more for a vehicle than for a traditional car. But for Wyoming families and Wyoming farmers and Wyoming ranchers, they just don't work.

People want affordable, reliable vehicles. And for people all around rural America, electric cars are not it.

Americans don't support the Democrats' climate extremism. Look at the polls. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they don't want to buy an electric car. They don't want to be force-fed by Joe Biden. They don't want to have the government in the driver's seat.

They say the price is too high. It is $64,000 on average. The batteries are unreliable. Charging them is inconvenient. It is time- consuming. It takes a long time to get a battery charged, and it can't go all that far.

And then who benefits from all of this? China. That is because most of the critical minerals that are needed to build these batteries come right out of China. Just look for the ``made in China'' sticker on the batteries of the electric vehicles.

This country should be focusing on strengthening our energy independence, not finding ways to become more dependent to China or Russia.

So the reality of Secretary Granholm's so-called solution to lowering prices is that Americans will just pay more; not really concerned about affordability, but I didn't hear that word at all.

The way to lower prices is to unleash American energy. Now, the House recently passed legislation to do just that. And I support their efforts.

Senator Capito and I are going to soon introduce our own legislation in the Senate. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going to hold a hearing on the critical issues in the coming weeks.

We can only unleash American energy if we fix our broken permitting system process. Right now, new energy projects are bogged down by a maze of redtape and lawsuits.

Our legislation is going to include enforceable timelines on environmental reviews and filing legal challenges. We are going to move forward faster with an all-of-the-above American energy agenda. We need it all.

My Democratic colleagues have stated before that they do want permitting reform. Well, we will see. They are going to have an opportunity to speak up and to vote; because if they are serious, real reform is possible. If they are serious, we can tell the American people that real relief is on the way.

We do need a long-term commitment in this country to American energy. Making life more affordable for every American should be a bipartisan priority. It hasn't been for the first 2 years in the Biden administration and now going into the third.

We need to get back to a point where we can make energy affordable, available, and reliable--instead of focusing, as the Democrats do, on only renewable energy, regardless of the cost and regardless of the consequences.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from Alabama for leading this effort.

Iowa has a celebrated history of exceptional girls' sports programs. We recently saw the Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team make it to the national championship after taking home their fifth Big Ten Tournament title just days after cheering on the high school girls competing in the State tournament. Last year, the Iowa High School Girls Athletic Union proudly sanctioned girls wrestling, opening up new opportunities for girls to be part of a team and recognized for their achievements.

Title IX not only makes these events possible; it guarantees an opportunity for our female athletes. Whether it is growing as a leader, winning a championship, or securing a scholarship to college, sports opens doors for young women. But right now, President Biden is working overtime to force institutions to allow biological males to share spaces with females and compete in women's sports. Doors that were opened over 50 years ago are being slammed in the faces of girls across the country because of the progressive left's gender ideology. Girls' locker rooms have now become a battleground for the Democratic Party, and parents continue to be iced out of the issue.

Thankfully, last year, Governor Reynolds protected girls' sports across Iowa, from elementary school all the way up to the collegiate level.

Here in the Senate, I am proud to join my friend from Alabama and our colleagues in supporting the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. Under this legislation, any athletic program that receives Federal funds and permits a biological male to participate in competitions designated for women or girls would be in violation of Federal law. The House just passed this commonsense bill last week, and we should not waste any more time in passing it here in the Senate.

Payton McNabb is a senior in high school. She loves volleyball but was severely injured last fall because a biological male spiked the ball into her face.

Riley Gaines Barker, a 12-time NCAA All-American athlete, was forced to compete against a biological male, Lia Thomas, in the 200 freestyle. The two tied--they tied--for fifth place, with Thomas taking home the trophy. No kidding. Thomas took home the trophy. The NCAA told Riley it was necessary for photo purposes.

Lia Thomas is a 6-foot-4-inch biological male who swam on the men's team at the University of Pennsylvania for 3 years before switching to the women's team for his final year. Thomas beat female 2020 Olympic silver medalists and American record holders to win an NCAA Division I title.

Man, you might feel like a woman, but you aren't one.

We must protect our young girls and make sure they aren't pushed off the podium. Title IX is the law of the land whether the far left likes it or not. The law was created to offer the same playing field to female athletes as their male counterparts, not to subject women to second place and the sidelines.

In defense of our Iowa daughters and female athletes across the Nation, I am standing with Riley Gaines--who was recently attacked by radical activists on a college campus--and her message: Biological men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.

