Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to complete a little bit of the portrait of Sergeant Major Waugh, which was begun by Mr. Burlison, Sergeant Major Waugh also served in the Green Berets within the U.S. Army Special Forces in 1954. When he retired from the Army, he returned to serve as a paramilitary officer within the CIA Special Activities Division. Waugh was one of the oldest field operatives at the age of 71, providing critical intelligence and guidance to Afghan troops. In his career, he earned a Silver Star, four Bronze Stars, eight Purple Hearts, and the CIA's Intelligence Star. He passed away in April 2023 at 93 years old. The legislation would honor his legacy, his extraordinary more-than- 50-year military career, and his dedication to the country by naming a post office after him in his hometown of Bastrop, Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers. I support passage of S. 4077, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support S. 59, and I salute Ms. Foxx on her excellent leadership and stewardship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 59, introduced in the Senate by Senators Sinema and Lankford. The House passed a substantially similar bill to this in January of last year. I commend Representatives Foxx and Connolly for their excellent work on the bill. The legislation makes evaluations more useful in assessing the skills of candidates for Federal jobs and makes the hiring process more efficient and more effective rather than relying on attainment of an educational degree to determine candidate qualifications in the Federal hiring process. Subject matter experts in agencies would develop assessments that are designed to test specific knowledge needed for the position. This overhaul would better match qualified applicants with open positions and expand employment opportunities to candidates with various professional and educational backgrounds. The Chance to Compete Act aligns with the Office of Personnel's guidance released in May of 2022, which strives to modernize the process of assessing and hiring Federal job candidates. Establishing hiring methods that are more skills-based will improve agency managers' ability to hire people who possess the right skills and knowledge to do the job and also allow agencies to hire from a much broader pool of qualified applicants. The bill directs OPM to study the feasibility of creating an online platform for sharing candidate assessments between agencies. Under the legislation, agencies may also assemble talent teams to support this assessment of job candidates in the hiring process. The OPM Director would be required to submit annual progress reports to Congress for 5 years on the use and the effectiveness of the new skills-based assessments. The GAO would be required to submit a report on implementation of the bill 3 years after enactment. The bill streamlines the hiring process for agencies and will shorten the time it takes to bring new and well- qualified employees aboard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 9595, the FIT Procurement Act. This bill is modeled after a bipartisan Senate bill led by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters, along with Senator Cruz. The act streamlines and simplifies Federal procurement to help agencies acquire commercial technology in a timelier way and to make it easier for businesses to compete for contracts. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this bill today. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his compelling remarks, and I support passage of H.R. 6244. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6244, introduced by Congressman Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, which would honor the impressive legacy and the sacrifice of 1st Lieutenant Zermeno by naming a post office after him in Brownsville. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vicente Gonzalez).

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to support this fine legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Working Dog Health and Welfare Act, S. 2414, requires agencies that manage working dog programs to implement recommendations that were made by the GAO in 2022 to improve the health and welfare and safety of working dogs. It would also require any new program to comply with these recommendations. Agencies and contractors across the government use working dogs to support critical mission areas, such as law enforcement and security. As of February 2022, Federal Government entities employed over 5,600 dogs. They help to detect explosives and narcotics, they conduct patrols and search and rescue missions, they help detect and apprehend suspects, and they support wildlife management. However, there is currently no consensus health and welfare standard that applies to the management of Federal working dogs. In its report, GAO identified 18 critical issues important to the health and welfare of working dogs, which the agencies should address. That includes recommendations on everything from detection of abuse, neglect, and emergency medical care, to rest, length of on-duty time, and then canine retirement. GAO found that of the 40 Federal working dog programs that are directly managed by Federal agencies, only 9 addressed all of these issues as important to the health and welfare of the dogs. The bill requires all departments, agencies, and contractors managing working dog programs on behalf of an agency to implement these recommendations within 6 months of the bill's enactment. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this commonsense bill for animal welfare and animal rights and for those dogs who work hard in the Federal Government, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 4716, the Financial Management Risk Reduction Act, led by my esteemed colleague, Chairman Gary Peters of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, with Senator Ron Johnson as his co-lead. I also thank Representative Greene for leading the House companion. Mr. Speaker, it appears financial management risk reduction is, indeed, an issue that speaks to everybody on both sides of the aisle. The bill would improve the quality and usability of independent audit data and enhance oversight of Federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984 requires Federal grant recipients that receive more than $750,000 to report an independent audit of their internal financial controls annually to the government. It sought to increase accountability while reducing burden on grant recipients by mandating a single, consolidated audit rather than audits on a discrete grant-by-grant basis. In 2022, over 40,000 State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments and not-for-profits submitted single audits. The Financial Management Risk Reduction Act addresses recommendations made by the GAO, which were aimed at increasing the usability of single audit information to reduce Federal financial management risk. The bill codifies certain portions of OMB's Uniform Grants Guidance requiring agencies to conduct quality control reviews on its audits and directs OMB to coordinate a governmentwide audit quality review every 6 years. Finally, the bill would direct OMB to create a governmentwide strategy on financial risk regarding single audits and instructs GSA to create analytic tools to use single audit data more effectively. This is a good bill that will improve the quality and accessibility of audit data, increasing the transparency and accountability of Federal spending. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Madam Speaker, I understand we have a few moments before our friends arrive for the next discussion. I, again, commend the distinguished and passionate gentlewoman from Colorado for her really creative work on this legislation. I know it means a lot to thousands and thousands of people across the country. It is going to make people's lives a lot simpler. The post office should be something that facilitates our work in small business, our work sending out bills or checks and receiving them, and the post office should not be something that gets in the way. This legislation will definitely ameliorate a problem that exists, and we hope it will facilitate life, commerce, and social action taking place in lots of parts of the country. This also gives me the opportunity to thank my colleague for engaging in this legislative endeavor in a totally bipartisan way. We live in a time where partisan feelings are intense and ferocious and, of course, that is not historically novel. There have been partisan tempers flaring basically since the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans went at it in the election of the 1800s. I suppose George Washington was the last President who actually won a unanimous verdict in the electoral college. He got all the electoral college votes. Everybody loved Washington. After that, we formed political parties. There is nothing evil about political parties. The alternative of having political parties, I suppose, is a one-party system something like is developed in China with the Communist Party there or in Russia under Vladimir Putin or what Orban is working on with illiberal democracy in Hungary. There is an easy way to get rid of partisanship if partisanship is the problem and that is you get rid of political parties. We can't do that because political parties are a sign of health in a society because people have different views about things and political parties are a great way to articulate different agendas and programs, bring them to the electorate, bring them to the voters, and to express conflict in a civil and nonviolent way. The problem, of course, is when we elevate our devotion to party above our devotion to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the country as a whole. All of us who aspire and attained a public office are nothing but the servants of the people, all the people. We might get elected with a little ``R'' next to our name or a ``D'' next to our name or an ``I'' next to our name, but once we swear our oath of office, we are there to uphold the Constitution for everyone and we are there to serve all of the people. That is our job. If you say that sounds romantic or that sounds idealistic, actually, that is how we conduct most of our lives as politicians. If you come to my district office out in beautiful Rockville, Maryland, in the beautiful Eighth Congressional District, and you have a problem, let's say, with Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or the post office or PPP loans, whatever it is, we will go to bat for you. We will go to work for you to help you navigate the twists and turns of the public system and Federal bureaucracy. We never ask, are you a Democrat? Are you a Republican? Are you an Independent? If you are my constituent, we will go to bat for you. I know that is true of my friend from Colorado, too. She is there to serve everybody: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, others, and people who hate all the political parties. All of those people are Americans and deserve the programs and the services of the government at the very least and certainly all of the rights and the freedoms that they are entitled to as Americans under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have the honor and the privilege to serve the people, to serve all America, and to serve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are not the masters of the people. Anybody who occupies public office, no matter how high or how low, is nothing but a servant of the people. That is why the Founders created a system where if people begin to act like kings and queens and lords over the people, that is when we throw them out through elections or we evict, we eject, we reject, we impeach, we convict if we have to do that, but the Constitution has an electoral system to keep the process moving. All of us are just servants of the people. Just like we are there to serve the people, the Federal departments we set up, like the post office, which I think still, even with all of the problems, is our most popular Federal function. With hundreds of thousands of hardworking, devoted people working in the post office, all of them work for the government, work for the Congress, which works for the people. The three most important words in our Constitution are the three most important words in our country, we the people, and we reject every form of despotism and dictatorship and anybody who would try to overthrow rule by the people. In this bill, which may be deceptively simple and may apply only to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in the country, what we see is a democratic representative government in action. When we are trying to live up to our oaths, we can act in a bipartisan way. We can remember where the word ``party'' comes from. It comes from the French word ``partie'', which means a part. Each of our parties is nothing but a part of the whole. When we are doing our jobs right, as Ms. Boebert is today, then we are acting in the interest of the whole without regard to political party or sect. I am proud to be a part of this legislation, I am proud to support it, and I am very hopeful that our friends in the Senate will pick it up quickly and we can move it through this Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) for his very thoughtful and insightful remarks on this. We had the Postmaster General with us yesterday in the Oversight Committee, and we are facing a crisis in lots of parts of the country in terms of undelivered mail, late mail, and inefficient delivery taking place. In the meantime, the costs are going up and up. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in the post office. The post office is really the only Federal department that is defined by the Constitution itself. It is in Article I of the Constitution. The post office created the national transportation network, the postal roads. It created the national information network. Benjamin Franklin was the first Postmaster General. We have got to bring the post office back to a point where we can rely on it to do the basic things that are so essential to our economy and to our society, and one of them is lining up the ZIP Codes properly. Again, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado for her initiative, which is truly bipartisan, to loop together all of the communities that have been very frustrated and disappointed in this process to say that Congress will, indeed, act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), my friend, for bringing forward H.R. 8753. This bill would require the U.S. Postal Service to designate unique ZIP Codes for more than 50 different communities across America. The legislation actually combines multiple bills that have been introduced in this Congress by both Republicans and Democrats that aim to address specific community concerns expressed over a long period of time about disrupted mail delivery, undeliverable and lost mail, and geographic confusion. I commend Representative Boebert for her very creative and undaunted work on this issue, which has been a chronic headache for residents of dozens of small communities across the land. For example, Scotland, Connecticut, is a municipality with only 600 addresses, and it is broken up into six different ZIP Codes. The town has reported multiple instances of disruptions in mail delivery, including absentee ballots in recent elections. The town has already sought the assistance of the Postal Service, which operates a ZIP Code Boundary Review Process, and even sent an appeal after their initial petition was denied. The process has been protracted and a tough task for them, as well as for other communities covered by Ms. Boebert's legislation. The distinguished gentlewoman's bill operates as a last resort for towns to get the resources and the attention that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this legislation. Congress has designated new ZIP Codes via legislation in the past. I found the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, enacted in 2006, required the designation of unique ZIP Codes for four different towns. This one is far more comprehensive. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to endorse the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am just becoming acquainted with the amendment and the legislation now, but it seems to me it is a very good idea to educate people on the dangers and the perils of Communist totalitarianism, as well as other kinds of totalitarianism, such as Nazi and Fascist totalitarianism, the forces we defeated in the last century. Obviously, there are a lot of Americans who need a primer on the dangers of Communist totalitarianism, such as the President-elect, who still seems to have a love affair with Kim Jong-un, the last remaining Communist dictator on Earth, who is a major threat to the human rights of people who live in North Korea. Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB, who described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the worst catastrophe of the 20th century, remains a severe threat to democracy and freedom all over the world. Along with the distinguished chairman of the committee, I am sorry that there is not an explicit recognition of Nazism and fascism here, but there is no problem with educating people about the dangers of Communist totalitarianism because there are so many people, including the President-elect, who seem not to remember the dangers of Communist totalitarianism and what people like Vladimir Putin did under Soviet Communism and the threat that continues to be posed. Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment makes good sense to identify the Chinese Government's violent mistreatment of the Uyghurs, of people in Tibet, and continuing human rights violations that are taking place. This means we shouldn't be making alliances with Communist and totalitarian oligarchs all over the world. We should be criticizing them and challenging them for the violations of human rights of people who live under their empire. America should not be aligned with the oligarchs and the Fascists and the Stalinist Communists all over the world. We should be aligned with the democratic movements, people who are struggling for freedom and human rights. I am sorry that this was written in such a partial way, but it at least gets at part of the problem, and I hope it will be a real education to the incoming administration, as well as to young people, about the dangers of people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, Communists who have undermined human rights and freedom in our time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8919. Shawn McCloskey was a member of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, as an engineer sergeant in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While serving as an intelligence sergeant, Army Sergeant First Class McCloskey made the ultimate sacrifice on September 16, 2009, when he was killed by enemy forces on his third deployment to Afghanistan. I urge passage of this legislation, which would honor his legacy and the sacrifice of Sergeant McCloskey and his family by naming a post office after him. If I could add, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say something about the process by which we adopt post office namings because I am not sure that the whole Congress, much less the public, understands what we do. This has been, for decades, a bipartisan process where a Member who is seeking to get a post office named after someone in his or her district will go and get the support of every member of that delegation, whether it is the Kentucky delegation, as in the case of the distinguished chairman, or the Maryland delegation in my case, and so on. Once all the members of that delegation on a bipartisan basis, if it is bipartisan, have signed off, then it comes to our committee. We package them together and bring them to the floor precisely because we don't want it to be a matter of controversy. It should be a unifying thing for us when the beautiful thing occurs of naming a post office after someone. Alas, we have a problem, and I am hoping that our experienced and talented chairman will help us resolve it. Apparently, in the Texas delegation, there are people who are refusing to sign on to bills on a bipartisan basis, and that is causing a lot of rancor. It is causing a lot of division, and we don't want this whole thing to blow up. We don't want it to be said that this is the first Congress in decades that can't even name a post office after someone. I would just urge the chairman to work with us to help our colleagues in Texas get to yes and to return to what has been protocol, policy, and custom in the Oversight Committee for the last several decades. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives.