Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly point out the false equivalency just invoked by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. On the one hand, you have people of both political parties pointing out the 100 percent documented interference of Vladimir Putin in our 2016 Presidential election, with millions and millions of dollars spent on his so-called Internet Research Agency to engage in cyber surveillance, cyber espionage, and cyber sabotage of our election. On the other side, we have a violent insurrection incited by the President of the United States, where 150 of our officers were wounded and injured, ending up with broken arms, legs, jaws, and necks; concussions; contusions; and traumatic brain injury. Those are two very different things. One is an exercise of people's First Amendment right to speak. The other is a violent effort to overthrow the electoral process and the constitutional order of the United States. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we are here to fortify the integrity of American Presidential elections, the process by which the people choose their own President. One can only regard with amazement the gentleman from Pennsylvania's casual assurance that the American people don't care about this. The American people don't care about solidifying the process by which we elect our own President? The American people don't care about whether or not a Presidential election is going to be stolen by a lot of backroom games and manipulation of the rules? I beg to differ. Even the Wall Street Journal today endorsed the legislation that we are bringing forward. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear my friend offer those comments. I am afraid I don't really understand his objection to this legislation. He says we are trying to ram this through. After 135 years of doing nothing about the Electoral Count Act, I guess you have to be a true conservative to see 135 years as moving too quickly in reforming the provisions of this very opaque, and in places, vague and inscrutable language. But in any event, the gentleman from Pennsylvania argues there have been times that Members of both parties have raised objections in the past. That is absolutely right. Both Republicans and Democrats have made objections on the floor in the past. Obviously, none of the objections attributed to those on our side had anything to do with a violent assault on the institutions of the country or an attempt to get the Vice President to step outside of his constitutional role, or other efforts to conduct what has been called a political coup in the country. In any event, the gentleman is correct that there have been a lot of objections raised. If that is your problem, then you should be absolutely supporting this legislation because we are proposing to go from a situation where any single Member can raise an objection if he or she can get a Senator to join them, to a situation where you need a third of the entire House of Representatives and a third of the entire U.S. Senate before an objection can be raised. The objections can be raised only according to very specific constitutional criteria. They have to be grounded in the text of the Constitution. For example, if a State has not been admitted yet, and yet is purporting to offer electors, that would be grounds for rejecting it and for adjusting the denominator. If there are attempts by electors to vote for two people from the same State, which is clearly in violation of the 12th Amendment, then that would be rejected. Right now, anybody can object for any reason he or she wants. There were people in 2021 who were running around talking about precinct problems in particular States or claims of votes appearing in the middle of the night. Now, there was nothing to any of those. More than 60 Federal and State courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption. But in any event, that is not the job of the House of Representatives to be out trying to police the counting of ballots in Pennsylvania or Arizona or Georgia, or any other State. All we are supposed to do is take the certificate of ascertainment that is provided by the Governor based on the State legislature's determination of what the vote is in the casting of the electors from the State. So once that certificate of ascertainment comes in, our job is to accept it. Now, if someone tries to not comply with what the will of the State really was--say, if a Governor says I disagree with how the people voted, I am not going to turn it in--then that person can be taken to court by one of the Presidential candidates, or both, or all of the Presidential candidates, and can be ordered to comply with the political will of the people of the State. If the Governor still refuses to do it, then the Court is empowered to give it to another appropriate official like the Secretary of State, who would then have the authority to file the certificate of ascertainment with the Congress of the United States and with the archivist. So what we are trying to do is take, shall we say, an antique kind of instrument, the electoral college, and we are trying to bring it up to date, so it works for us in America in the 21st century. If your objection is it is too easy for people of any party to object, I think you totally should be supporting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who I should say was very much with us on January 6. He was there that night. He was the last person at the dais before we were forced to evacuate from the Chamber.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1372, providing for consideration of H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, as well as one motion to recommit. This bipartisan legislation, brought forward by Ms. Lofgren and Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, is the product of more than 2 years of work by the Committee on House Administration and more than a year and a half of deliberations and investigation by the January 6th Select Committee. The electoral college, of course, has been with us from the beginning of the Republic. In a sense, this is legislation America has been working on since 1887, for the last 135 years, because that was the last time that Congress legislated to try to lend statutory coherence and legislative direction to the provisions of the Constitution governing the electoral college. The electoral college, as you know, Madam Speaker, is a Byzantine, complex, and multifaceted institution, but it is clear, in the wake of the debacle of January 6, 2021, that we must modernize it, update it, and make it work as well as possible for as long as we have it. That is why both supporters of the electoral college system and those who would replace it with a national popular vote for President, and that is a camp I am in, a camp that represents around two-thirds of the American people, are strongly supporting this legislation and should be supporting this legislation in order to clarify the mechanisms of our Presidential election process. First of all, this legislation reaffirms that the Vice President's role at the count of the electoral college electors on January 6 is a ministerial role and does not include any substantive authority to count or reject or dismiss or nullify or vaporize electoral college votes sent in by the States, nor does the Vice President have any independent, substantive power to halt or delay the joint session or to return electoral college votes to the States. We believe there was never any ambiguity about that. Former President Trump was told there was no ambiguity about it by his own Vice President, by his White House counsel, by the Attorney General of the United States, yet insisted that there was some kind of ambiguity and wiggle room for the Vice President to step outside of his assigned constitutional role and simply declare the electoral college votes of certain States, including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, null and void and return them to the legislatures of those States for some undefined further action. All of that is clearly outside the history of the electoral college and what is contemplated constitutionally. We clarify that in this legislation. Moreover, the current provisions in the Electoral Count Act governing objections brought forward to the receipt of electoral college votes from particular States would be changed in this legislation. Under the current rules, all it takes is a Member of the House and a Member of the Senate to bring an objection to the receipt of electoral college votes from a State. That would be changed to a requirement, under this act, of one-third of the House and one-third of the Senate together raising an objection, obviously meaning that this could not be done for purely fanciful purposes. There would have to be a substantial body of Members in both Chambers who agree that there is a serious objection being made. By the way, the Senate proposal differs slightly in that they are suggesting a one-fifth requirement on both sides as opposed to the one- third requirement that is being advanced in this legislation. Furthermore, the rules in this statute define explicitly the constitutional grounds upon which an objection to electoral college votes can be made. These objections are limited to a very narrow set of discrete issues that are grounded in the constitutional text of the 12th Amendment or other parts of the Constitution, such as whether an elector has voted for two candidates from the elector's own State, which is clearly in violation of the 12th Amendment. The rules also clarify the denominator, or the method of calculating the whole number of electors that have been cast for the purpose of winning a Presidential election. Our counting rules would also clarify the applicable parliamentary procedure at the count, ensuring that strategic bad faith actors are unable to exploit procedural loopholes in an effort to delay or subvert the count. Confusion has plagued electoral counts in Congress at different points in our history, almost since the beginning of the Republic. We are confident that under this bill, future counts will be far more orderly and ministerial in nature, even during controversial elections, and will act simply to certify the choice of the American people as expressed through the State elections, which is the full extent of Congress' counting role under the Constitution. We want to make sure that Congress does not pretend to arrogate to itself the power to decide who is going to be the President. The role of Congress is simply to count the electoral college votes that have come in. Maybe if I get a moment later, I can get into a little more specificity about the grounds for objection. There is also clarification of when a State's Presidential election can be extended in case of a truly catastrophic event. Today's Federal law allows a State legislature to appoint electors by itself if a State has had a failure to elect at its November election. That very vague provision is dangerous, dangerously unclear, and it was targeted by former President Trump's supporters in 2020. Our legislation provides, instead, that voting in a State's Presidential election can only be extended if a State experiences a genuinely catastrophic event, which we define specifically with respect to natural disasters and terrorist attacks and like calamities. The event must also be widespread enough to potentially affect the outcome of the State's election. All of this is mediated judicially by appearance before a Federal court. Any extension may only cover the area that was directly affected by the event, and any extension cannot last longer than 5 days after election day. We know that a provision like this is, unfortunately, necessary. The September 11 terror attacks on America occurred on primary election day in New York City, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012 very nearly derailed New York and New Jersey's Presidential elections that year. We are confident that our bill ensures that Federal law will account for unforeseen emergencies in future Presidential elections. There are other provisions that I hope to get into in a little more detail, but I close, Madam Speaker, just by saying that this is an absolutely necessary and urgent update of the Electoral Count Act, which hasn't been touched since 1887. We saw in January 2021 how some of the imperfections in the current process can be exploited by actors who are determined to derail the electoral college counting process or, indeed, overthrow the whole election. We want to do whatever we can, within the confines of the electoral college system, in this legislation to improve the situation and to prepare for the next Presidential election. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to observe the remarkable tenure of Ron Halber, who is recognizing his 25th year of service to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington. Ron has served as the JCRC's Executive Director since 2001, and his passionate work in that role reflects his dedication to the DC-area Jewish community. Ron has transformed the JCRC of Greater Washington, turning it into one of the nation's most robust Jewish community relations organizations. Under his leadership, the JCRC has advocated for numerous pieces of beneficial state and local legislation and has been able to vastly increase its programming in support of the organization's mission. Ron is the deserving recipient of the 2006 Ted B. Farber Professional Excellence Award and the 2001 Professional of the Year Award from the Association of Community Government Affairs Directors. However, his career outside of JCRC has been just as remarkable as his career inside. He has long been involved in his community, serving as the political coordinator for the Montgomery County Democratic Party and, long before, as the community liaison for New York State Senator Martin Solomon. Ron Halber's tenure has been beneficial for the State of Maryland, and I know that he will continue to serve the state as Executive Director of the JCRC. His dedication to Maryland's Jewish community and the greater Maryland community serves as an example for us all of what it means to be an American, committed to both pluralism and the common good. I hope that the House will join me in celebrating Mr. Halber's contributions.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her very distinguished and passionate advocacy for civil liberties and civil rights. I thank her for her excellent management of this legislation. I also thank the floor leader on the minority side for his excellent words on the legislation, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 4330, the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act, which I introduced with Congressmen Lieu and Yarmuth. It is a close successor to the bill that then-Congressman Mike Pence got passed in the House in the 110th Congress by a lopsided vote of 398-21. Given that the bill passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, I am very hopeful that this is the Congress in which we can get it done. Our Founders insisted that the American people must have the means to acquire the truth about their own government, their society, and their world. Those ``who mean to be their own governors,'' said Madison, ``must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' Newspapers were critical, a form of continuing public education about government and about society. Thomas Jefferson said: ``If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' The great Tom Paine not only defended but demonstrated the power of the pen as the people's weapon against political tyranny. His sensationally successful pamphlet ``Common Sense'' argued the central importance of free speech and free press to the survival of political democracy. In theory, the specific command in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press was unnecessary because press freedom would already, by definition, be subsumed under the freedom of speech. The Framers insisted upon protecting the structurally distinctive role that the press plays as a watchdog institution in a representative democratic society. Not everyone can go to congressional hearings or State legislative sessions or county council meetings late into the night. Not all of us can travel to Ukraine to uncover Russian war crimes against the people there or go to Afghanistan to see what it means to have theocratic tyranny oppressing the people. Not everyone can personally go get the Pentagon Papers or break the Watergate scandal or penetrate crime and drug trafficking rings or see with their own eyes how climate change is ravaging the Louisiana coast or Pakistan. As citizens of the United States, we are all equally implicated and affected by these developments, and we are all equally invested in obtaining the truth about them. This is why we need professional journalists and newspapers. Yet, reporters in our country face violence, threats, intimidation, and even jail time just for doing their jobs, providing news and information. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that journalists in the United States faced unprecedented attacks in 2020. At least 110 reporters were arrested or criminally charged in relation to their reporting, and around 300 were assaulted in 2020 alone. Many families in my State of Maryland are still reeling from the mass shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, which took the lives of five different journalists and injured several others in 2018. Lots of reporters face harsh legal consequences just for reporting and then faithfully maintaining the confidentiality of sources. One journalist who faced repercussions simply for doing his job I know well--Brian Karem, one of my constituents. In 1990 and 1991, he went to jail four different times to protect confidential sources while working as a TV reporter. The last time, he went to jail for nearly 2 weeks while the Supreme Court considered his case, and he was only spared a long sentence when his source moved from Texas to California and, no longer fearing for her life, came forward. Now more than ever, we need to make good on the constitutional promise of a free press by establishing a Federal shield law to protect journalists against government overreach and prosecutorial abuses that may occur from one administration to the next. The PRESS Act is an update of the Free Flow of Information Act that I introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in the 115th Congress. It will prevent Federal law enforcement from being able to obtain information from covered journalists through their work devices and accounts, as well as their personal devices and accounts. It will also prevent government officials from conducting an end run around these prohibitions by precluding them from seeking third-party communications held by communications services, except in narrow and carefully cabined exceptional instances. America favors shield laws to protect the media because our people know that the press is not the enemy of the people. The press is the people's best friend. Forty-nine States and Washington, D.C., have already passed State shield laws or adopted some kind of reporter's privilege of their own. What better evidence could we have that the American people want a free and aggressive press to expose corruption and safeguard democracy?

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I fervently hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--indeed, every Member of the House of Representatives--will rise to support this bill, the successor to our 2017 bipartisan bill and the successor to the bill that then- Congressman, now-Vice President Mike Pence navigated to victory in the House on a vote of 398-21 15 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear my good friend from Pennsylvania make his presentation. I was surprised that he described these three bills as completely irrelevant, given that one is about protecting the integrity of the Federal civil service, a force of more than 2 million people who are doing the work of the American people in the National Park Service, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and so on. I don't know what is completely irrelevant about that. Nor do I understand what is completely irrelevant about protecting the rights and our encouragement of Federal workers to be whistleblowers when there is massive waste, fraud, abuse, or exploitation taking place with the taxpayers' money. That is an essential purpose of government. We have a government that is an instrument of the will of the people, and we have a lot of public policies that are being enforced, but we want to make sure that they are being enforced correctly and that the people's taxpayer moneys are being respected. The whistleblowers are helping us do that in blowing the whistle on hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, corruption, and abuse that have taken place. Why we would turn a blind eye to that and describe it as completely irrelevant is beyond me. Of course, the Census is foundational to the workings of American democracy, and we want to prevent precisely the kind of political finger-pointing all over the Census Bureau and our laws that we saw in the last administration. I am just curious whether the gentleman really believes that if the current President suggested that we take 40,000 or 50,000 Federal workers who presently have civil service protection and put them directly under his control for political appointment, he would think that is a good idea because our legislation will prevent any President in the future from doing that, including this Democratic President, any future Democratic Presidents, any future Republican Presidents or Independents or anyone else. We don't think that is a good idea, and I can't believe that my good friend from Pennsylvania would just be agnostic as to that proposition. Let me just say, finally, about the whole question of what is relevant and what is irrelevant, it seems like all we are hearing from the other side is embodied in the big statement coming out of the Senate from Senator Lindsey Graham, saying it is time for a national Federal ban on abortion that could even be exceeded by the States. Now, originally, they said: Well, Roe v. Wade is settled precedent, and we accept that. Then, they packed the Court with their Justices, who were determined, hellbent, on overturning Roe v. Wade, and they did it. Then, we heard from our friends across the aisle: Well, this is a matter for the States. Let the States decide. Now, we hear from our colleagues in Congress that, no, they want a national criminal ban on the right of women to make their own decisions about their health, their families, their careers, and their futures. Then, they will even allow States to go beyond that to completely ban abortion, which is, of course, the essential pro-life position which we have heard from our colleagues across the aisle. That is what they are focused on. Meantime, the President signed, this week, the Inflation Reduction Act, which will dramatically lower healthcare costs for tens of millions of Americans and, finally, overturn the Republican ban on the government negotiating in the Medicare program with Big Pharma for lower prescription drug prices. We are actually making progress. They want to drag everyone into their insatiable efforts to ban the right to abortion in America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. I want to talk about some of the other things that Americans are worried about since my colleague purported to speak for Americans because I saw a poll recently saying that Americans are worried about the attack on democracy and voting rights. Part of that may be the fact that some of our colleagues seem to be ambivalent about whether or not to denounce the rampant violence that was unleashed against this institution, this body, on January 6, 2021, when thousands of rioters came and attacked our officers, wounding and injuring more than 150 of them, breaking their jaws, their necks, lost fingers, strokes, heart attacks, concussions, and contusions. And, of course, the former President says that his mob actually greeted the police with hugs and kisses. Some of our colleagues shamefully have followed the former President in trying to whitewash the worst episode of domestic mass insurrectionary violence ever unleashed on the Capitol of the United States with an attack on the Vice President, Mike Pence. We heard those words, ``Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence,'' bouncing off of the walls of the Capitol and against the Congress of the United States. So, yes, people are worried about the state of our democracy with so many members of the GOP following Donald Trump in not only his terrible big lie, the first time we have ever seen that in American history, but also the big lie encompassing this mob violence and this insurrection against the Government of the United States. Do you know what else Americans are worried about, Mr. Speaker? Americans are now worried about State politicians and Federal politicians trampling the rights of women. For more than a half century, women have had a right to make their most intimate procreative and reproductive decisions with their families, with their husbands, with their partners, with their ministers, and with their church leaders. Then, they gerrymandered the Supreme Court. They kept Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court by not even giving him a hearing over on the Senate side. Then, what do you know, Mr. Speaker? They followed what the RNC was asking for in all of their platforms for all of these years: Overturn Roe v. Wade. They overturned Roe v. Wade. Then, we heard from our colleagues: Well, we just want the States to decide. But, yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham unveiled what the real plan is: a nationwide criminal ban on abortion, and if they can go further in the States, they will go further in the States. We have Republican proposals all over America to completely ban abortion from the moment of conception, which is the pro-life orthodoxy, which is life begins at conception. We heard it in the Judiciary Committee. We have heard it in the Oversight and Reform Committee. We have been hearing it for years. But now they have fallen strangely and demurely silent. Why is that? Part of it is because of the good people of Kansas, who showed them just where America is on this. America is a country committed to individual freedom and the rights of the people to make their own decisions and not having busybody, theocrat politicians in State capitals telling them how to make their own decisions about their careers, about their lives, about their families, and about their healthcare--and certainly not allowing Lindsey Graham to dictate to the women of America what their destiny will be. They won't say a word about it. They will talk about an SEC regulation nobody heard of that we are not here to talk about today. They will blame Joe Biden for global inflation. They will blame Joe Biden for Vladimir Putin's filthy, imperialist invasion of Ukraine. I hear them denouncing Joe Biden. They won't denounce Vladimir Putin for 1 second. I would happily yield 1 minute if they would denounce Vladimir Putin, but they won't do it. We have heard people over on their side cheerleading for Vladimir Putin. I heard the gentlewoman from Georgia say: Russia wins. Guess what? Russia doesn't win. The people of Ukraine are winning today, and the people of America are with the people of Ukraine. We are on the side of democrats, small d democrats, all over the world against the autocrats like Putin, against the theocrats like people who would dictate to the women of America their own health decisions. We are against the tyrants, the bullies, and the despots. We are against Presidents who get into office and try to dictate the political decisionmaking of individual members of the workforce and try to push their ideological program into the government. We are for defending whistleblowers; we are for defending the Census; and we are for defending democratic institutions in America. I am just shocked that I hear from my good friend from Pennsylvania, someone I like and someone I trust, that he actually is defending Putin against Biden and blaming Joe Biden for Putin's long-running plan to invade Ukraine. That is a remarkable thing to me, and I hope we can have that clarified. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished gentleman from Kentucky purported to speak for what Americans are worried about. Undoubtedly, many Americans are worried about inflation, which is why this administration has been taking strong action not just to get jobs for everybody who wants a job and good jobs and union jobs for people, but also to bring inflation down. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article titled ``U.S. Gas Prices Have Fallen for 91 Straight Days, a Relief for Consumers.'' [From the New York Times, Sept. 13, 2022] U.S. Gas Prices Have Fallen for 91 Straight Days, a Relief for Consumers (By Isabella Simonetti) The price of gasoline continues to fall steadily, easing pressure on American consumers as the cost of filling a tank continued to tumble from record levels reached earlier in the summer. Gas prices fell 10.6 percent in August, which helped moderate still-sky-high inflation, Tuesday's Consumer Price Index report showed. The energy index, which tracks gasoline and electricity among other energy sources, dropped 5 percent last month, as electricity and natural gas prices rose. After peaking at $5.02 in June, gasoline prices have dropped for 91 straight days, and the national average stood at just over $3.70 a gallon on Tuesday, data from AAA show. But analysts point to a few reasons this streak of declines is unlikely to continue. Because they're determined by oil prices, gasoline prices are also susceptible to a wide range of challenges, like hurricanes that knock out drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and efforts to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine by curbing its ability to sell crude on the global market. While gas prices are down, the overall energy index still remains up 23.8 percent over the 12 months that ended in August. Electricity prices alone jumped 15.8 percent, representing the largest 12-month increase since August 1981, the inflation report said. The jump in electricity prices is largely attributable to the high cost of natural gas, said Laura Rosner-Warburton, an economist at MacroPolicy Perspectives. As winter approaches, other fuel prices could influence inflation data. The cost of heating a home with natural gas, the most common source of home-heating fuel in the United States, is expected to jump more than 25 percent from last year, to $952 for the six months from October through March, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. ``You would expect that a hard winter could create a significant increase in demand in price of natural gas,'' said Bryan Benoit, U.S. national managing partner of energy at Grant Thornton. ``And then of course all of this is further exacerbated by what's going on with the war in the Ukraine.''

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues tempt me to wander afield from what we have come here to talk about since they want to talk about seemingly everything else. So let me try to respond to a few of the points that have just been lobbed in our direction. First, they seem to want to assign responsibility to the President of the United States for the inflation rate. But then, surely, they will assign responsibility to the President of the United States for the unemployment rate, which now stands at around 3.5 percent, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. You have got to go back a half century to find the kind of job situation that President Biden has brought to the United States of America. Last week, we learned that payroll employment is up by 315,000 in the month of August alone. Since President Biden came into office, we have added 668,000 manufacturing jobs. Now, it is true the President has been fighting inflation ever since he got into office. Why? Well, the economy started to come roaring back--not just in America, but all over the world in the wake of the pandemic. So we saw a tremendous demand with broken supply chains. So what happens under the law of supply and demand? The prices go up. But, unlike our colleagues who seem to want to chortle about it and use it as a campaign talking point, President Biden and the Democrats have been acting to bring inflation down. Every single day. Yesterday's Consumer Price Index data showed continued progress in bringing global inflation down here in the U.S. economy. Gas prices are down an average of $1.30 a gallon since the beginning of the summer. Price increases slowed at the grocery store this month. Still too high. But real wages went up again for a second month in a row, giving hardworking families more breathing room. It is amazing to me that some of the time has been delegated to one of our distinguished colleagues who seem to want to blame these global economic conditions arising from COVID-19 and the pandemic and broken supply chains, as well as Vladimir Putin's filthy imperialist war in Ukraine, which fortunately, the people of Ukraine, with the support of a lot of people in this body--but not everybody--is starting to win. And we have seen dramatic reversal of fortune in that war as the democratic forces are beating Vladimir Putin and the autocrats in Russia. But in any event, we just heard someone who wanted to blame all of these global economic conditions on an SEC regulation, which we are not here to discuss and, therefore, unfortunately, I can't address. I might agree with the gentleman, for all I know. It has nothing to do with the legislation before us, and it is hard for me to believe that that is the source of inflation around the world or the unemployment, which now is practically at the bottom level that we have ever seen in over a century. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, back to the point at hand, I thought we were going to be distracted with Republican calls to ban abortion across the country. Well, the polls must be teaching them something because I am not hearing about abortion today. For many years, all I heard from them was abortion is murder, and the millions of persons who are being murdered by abortion. They demanded the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they got their way. Yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation for a national criminal ban on abortion. But, of course, the so-called pro- life forces want to go further in the States and ban it completely. A lot of them don't even want to allow exceptions for rape or incest. I thought our colleagues were going to explain what their position really is. I would invite them to do so as long as they don't want to talk about the legislation before us today. Why don't they tell us what their position on abortion is, because America wants to know. I think their position has changed somewhat. They are singing a somewhat different tune since the people of Kansas, by 20 points, destroyed their anti-choice agenda, and explained to them in numerical terms that the people of America are on the side of freedom and the rights of women and men and families to make their own decisions and not to have those decisions be made by Lindsey Graham, one Senator, who yesterday pronounced that he chose 15 weeks as the right point to criminalize abortion. He chose that himself. What is their position now? America wants to know. What is their position? Do they support a national criminal ban on abortion? Are they going to allow any exceptions for rape or incest? What is their position on it, if they don't want to talk about the legislation at hand? Meantime, the Democrats continue to fight for lower drug prices, for a record, unprecedented, historic investment in renewable energy. We are addressing the problems of the future. At the same time, we are defending the integrity of the Federal civil service and our workforce, which was compromised and abused in so many ways by the last administration. We are defending the rights of whistleblowers to tell the truth about what is taking place in terms of political and public corruption and not to have to face retaliation from their supervisors. We are defending the institutions of democracy, including the Census, against all of the kinds of machinations and corruption and political abuse that we saw in the last administration. We are glad that the Supreme Court struck down their last interference with the Census by trying to paste questions outside of the rule of law on the short form. This legislation is designed to protect the integrity of the Census along with the civil service, along with the whistleblowers. But as long as my dear colleagues and friends don't want to talk about the legislation at hand, please clarify for America what their plan is to take away the health rights of American women and their families. Are they supporting the plan we heard yesterday announced by Lindsey Graham for a nationwide Federal criminal ban? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1339, providing for consideration of three measures: H.R. 302, H.R. 2988, and H.R. 8326, all under structured rules. For H.R. 302, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, makes in order one amendment, and provides a motion to recommit. For H.R. 2988 and H.R. 8326, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform for each bill, makes in order four amendments for H.R. 2988 and three amendments for H.R. 8326, and provides en bloc authority for both bills and motions to recommit for both bills. The rule further provides the majority leader or his designee the ability this week to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from September 13 to September 16. Lastly, the rule provides same-day authority through September 30 for a measure dealing with continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly today in support of House Resolution 1339, the rule for three crucial bills, each of which will protect an essential institution in American Government and public life that came under serious attack in the previous administration: our Federal civil service, whistleblowers acting against public corruption, and the Census Bureau. All three bills were marked up and passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 302, the Preventing a Patronage System Act, is a bipartisan bill led by Congressman Connolly of Virginia and Congressman Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. This legislation will insulate our civil service against partisan political interference and ensure that no future President can fire government experts and civil servants simply to replace them with their own political loyalists and sycophants. The civil service system was created in the 19th century with the explicit purpose of ending the so-called spoils system and ensuring that Federal employees are hired, promoted, and fired based on their qualifications and performance, not their political party connections or the political favors and services they are willing to render to elected officials. The merit-based Federal workforce exists to effectively implement Federal laws and programs passed by Congress and signed into law by the President and translate those laws and programs into concrete results and benefits for the American people. Professional civil servants, like scientists, engineers, meteorologists, statisticians, economic researchers, and policy analysts must be able to do their jobs and advise government officials and the public based on empirical methods, facts and data, not ideological filters and bars of political correctness, and without fear of retaliation and discharge for political reasons. But the previous administration attempted to turn our civil service, Mr. Speaker, into a top-down political and ideological party machine, the kind that the original architects of civil service tried to dismantle in the 19th century. In October of 2020, the former President issued Executive Order 13957 to create Schedule F, a sweeping new employment category for career civil servants who work on public policy issues. Schedule F specifically targeted about 50,000 presently nonpartisan policy experts, many of them holding advanced degrees and having served for decades as policy experts across different administrations with Presidents from different political parties. For these civil servants, Schedule F would have stripped away their rights, their merit-based legal protections, and their professional independence. Civil servants transferred into the new Schedule F could have been fired and replaced at any time for any political or ideological reason or for no reason at all given by a hostile administration. The 50,000 civil servants deemed to be involved in formulating policy could have been swept up in a Schedule F political purge and replaced with unqualified loyalists and flunkies, with potentially catastrophic consequences for national security, the continuity of governance, and the evenhanded and effective enforcement of Federal laws and programs. The President already has the opportunity to appoint more than 4,000 political appointees. But Schedule F sought to go much further in radically transforming the civil service into an instrument of the chosen political ends and designs of the President. Thankfully, President Joe Biden rescinded the order in January 2021. However, several top Republicans have already expressed support for picking up right where the previous administration left off with a new Schedule F. Our civil servants must be hired based on their merits and then evaluated based on their actual job performance in office, not their political party membership, not their ideological viewpoints, and not their political campaign activism. Indeed, there are already processes in place for evaluating Federal employees' actual job performance, which is why in 2021, more than 10,000 Federal employees were removed from their jobs for not living up to job expectations. That is how you deal with people who are not actually doing their jobs. This bill is precisely about ensuring that civil servants will be evaluated based on their job performance and not the partisan political goals or extracurricular demands of a particular administration. As a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, which considered this legislation carefully and reported it favorably and the proud Representative of tens of thousands of Federal workers in Maryland's beautiful Eighth District, I am proud to advance this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support its passage on a bipartisan basis. We have an urgent mandate to protect the historic merit-based civil service and the integrity of the Federal Government against anyone who would turn the clock back more than a century to allow Presidents to convert our Federal workforce in service of agreed-upon Federal laws and programs into an instrument of personal ambition, campaign reelection, or party patronage. Now, turning to H.R. 2988, the bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act of 2021, led by Chairwoman Maloney. This is another piece of critical legislation in defense of another critical democratic safeguard. Whistleblowers are a great American institution and an important mechanism for guaranteeing the integrity of government. Our protection of whistleblowers reflects the fact that in our system of government, we have checks and balances all the way down. An individual Federal employee can hold even the most powerful government officials accountable to the rule of law, which binds all of us. Whistleblowers in American history have exposed self-dealing, bribery, kickbacks, sweetheart contracts, lost and stolen Federal property, national security failures, criminal coverups, other political corruption, war crimes, rape and sexual harassment in the military, major public health violations, episodes of environmental and toxic contamination, and the systematic waste or pilfering of taxpayer dollars. This bill will improve current protections for whistleblowers by clearly prohibiting retaliatory investigations and other actions against Federal employees who share information with Congress, the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or with their supervisor. The bill limits the public disclosure of the identity of whistleblowers and extends whistleblower protections to new categories of Federal officers and employees, including Public Health Service workers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's commissioned officers. The bill also contains provisions to ensure a timely and fair procedure for whistleblowers facing discrimination and retaliation. Currently, the backlog at the Merit Systems Protection Board means that some whistleblowers may wait years for a hearing to be scheduled on their claims. This bill grants whistleblowers access to a jury trial in Federal district court if the Merit Systems Protection Board does not render a timely decision in their case. Whistleblowers are integral to government transparency and accountability in our country. I strongly support this bill to ensure whistleblowers can come forward without fear of reprisal or punishment. The last bill before us, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8326, the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act, also led by Chairwoman Maloney, will protect the Census Bureau against future efforts at political interference, and it will ensure the Bureau's independence in the performance of its essential duties. The Census is a constitutional mandate and imperative. The U.S. Constitution requires an actual enumeration of the whole number of persons in the country for apportioning Representatives among the States and Congress. The Census is an expression of the original principle that democracy must rest on the Jeffersonian idea of the consent of the governed. And, therefore, we need to know everyone who is here and part of the sovereign people of the Nation. The Census determines congressional apportionment of House seats and the allocation of trillions of dollars of Federal spending. Even many businesses in the private sector rely on Census Bureau statistics to guide their decisions. The previous administration's spectacular contempt for our constitutional system was on full display during its many efforts to interfere with the 2020 Census for purposes of political gain. The effort to complete a comprehensive and effective Census was undermined at every turn by efforts such as the unlawful plot to add the citizenship question to the short form, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, or the installation of a record-breaking number of highly partisan political appointees to the ranks of the Bureau's leadership. The reforms contained in the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act will safeguard the integrity of the Census count against this type of sinister political interference in the many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky spoke about what his constituents are interested in. Apparently, they are interested only in the question of inflation. My constituents are interested in that and are satisfied about the fact that we have had more than 90 days of decline in gas prices and that this administration is fighting to reduce inflation, including with the Inflation Reduction Act, which dramatically reduces healthcare costs, saying that nobody will have to spend more than $35 a month on insulin--no diabetic in America--and no one in the Medicare program will have to spend more than $2,000 a year on prescription drugs, generally. How is that for getting inflation down? But that is not all they care about. They care about women's right to choose and the GOP assault on the freedoms of the people, something which our colleagues maintain their demure and uncharacteristic circumspect silence about today. They didn't want to talk about this new GOP plan to ban abortion all across America. That is what we heard yesterday from Senator Graham about his plan for America. My constituents want freedom in America. They want democracy in voting rights. They don't want to see violence unleashed against the Capitol of the United States, against school boards, against State capitols, or any of the political violence we have seen from whatever source. I am happy to denounce all of it. I wish my colleagues would denounce political violence when it comes to our very doors, when it enters this Chamber, rather than playing follow the leader with the former President who has disgraced himself as the first President in U.S. history to be impeached twice and continues to be embroiled in all the political corruption investigations all over the country, as it has been shown that he egged on armed protesters to come to try to attack this body, to drive Vice President Pence out of the body, and to drive us out of the body, as well, interfering with a Federal proceeding. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 1339 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 13. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 8589) to prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from finalizing the proposed rule titled ``The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors''. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 14. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 8589.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 363. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Allred (Neguse) Armstrong (Johnson (SD)) Barr (McHenry) Barragan (Correa) Bass (Correa) Bentz (Obernolte) Bergman (McClain) Brown (MD) (Trone) Buchanan (Waltz) Carter (TX) (Nehls) Castro (TX) (Neguse) Cohen (Beyer) Comer (Fleischmann) Crist (Stevens) Curtis (Owens) Davis, Danny K. (Neguse) Deutch (Stevens) Dingell (Kuster) Doggett (Beyer) Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone) Dunn (Cammack) Evans (Neguse) Fallon (Carl) Gibbs (Bucshon) Hartzler (Bacon) Hern (Bice (OK)) Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT)) Jackson (Carl) Jackson Lee (Cicilline) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Kahele (Correa) Katko (Meijer) Kelly (IL) (Kuster) Khanna (Kim (NJ)) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) LaHood (Miller (WV)) Lawrence (Stevens) Lawson (FL) (Soto) Leger Fernandez (Kuster) Lieu (Beyer) Lynch (Langevin) McEachin (Jeffries) Meeks (Jeffries) Moore (WI) (Beyer) Moulton (Stevens) Neal (Beyer) Newman (Beyer) Panetta (Beyer) Pappas (Kuster) Pascrell (Pallone) Payne (Pallone) Pingree (Kuster) Porter (Neguse) Pressley (Neguse) Rice (SC) (Meijer) Ryan (Beyer) Salazar (Cammack) Sewell (Cicilline) Sires (Pallone) Smucker (Joyce (PA)) Stauber (Bacon) Stewart (Owens) Suozzi (Correa) Swalwell (Correa) Taylor (McHenry) Timmons (Mace) Trahan (Stevens) Upton (Meijer) Veasey (Neguse) Wagner (McHenry) Walorski (Baird) Wasserman Schultz (Stevens) Wilson (SC) (Lamborn)

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the thoughtful and visionary leadership of Dr. Ronald A. Paul, the outgoing President of the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Washington. During the last two years of the pandemic, Ron's compassionate and energetic leadership enabled the JCRC to render essential service not just to the Jewish Community but to the broader community during an excruciatingly hard time for so many people. Dr. Paul has served the people of Montgomery County, Maryland and beyond with relentless energy and enormous distinction. I am proud to be his Congressman and his friend. For decades, Dr. Paul has dedicated countless hours as a key member of numerous executive committees and boards of local and national non- profit organizations. He served as Chair of the United Jewish Endowment Fund, Chair of the Endowment for the Jewish Agency for Israel of North America and the boards of the Jewish Council for the Aging, and the Anti-Defamation League. But these commitments are not even his full-time job. For over four decades, Dr. Paul has worked as a renowned obstetrician-gynecologist while serving our community in numerous volunteer and leadership roles. His comprehensive approach to health care and inspirational leadership are deserving of the highest recognition and praise. Ron has been named one of Washingtonian magazine's Top Doctors. Additionally, Dr. Paul and his loving wife, Toni, have dedicated themselves to serving survivors of the Holocaust in our community, and I want to give special recognition to Toni for founding the local Cafe Europa, a nationwide social program for survivors that has grown around the world since it was founded two decades ago. Holocaust remembrance and education have been near and dear to Ron during his term as JCRC President, along with community security, and education and public health advocacy. His dedication to Maryland's Jewish community serves as an example for us all of what it means to be an engaged American citizen. I hope that the House will join me in celebrating Dr. Paul's enduring contributions.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the blood bath continues. Gun violence has now become the number one cause of death of children in the United States. We have rates of gun violence and gun deaths 20 times higher than any other industrialized nations like France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Israel. No other nation comes close to what we are seeing. That is 200 percent higher than our peer countries. The American people want change and action, but the minority invites us to believe that the bloody carnage piling up around the country from Buffalo to Uvalde, from Newtown to Las Vegas is a necessary feature of our Second Amendment. We are invited to believe that all of the lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters of America are the necessary collateral damage of their fidelity to the Second Amendment. Our family members must be sacrificed to a completely false vision of the Second Amendment. It is a lie. It is a lie based on a totally bogus misreading of the Second Amendment and what the Supreme Court has actually said about it. Read Justice Scalia in Heller v. District of Columbia. No, he says, the right to guns is not an unlimited right. No, he says, the Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose. No. The Second Amendment is not the only right in the Bill of Rights that is not subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety and public security. He specifically upheld reasonable gun safety regulations, including bans on carrying a concealed weapon, the possession of firearms by felons and other people who shouldn't have guns; laws forbidding carrying firearms in schools and government buildings; laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale and purchase of firearms. Stop hiding behind the Second Amendment. Take responsibility for your irresponsible position.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the people of Bangladesh. I want to voice my support for human rights defenders, members of minority groups, and civil society in Bangladesh at this moment when the Bangladeshi government is persisting in threatening the basic human rights and civil liberties of its people. The Bangladeshi government, led by Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League, has earned widespread criticism for its deteriorating human rights record, and for its failure to protect the most vulnerable people living in Bangladesh- indigenous people, women, religious minorities, activists, and refugees. Amnesty International tracks human rights abuses in Bangladesh and has noted their acceleration during the pandemic. Under the draconian Digital Security Act of 2018, Bangladeshi journalists and other human rights defenders are routinely persecuted for reporting on corruption or criticizing any of the government's policies. COVID-19 policies against public gatherings have been used to prevent political meetings, and to quell public protests against the government. Violence against women and indigenous activists has also intensified during the pandemic. The Bangladeshi government employs a joint task force composed of members of police, military, and border guards called the Rapid Action Battalion, and it has consistently failed to address the excesses of these and other security forces. The Rapid Action Battalion and other Bangladeshi law enforcement entities are alleged to be responsible for more than 600 disappearances since 2009 and nearly 600 extrajudicial killings since 2018. These incidents reportedly target opposition party members, journalists, and human rights activists. Last August, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, of which I am a member, hosted a briefing on the deeply disturbing uptick in enforced disappearances in Bangladesh. Representatives from Human Rights Watch and the Asian Human Rights Commission participated, as did Bangladeshi photojournalist and activist Shahidul Alam who had been unlawfully arrested after posting criticism of the Bangladeshi Government on Facebook, and the sister of disappeared opposition leader Sajedul Islam Sumon. These violent and illegal forced disappearances have chilling effects on free speech, political opposition, and civil society. On International Human Rights Day last year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion, citing how their actions undermine the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United Nations reported that since the sanctions against the Rapid Action Battalion officials were announced in December, the Bangladeshi government has responded by launching a retaliatory campaign of intimidation and harassment. The homes of at least 10 relatives of people forcibly disappeared are reported to have been raided at night, and some relatives were forced to sign statements saying that their loved ones had not in fact been forcibly disappeared, Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in standing with the people of Bangladesh, especially those bravest and most vulnerable, and urging the Bangladeshi government to take immediate action to respect the civil rights and safety of all the people of Bangladesh.