Our female athletes deserve fairness, safety, and the ability to win those top scholarships and titles, as title IX intended. No amount of harassment from the radical left will stop strong women from standing up for the truth and for what is right.

If Senate Democrats pushing the so-called Equal Rights Amendment were really interested in equal rights for women, they would protect women's sports and spaces from biological men.

Madam President, every time a girl steps onto the mat, onto the court, the field, or the track, she should know that she has every opportunity to compete and win.

I am proud to work with my friend Senator Tuberville and my colleagues in fighting to pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

With that, I will yield the floor to Senator Tuberville.

Madam President, last week, the House voted for a commonsense proposal that is supported by a majority of Americans. The House voted to protect female athletes. This week, it is time for the Senate to do the same thing.

Before my time here, I spent many years as a coach, educator, and mentor. I have seen how sports can change people's lives. Athletic scholarships open up a lifetime of opportunities for men and women alike. Yet, today, those opportunities for women are being threatened by a radical political agenda that is being forced upon the American people.

When I was growing up, there were a lot less opportunities for female athletes. Fifty-one years ago, Congress passed title IX to ensure that male and female athletes both had access to lessons, life skills, and opportunities for advancement that come from participating in sports. It has been one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress.

As a coach, I saw its impact firsthand. One of my first jobs out of college was coaching junior girls' basketball--what a thrill. Title IX was just starting to be implemented when I took the job. I was there to see the incredible impact it had on young girls all over this country.

For the first time, young women I coached had equal access to facilities, resources, and competition. I saw those hard-working athletes go on to earn college scholarships, start careers, and become leaders in their own communities.

I still keep in touch with a lot of them. I am deeply proud of them. I wonder if they would have had the same opportunities without title IX. Would they have had the same access or ability for success?

Before title IX, at a lot of schools, there was no such thing as college women's athletics. Very few collegiate championships for women's sports existed, limiting opportunities for female athletes to achieve greatness.

Before 1972, when title IX was enacted, there were only about 30,000 female athletes in college sports and only around 290,000 in high school sports. For comparison, at the same time, 3.7 million males were playing high school sports. However, after title IX's enactment, that changed very quickly.

Because of title IX, female participation at the college level has risen more than 600 percent. Yet now female athletes are again being told to give up their ability to compete--and settle for second place.

Women and girls are suffering at the hands of an ideology. The Biden administration is taking a sledgehammer--a big sledgehammer--to title

Madam President, I am truly disappointed but expected that the Democrats were going to block this legislation to protect young girls and women. Again, it is shameful. It really is.

I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor, and I want to thank her for joining me in this effort to protect women.

I yield the floor to Senator Ernst.

I thank Senator Ernst for her comments. Now I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Budd.

Madam President, I thank Senators Ernst and Budd for their comments today. I also want to thank the 25 cosponsors we have signed on to my bill in the Senate. Rest assured, this is not the end. We will continue to fight for this legislation for all the girls and women across this great country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I rise today in opposition to S. 613, legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender.

My Republican colleagues falsely claim that allowing transgender women and girls to play sports is harmful to cisgender women and girls. They continue to hurl insulting lies about transgender girls dominating sports. But what is true is that these bans are deeply harmful to transgender girls, particularly transgender girls of color, girls who are gender nonconforming, and cisgender girls as well. These ``sex tests'' invade every girl's privacy and open the door to harassment for anyone who is perceived as ``different.''

If my Republican colleagues were actually worried about women and girls in athletics, they would join in our efforts to address unequal athletic opportunities in school, unequal pay, sexual abuse and harassment, and more. But this isn't about supporting women and girls; this is about power and control. My Republican colleagues are obsessed with controlling women's bodies and our lives, as we are seeing yet again today.

But instead of being honest about what they are doing, many on the other side claim that this bill is somehow a defense of title IX. That couldn't be further from the truth. Title IX says:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,

be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,

or be subjected to discrimination under any education program

or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

As someone who knew and was friends with Patsy Mink, the author of title IX, I can tell you she would be standing right next to me to say title IX in no way or shape supports what my colleague is attempting to do. Patsy spent her entire life fighting to advance equal opportunity for women and girls. It would pain her to know that the bill she fought so hard to make law is being twisted by Republicans to discriminate against the very people it was designed to protect.

Republicans have the wrong priorities. We shouldn't be banning anyone from playing sports. We should be fighting the discrimination that all women and girls--trans, cis, or otherwise--continue to face in athletics, in the classroom, and in the workplace.

For these reasons, I object.