Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon, (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, yesterday was an interesting day for me personally, but it was an interesting day, more importantly, in the history of the United States when it comes to the Equal Rights Amendment.

The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in 1923, 100 years ago--100 years ago. It was proposed by a leader named Dr. Alice Paul. At the time, she had just won an important victory. She and her fellow suffragists had just led successfully the campaign to ratify the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote in the United States--100 years ago.

Despite this monumental achievement, Dr. Paul recognized that just the right to vote was not enough for gender equality, but it was the right starting point. So she devoted the remaining years of her life to enshrining gender equality in every facet of American life and particularly into the Constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment.

Sadly, Dr. Paul and her fellow suffragists passed away long before they could see the ERA become the law of the land, but their legacy lives on today in a new generation of activists, lawmakers, and trailblazers who are propelling the movement for equality forward.

The personal side of this relates to the fact that when I graduated from law school in 1969, I went to work for the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, Paul Simon, who later served here in the Senate. One of my first assignments in the Illinois State Senate was to work for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the State of Illinois.

The road to ratification has been long and winding. I continue to be amazed by the proposal. Fifty years ago, it really came down to some very basic arguments, and the leading argument against the Equal Rights Amendment was that men and women would have to share public restrooms. When I say that, you think: Wait a minute. You want enshrined in the Constitution the constitutional rights of more than half of the people living in America, and the article came down to a debate over the future of public restrooms? I have to tell you, that had more to do with it than almost anything else. I heard that argument over and over and over again.

The ERA is a rallying cry for Americans young and old for good reason. As the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, it would ensure that our Nation lives up to the promise of real equality, and, frankly, it is a principle that should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Thirty-eight States have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in the past half century--the most recent, Virginia in 2020. Thirty-eight is the exact number needed to certify an amendment to the Constitution. The only thing standing in the way of an Equal Rights Amendment is an arbitrary deadline that Congress included in the preamble--let me underline those three words, ``in the preamble''--of this amendment as it passed in 1972 clarifying that this was not the controlling but simply in the preamble, is what the current controversy is about.

During yesterday's hearing on the ERA, we heard from several witnesses: my own home State Lieutenant Governor, Juliana Stratton, and a young woman whose name is Thursday Williams, a first-generation American, a board member of the ERA Coalition, and a senior at Trinity College in Connecticut. She spoke on behalf of a lot of young people. She is a college senior. Her compelling testimony was a testament to the value of her voice in the conversation. I am glad she was there.

After graduating college, Ms. Williams plans to become an attorney. She said:

[I] fell in love with the United States Constitution in

high school.''

You don't hear that very often, do you?

She said:

What I love the most about the Constitution is how

brilliantly it was designed to adapt to the changing needs of

its people.

She argued that today the American people deserve a Constitution that guarantees equality regardless of sex, a Constitution that we can use as a tool to fight discrimination.

She concluded her testimony by asking the members of the committee:

If we continue to hold back more than half of [the] people

[in America] from accessing equal opportunities, what does

that say about us as a country?

How can we be the beacon of freedom and democracy we claim

to be if we don't declare that sex discrimination contradicts

the American dream?

This young college student is pretty smart, as far as I am concerned. She knew exactly the right question to ask. Generations of Americans have been waiting for us in Congress to protect their fundamental rights.

Congress approved the ERA 50 years ago, but in doing so, we imposed that arbitrary time limit for ratification. That is why our hearing yesterday was so important. The members of the committee were not merely discussing the importance of the ERA; we were urging our colleagues to join us in passing it.

This joint resolution already has bipartisan support in both Chambers. I want to salute Senator Murkowski of Alaska, with Senator Ben Cardin, for joining us in cosponsoring this effort. We can't wait any longer.

I listened to the arguments about opposing the Equal Rights Amendment in this year, 2023. Fifty years ago, the argument was, we can't see how we are going to resolve public restrooms. Now the argument raised by one of the witnesses called by the Republicans was, we are worried about the impact that an Equal Rights Amendment would have on the future of field hockey--field hockey. The woman who testified, representing one of the Koch Industries' entities that have been created to do politicking, said she couldn't explain to her daughter or guarantee to her that there wouldn't be some clash as to whether men could play on her field hockey team.

I would say to her with all due respect--and I have been a parent myself; still am--that it is time to sit down and talk to her daughter about the basics, and the basics are the constitutional guarantee of her rights for the rest of her natural life, not the next field hockey game.

There is more at stake here, and it probably relates less to her because of who she is and her family than it does to all the other women whose lives would be improved by the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. That is where we stand today.

There is no room for uncertainty when it comes to protecting equal rights under the law. That is a lesson that was driven home last year when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. For the first time in history--for the first time in the history of the United States of America--the Supreme Court ripped away a constitutional right from the American people. That has never, never happened before.

One of the Supreme Court Justices--by name, Clarence Thomas--made it clear that this was just the beginning. He was going to call into question a lot of fundamental constitutional rights, like the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to family planning.

So now Members of the Senate have to make a decision during our time: What kind of America do we want for our granddaughters and daughters--a country in which the fundamental rights are safe and secure or one in which the Constitution still--still, 100 years after we started--fails to recognize fundamental equality on the basis of sex?

I think the hearing was very clear, and I think the issue is very clear. I know what I want to be able to explain to my little granddaughter. She is only 3\1/2\ now, but I hope to live long enough to someday sit down with her and have a serious conversation about this. I want to tell her that during the course of my life, her constitutional rights in America were at issue and that we did the right thing for her and for her daughter and her daughter's daughter and everyone born in America in guaranteeing basic equality.

Madam President, this week, the Senate confirmed Araceli Martinez-Olguin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

A first-generation American, Ms. Martinez-Olguin graduated from Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, before clerking for Judge David Briones on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. From there, she embarked on a legal career defined by her commitment to protecting the rights of immigrants, workers, students, and women--from the ACLU Women's Rights Project to Legal Aid at Work, to the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, and the National Immigration Law Center. In addition to her experience assisting with legal briefs for cases being considered by the Supreme Court, Ms. Martinez-Olguin has focused on dozens of immigration and employment matters, many of which implicated complex statutory schemes.

The American Bar Association rated Ms. Martinez-Olguin as ``qualified,'' and her nomination was strongly supported by her home State Senators, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Padilla.

With a career-long commitment to defending equal justice for all, and a professional background that is historically underrepresented on the bench, Ms. Martinez-Olguin will serve the Northern District of California with distinction. I was proud to support her nomination.

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Jamal Whitehead to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Mr. Whitehead's significant trial experience in both government and private practice and his commitment to equal justice under law make him an outstanding nominee to the district court. After graduating from the University of Washington and the Seattle University School of Law, he joined the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's--EEOC-- Seattle field office as a trial attorney. While at the EEOC, Mr. Whitehead was responsible for enforcing Federal employment discrimination laws, including title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Whitehead then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington, where he handled both employment and tort matters. He returned to private practice in 2016 and has continued to focus on civil rights, including representing individuals who have brought claims against their employers for harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

Mr. Whitehead is President Biden's first judicial nominee living with a known physical disability, and he will be one of few Federal judges who understands this experience. He will bring a valuable perspective to the district court bench. In addition, the American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Whitehead ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of his home-state Senators, Mrs. Murray and Ms. Cantwell.

I supported his nomination and was glad to see him confirmed.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jamar Walker to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Walker's commitment to public service and deep ties to the Virginia legal community will serve the district court well.

Born in Nassawadox, VA, Mr. Walker received his B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2008 and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2011. He then clerked for Judge Raymond A. Jackson, whom he has now been nominated to succeed, on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mr. Walker began his career in private practice in Washington, DC, where he specialized in commercial insurance litigation and products liability. He then joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia as an Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit. In this role, Mr. Walker has prosecuted a wide range of cases, including bribery, money laundering, wire fraud, bank fraud, foreign corrupt practices, and securities fraud. Following 7 years of dedicated service, Mr. Walker was named the unit's acting chief in 2022.

Mr. Walker has spent nearly his entire legal career litigating in Federal court, and he has gained significant experience in both civil and criminal matters. In recognition of his expertise, the American Bar Association rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court. He also has the strong support of Senators Warner and Kaine. And if confirmed, Mr. Walker would make history as the first openly LGBTQ article III Judge to serve in the State of Virginia.

I will vote in favor of his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the enclosed rules of procedure for the Committee on the Judiciary for the 118th Congress printed in the Record.

Madam President, let me first thank my colleague from Texas. We disagree from time to time, but when we agree, I feel good about it. And today, we do agree, certainly, on the Ukrainian war and the role and responsibility of the United States.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.