Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rabbi Bruce Lustig, who just led us in this wonderful opening prayer. Rabbi Lustig is senior rabbi of the Washington Hebrew Congregation, which is Washington, D.C.'s largest and oldest synagogue and where many of my constituents worship. The son of a refugee from Nazi Germany, his mother, Hedy Lustig, Rabbi Lustig grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, where he was often the only Jewish child at school. The strong cultural identity instilled by his mother, and the emphasis his family placed on engaging with his Christian friends and classmates, laid the foundation for his lifelong commitment to interfaith work, including his efforts to open dialogue and strengthen relationships among Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people of all faiths. Ordained at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Rabbi Lustig holds a doctorate of divinity and a master's degree in Hebrew letters. He earned his bachelor's with honors from the University of Tennessee. In delivering today's opening prayer in the House, Rabbi Lustig continues a venerable and important tradition. Since the Washington Hebrew Congregation was created in 1862, every single one of its senior rabbis has delivered an opening prayer before the U.S. Congress. Rabbi Lustig now joins that esteemed group. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome Rabbi Lustig to the House today, and I would like to extend my thanks for his excellent leadership in our community and for offering today's prayer.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, while the nation has been focused on Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and questions of presidential obstruction of justice, President Donald Trump's violation of fundamental principles and norms of American democracy have been far more comprehensive. In the last three months, more than 400 attorneys--including former federal and state judges, United States Attorneys, managing partners of large law firms, law deans and other distinguished lawyers from around the country--have stepped forward in a broad and unprecedented effort to defend American democracy and the rule of law against official lawlessness. The lawyers have signed and published an ``Open Letter to The President and Congress'' identifying five fundamental norms and principles of our democracy which they believe the President has violated. These violations involve the President's unjustified attacks on the mainstream media, courts, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, his repeated lying to the public, and failure to respect civil discourse and peoples from all backgrounds. The Letter's Appendix cites examples of violations of each principle. The Letter emphasizes that it is ``NOT about disagreements over Republican or Democratic policies, liberal or conservative ideology, or political party advantage. The values and principles threatened here are much deeper, and are much more important, than politics, policy differences and any politician's self-interest. They're the bedrock of our American, constitutional, democratic form of government for all times.'' The Letter notes that: ``[u]nless challenged and checked, the pattern of disregard weakens the norms that underpin American self-government and invites unfettered Executive power--transforming the United States from a democracy to an autocracy. As members of the legal profession, pledged to support the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers, we must not allow this to happen.'' I am pleased to endorse this Letter and Appendix by Lawyers Defending American Democracy, www.lawyersdefendingdemocracy.org, and include them in the Record. We are fortunate that, at a time of rising authoritarianism around the world, lawyers in the United States are standing strong for the rule of law and the Constitution. Open Letter of Lawyers Defending American Democracy We live at a time when America's fundamental values are under attack. As American lawyers, we're deeply concerned about protecting the democratic institutions and principles that have enabled America to be the world's preeminent beacon of freedom and opportunity. As lawyers, we have the responsibility to defend the underlying constitutional values and norms of political behavior on which our democracy depends. These core values and principles include: the rule of law; institutional checks and balances; separation of powers; press freedom; truthfulness to the public; and the integrity of our system of justice. Accordingly, we, as lawyers, cannot ignore or remain silent about President Donald Trump's disregard of these core values and principles. We must speak out. Yet, we recognize that elections have consequences. This effort to energize and mobilize our legal profession is emphatically NOT about disagreements over Republican or Democratic policies, liberal or conservative ideology, or political party advantage. The values and principles threatened here go much deeper, and are much more important than politics, policy differences and any politician's self- interest. They're the bedrock of our American, constitutional, democratic form of government. Specifically, we call on the President to respect and honor the following fundamental principles and norms of American democracy: Independence, integrity and the critical role of mainstream media: An independent and watchful mainstream media is, and always has been, an essential component of American democracy. Independence, integrity, competence and nonpartisanship of the judiciary: The independence, integrity, competence and nonpartisanship of our judiciary is, and from the founding of our Nation has been, a central pillar of our democratic system. Truthfulness of public officials: Our democracy is built on trust and telling the people the truth about public matters; the maintenance of that trust and Americans' ability to make informed and rational public decisions require our leaders to provide honest, factual information to us all. Independence, integrity, competence and nonpartisanship of federal criminal justice and intelligence agencies, including Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI: Nonpartisan independence, integrity and competence are critical to the fairness of our federal criminal justice system and intelligence agencies. Civil discourse and fair treatment, including the respect for rights and the dignity of all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation: Civil discourse and fair treatment, including respect for the rights and dignity of all individuals, is an essential ingredient of American democracy. The President's attacks on these core American democratic principles undermine the foundations of our Constitution and threaten the rule of law. Unless challenged and checked, this pattern of disregard weakens the norms that underpin American self-government and invites unfettered Executive power-- transforming the United States from a democracy to an autocracy. As members of the legal profession, pledged to support the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers, we must not allow this to happen. Fortunately, a group of prominent conservative lawyers has recently spoken out on many of these same issues through a new organization, ``Checks and Balances.'' Now, other members of the bar must no longer remain silent. We call on the leaders of America's bar associations, law schools, law firms and fellow lawyers nationwide to speak out, on a nonpartisan basis, against these attacks on the core of our democratic constitutional form of government. As lawyers, we have a responsibility to uphold ``the rule of law'' and prevent ``the law of rulers.'' Wherever you live and work--in cities, towns, rural areas, suburbs--American democracy needs to hear your voice. Appendix We list below the five fundamental principles and values of American democracy highlighted in our Open Letter to the President. Under each principle, we describe patterns or examples of behavior by the President that we believe constitute serious violations of these principles. The examples are not intended to be comprehensive and may be added to in the future. Principle: Independence, integrity and the critical role of mainstream media. Pattern of Violations: Nevertheless, the President has labeled the mainstream news media that have earned our trust through decades of relentless, factual reporting as the ``enemy of the American people!'' and has repeatedly criticized reporting he dislikes as ``Fake News.'' Principle: Independence, integrity, competence and nonpartisanship of judiciary. Pattern of Violations: Nevertheless, the President has criticized ``our Court System'' as ``broken and unfair'' and has pilloried the judges and decisions of an entire Federal Circuit as ``[a] terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace.'' He has publicly labeled a federal judge with whose decision he disagreed a ``so-called judge''. And he sought to undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of another federal judge--who had ruled that the President's immigration policy violated express statutory language--by calling him ``an Obama judge.'' Principle: Civil discourse and fair treatment, including respect for rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation. Examples of Violations: Nevertheless, the President has said that there were ``some very fine people on both sides'' of the murderous Charlottesville white nationalists' demonstrations. He's approved the removal of thousands of children from their immigrant parents, for extended time periods, and has publicly insulted several respected African- American female journalists. Principle: Independence, integrity, competence and nonpartisanship of federal criminal justice and intelligence agencies, including Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI. Examples of Violations: Nevertheless, the President has attacked the DOJ for indicting Republican Congressmen for serious financial crimes because the indictments would harm the chances for reelecting Republicans. He has attacked and removed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for lack of personal loyalty, after having previously complained that: ``I don't have an Attorney General.'' He has accused the special counsel's deliberate, professional, lawful investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 election as the ``rigged Mueller Witch Hunt!'' And, he has rejected the U.S. intelligence community's consensus finding of Russian interference in that election, because Vladimir Putin, the autocratic Russian President, told the President that there was no interference. Principle: Truthfulness of public officials. Examples of Violations: [. . .] The Washington Post has documented more than 7,500 ``false or misleading claims'' by the President

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of the National 4-H Council, our country's largest youth development organization, as well as Clyde Van Dyke, the national winner of the 2019 4-H Youth in Action Award. Clyde, who also won the 4-H Youth in Action STEM Pillar Award, was honored at the National 4-H Council's Legacy Awards in Washington, D.C., and is being awarded $10,000 in scholarships for higher education. The 4-H Youth in Action Award recognizes Clyde for his resilience and commitment to using technology to spark community change. Clyde faced many challenges during his childhood, including the loss of his mother at a young age. He was further discouraged in elementary school when he was told that most kids with his background ``wouldn't succeed.'' These feelings of defeat led him to put forth little effort in school. Everything changed for Clyde when a friend invited him to a 4-H technology club meeting. Not only did the 4-H program provide Clyde with access and exposure to technology, it also helped him develop important life skills that altered his perspective and boosted his drive to succeed. 4-H empowers nearly 6 million young people like Clyde across the United States through experiences that develop critical life and career skills. Through a network of 110 public universities and more than 3,000 local extension offices, 4-H serves every county and parish in the United States. Globally, 4-H collaborates with independent programs to empower approximately 1 million young people in 50 countries. Young people who take part in the research-backed 4-H experience are four times more likely as their peers to contribute to their communities; twice as likely to make healthier life choices; twice as likely to be civically active; and twice as likely to participate in STEM programs. I commend 4-H for its ongoing work to educate and engage our young people and I salute Clyde Van Dyke for his exemplary perseverance, civic engagement, and ingenuity.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, at Sunday school, Jewish kids learn the imperishable words of Hillel, who said: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am for myself only, then who am I? And if not now, when? Today, we must all stand strongly and proudly for ourselves and our communities, but we must also stand in strong solidarity with other people and their communities. We must act now because in America and in nations all over the world, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and other forms of racism and intolerance are sharply on the rise. These old and lethal poisons are not only a threat to individual Jews and Muslims and African Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans and Native Americans walking down the street, and to our children playing at school, they are the common enemy of liberal democracy, which depends upon tolerance and pluralism to survive. As the world's oldest liberal democracy and a thriving multiracial and multicultural society, America must reject the myths and stereotypes and libels and tropes that make up these ancient hatreds. Anti-Semitism and racism are the gateway to destruction for everything that we believe in as a society. They are a threat to the values of our constitutional creed: pluralism and tolerance, religious freedom and freedom of association, equal protection for all citizens. Let us stand up today for our most hard-won American ideals, and let us vote for this resolution condemning racism and anti-Muslim bigotry and other forms of racism and intolerance.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 1. For decades, the law prevented business corporations from engaging in campaign spending. But the Supreme Court destroyed that prohibition with its watershed decision in 2010, in the Citizens United case, which, for the first time, defined for-profit business corporations as political membership associations and, thereby, unleashed billions of dollars in corporate treasury money into the political system. Since then, corporations have taken advantage of this newfound constitutional identity and political freedom by investing hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, in campaign expenditures and the torrent of ``dark money'' now coursing through the political system. But who are these corporations speaking for? Well, according to the court, they are speaking for the shareholders. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy took the position that corporate political campaigning is on behalf of the shareholders, an association of individuals who have taken on the corporate form. But, in reality, we know that CEOs engage in political spending without the knowledge, much less the consent of the shareholders whose First Amendment rights are allegedly being exercised. Anyone who has a retirement fund with money invested in corporate equities will know that they have never been asked whether they want a portion of their retirement money invested in Republican or Democratic or other campaigns. The CEOs just do it without their participation. What can be done to stop shareholders' money from being spent on campaigns without their knowledge or consent? Most Americans want a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore the definition of corporations as economic entities barred from politics. But there is something that we can do right now, short of that, simply by enforcing Citizens United on its own terms. Justice Kennedy said the main check against abuse of this new right would be exercised by the ``shareholders through the procedures of corporate democracy.'' Justice Kennedy assumed a world of comprehensive and immediate disclosure. He wrote: ``Shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy can be more effective today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative. With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable . . . citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.'' But the current system provides nothing like that kind of transparency and accountability. This amendment, the Shareholders United Act of 2019, will begin to change the secrecy, darkness, and oligarchical implications of the current system. It would require publicly-traded corporations to get shareholder buy- in on the front end before their money is channeled into political campaigns. Companies would have to develop a process to assess shareholder preferences for political spending, and make any such spending within a year of assessing the majority's preferences. Moreover, the amendment recognizes that some shareholders are institutional investors, like pension funds, States, and cities, mutual funds, universities or charities, which are categorically forbidden from expressing partisan political preferences. If this type of investor holds a majority of corporate shares, the corporation would not be able to make expenditures from the general treasury because the CEO, at that point, would paradoxically be speaking for institutional shareholders that may not themselves speak in politics. Citizens are begging for this kind of commonsense regulation and promotion of corporate democracy. People invest in the stock market to save for retirement, or to send their kids to college, not to support their favorite political candidates, much less their most disfavored ones. I know that I would be mad as hell to learn that my retirement money was being spent, being given away to Donald Trump and the RNC; just as I assume my GOP friends don't want their pension dollars going to the DNC or to help Elizabeth Warren's Presidential campaign. People who invest in the stock market should not be used as the pawns for the political designs of CEOs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment called for by Justice Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for those thoughtful comments. The ranking member of the House Administration Committee contends that we talked about this in the House Administration Committee which, indeed, we did, and it was precisely that discussion which led to the formation of the amendment. I am afraid there he is just protesting against the character of the legislative process. We have a discussion; we learn things; we develop new amendments. And for a moment there it sounded like he wanted to vote for it, but then he turns to say that the problem with this amendment is that it would politicize the corporation, which is quite an astounding argument to make against it, when the entire purpose of our amendment is to prevent corporations from engaging in political expenditures and dark-money spending without the consent and the knowledge of the shareholders. If you object to corporations being engaged in partisan political activity, then you should support this amendment, because it is precisely this amendment that will prevent it from happening if the shareholders don't want it to. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage, everyone to actually read the terms of this landmark reform legislation, which insists upon ethics reform at the Supreme Court, ethics reform in the executive branch, empowering the Office of Government Ethics to have real subpoena power, and to actually be able to ferret out the corruption which is engulfing the Trump administration today, and to prevent corruption in the future.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Our friends across the aisle are nothing if not courageous. They have got the brazen temerity to raise the question of process after running the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America; the most closed House of Representatives that anyone has ever seen. Let's compare their H.R. 1 when they got started with our H.R. 1. Well, their's was filed, marked up, and passed in 2 weeks with no hearings, no amendments made in order, and no expert testimony at all. Our H.R. 1 was filed on the first day of the new Congress for all of the public to read. There have been hearings in five different committees with over 15 hours of expert testimony, culminating in a full committee markup in House Administration. Sixty days later, we are now on the floor for consideration in an open and transparent way. You would think they would have the decency not to raise the question of process after running the House of Representatives like King Kong over the last 2 years. But the people who ran it like King Kong now want to turn it into a Quaker meeting house somehow. They should be thanking us for the openness of our proceedings. Their H.R. 1 blew a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit, a staggering and unprecedented assault on the fiscal integrity of the United States of America, to shower tax cuts on the wealthy and well-connected. Our H.R. 1 is an effort to reclaim our democracy from the wealthy and well-connected people who were the beneficiaries of their H.R. 1 by creating a 21st century campaign finance system that responds to the people. On the substance of the matter, it is amazing to me that my colleagues raise the question of the swamp. They got elected 2.5 years ago campaigning against the swamp. It was a great slogan they borrowed from Nancy Pelosi. They moved to Washington. They moved into the swamp. They built a hotel on it, and they have turned the Government of the United States into a money-making operation for the President, and the President's family, and the President's friends and business associates. Now, what are we doing in H.R. 1? We are trying to reclaim American democracy. This legislation is anti-gerrymandering legislation. This legislation says that every State in the Union will have to have an independent redistricting commission. No politicians involved. They want the politicians to be involved. Amazingly, they embrace the title of being the gerrymander party. They want to keep gerrymandering because that is how they maintain their stranglehold on political power. The whole purpose of H.R. 1 is to liberate us from the gerrymandering of our elections. That is why we start with independent redistricting commissions. We move to publicly financed elections, because either the big, wealthy, special interests are going to own the elections, or else the people are going to own them through a small, donor-leveraged system. And that is what we are doing. We have got ethics reform in this legislation.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, which is in favor of this legislation and against any weakening amendments. National Task Force To End Sexual & Domestic Violence The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, a coalition comprising federal, state, local and tribal organizations and individuals who have fought for federal protections for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, oppose any amendments to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, that exempts any persons from the firearms background check requirement. This includes amendments exempting victims and survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, including those with protective orders. Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and does not support the contention that firearm possession is a protective factor for the victim. The testimony of Christy Salters Martin, a professional boxer and experienced gun user, to the Senate Judiciary Committee illustrates this. Despite her boxing prowess and familiarity with firearms, her abuser was able to take her gun from her and shoot her with it, narrowly missing her heart. Firearms do not make victims of domestic violence safer; firearms put victims at greater risk. Furthermore, domestic abusers are adept at using the justice system against victims. Abusers often accuse the victim of being the perpetrator of violence, making police reports and seeking protective orders. Abusers are also adept at finding loopholes. If persons with protective orders are exempted from the background check requirement, many abusers who are prohibited from possessing firearms would seek protective orders in order to circumvent the background check requirement to obtain firearms to terrorize their victims. Moreover, requiring a victim to undergo a firearms background check is not a hurdle to obtaining a firearm. Most firearm background checks are completed in under a minute. A victim seeking to purchase a firearm would still be able to do so quickly, unless the victim was legally prohibited from possessing firearms. Rather than adding dangerous exemptions to a law that is supposed to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, Congress should focus on ensuring that adjudicated domestic abusers do not possess firearms. This includes ensuring federal firearms prohibitors protect all victims of intimate partner violence, including dating partners, and ensuring that domestic abusers who are prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their firearms. The best way to protect victims is to disarm abusers.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague for advancing our discussion here because I think now we are really starting to get somewhere. The gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has an order of protection issued by a court. That is an extremely narrow exception. Most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil protection order. Part of that is because of the incompetence of the laws in a lot of States, and part of it is because they haven't had the wherewithal to go and get one. But our legislation and our amendment sweeps much more broadly. It allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who faces a threat from their attacker, to be loaned a gun by a family member or be loaned a gun by a friend until the threat is resolved. My friend suggests that there is something ambiguous about the words. I just don't see the ambiguity. Their original argument attacked the utility of all criminal law, saying we shouldn't have criminal laws, essentially, because criminals won't follow them. This seems like an attack on law itself. Law depends upon language. But the language is clear here that if there is a threat and if you are suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so on, then you can get the gun. Who interprets it? Well, you have got the right to go out and get it. If someone were to prosecute you for doing that, the prosecution would clearly lose. So I am afraid that our friends are looking for problems in this bipartisan legislation which simply don't exist. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 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 gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 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, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, first, to clarify one thing, this is bipartisan legislation. We have at least five Republicans who are cosponsoring and supporting this legislation. I assume my friend doesn't mean to read those five Republican Members of the House of Representatives out of her caucus. I am not quite sure what happened in Maine, but I know that there are around a dozen States and the District of Columbia that have already gotten rid of the loopholes that we are going to get rid of today in this Federal legislation. My friend also invokes Second Amendment rights. I thought that we had put that red herring to rest in 2008 in Heller v. District of Columbia. Justice Scalia said that reasonable regulation to screen out felons and fugitives and the mentally unstable is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment. Everybody on both sides of the aisle favors the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. If you are going to oppose this legislation, you have to base it on some public safety rationale and not pretend like anybody has made a constitutional argument, because nobody has made a constitutional argument. Finally, on the question of the domestic violence amendment, I would invite my friend to come on over, and we would gladly have unanimous consent to have her added to the amendment, which is the broader amendment she is talking about. Of course, her amendment was the narrow one, which required you to have a civil protection order before there would be an exception from the provisions of the legislation. She said she was misdirected by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. All I can say is the legislative process is a treacherous place and a rocky road for people in the minority. I have been dealing with that for several years. In any event, we would love to have you join the amendment now. Mr. Speaker, I make that offer to my friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the great and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, far from trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, our legislation will save law-abiding citizens from criminals, simply by expanding the successful Brady law, which has been in effect for decades now. The gentlewoman introduces a constitutional argument at the last minute here, saying that our legislation is unconstitutional because there may be undue fees imposed. Of course, those are the fees that are currently imposed under the Brady law, so I am afraid that my friend has just made an argument for the unconstitutionality of the current law, which has saved us from more than 3 million felons, fugitives, mentally unstable people, drug abusers, and undocumented aliens from acquiring firearms in the country. Mr. Speaker, our country is a social contract. I know we have got a lot of young people here today. We are a social contract. If you go back and read any of the social contracts--there is Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson--any of them say, we leave a state of nature, which is a state of war and a state of violence, in order to live in a civilized way. But how civilized is it when tens of thousands of Americans, every year, are being killed in firearm violence? Every day, another hundred Americans are killed with guns. In 2017, the highest level in 40 years, nearly 40,000 Americans died from gun violence. That is not a civilized state. That is a state of war. That is a state of violence. We know what the loopholes are, and we are going to close the loopholes with our bipartisan legislation, which has support from Republicans and it has support from Democrats. The public opinion polls show that more than 95 percent of the American people support what we are trying to do here--close the gun show loophole, close the private sale loophole, close the internet loophole--make sure that everybody who purchases a gun in America is purchasing it only with the universal comprehensive mental and criminal background check. We have amendments for the discrete exceptions that are necessary, including in cases of imminent violence, including rape and sexual assault via domestic violence. We think that this legislation is excellent legislation that every Member of Congress should feel proud voting for. Mr. Speaker, I submit both H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Check Act, as well as the bill to close the Charleston loophole, so that criminals are not given guns after 3 days. We are able to delay that process in the event that more investigation is needed.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 145 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 145, providing for consideration of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured rule. The rule also provides 1 hour of general debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 arrived at a time of emergency for America--a real emergency. Every year 120,000 Americans are shot in our country, and 35,000 of them are shot dead. Seventeen thousand of the people wounded or killed each year are children or teenagers, their families devastated, their lives forever changed. In 2017, gun deaths in America hit the highest level in 40 years, with 40,000 Americans killed. We have lost more Americans to gun violence in our own communities than to the Vietnam war, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Iraq war, and the Afghan war, combined. This war at home never stops. Each day--yesterday, today, and tomorrow--another 100 people in America are shot and killed by gun violence. Mr. Speaker, this is not a global problem; it is an American problem. While 35,000 Americans are killed by gunfire here each year, it is 146 people in the United Kingdom, 142 in Portugal, and 30 in Japan. We lose more people to gun violence in a single weekend than England loses all year. We lost more people in the Las Vegas massacre alone, in one bloody night, than the nation of Japan lost to gun violence in 8 years. No other developed, high-income country's lethal gun violence even comes close to the American carnage allowed by our loophole-ridden gun laws. The gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher than the average of other high-income countries and hundreds of times higher than some of them. Now, the good news is that we know what to do to begin to end this crisis. We must close the loopholes. In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect and required licensed firearm dealers to contact the FBI to run a background check through NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Brady Act made it illegal to sell a firearm to felons, to fugitives, to people who had been committed to mental institutions, to drug addicts, to domestic abusers, to undocumented immigrants, and to other disqualified categories. The Brady Act worked as far as it went. It stopped more than 3 million illegal purchases of firearms by convicted felons, violently abusive partners, fugitives, the mentally ill, and so on. But there are gaping loopholes in the law because unlicensed gun sellers, the people who sell guns online today or at gun shows or in other private transactions, can sell firearms without having to run any background check whatsoever. More than one-fifth of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without any background check at all, which means that millions of people obtained millions of firearms without going through the Brady system, and people who commit gun crimes overwhelmingly obtain their firearms from the unlicensed sources. A 2013 study found that 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources that were not required to go through the background check. The criminals are not stupid. They follow the loopholes. They go to the internet. They go to the gun shows. They go to the convenience store parking lots to get their weapons of mass destruction without any background check at all. Our legislation will close these dangerous loopholes by guaranteeing that there is a thorough NICS background check on every gun sale or transfer, with only a few carefully defined exceptions for intrafamily gifts and a few other cases. Mr. Speaker, there are three primary things you need to know about this legislation: First, it is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people-- fully, 97 percent of Americans, including 97 percent of gun owners, 97 percent of Republicans, and 99 percent of Democrats. It is the very essence of common sense, the sense we all have in common, to make the background check system comprehensive and universal, leakproof, foolproof, and not ridden by the loopholes. A background check doesn't work if criminals know that there are massive and lawful ways to cheat and get around it. So America, today, stands up to close the loopholes, and that is why this is a day of great triumph for the gun safety movement that has swept America in response to Parkland, Las Vegas, Newtown, and the other massacres that our people have endured. Second, this legislation is perfectly constitutional. As Justice Scalia found for the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation to exclude from gun ownership violent felons, the mentally unstable, and so on. Despite all of the solemn invocations of the Second Amendment that we continue to hear bouncing off of the walls of Congress, the opponents of this legislation could not muster a single witness to actually argue that this legislation is unconstitutional, and that includes the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment who was brought in and just expressed her policy misgivings about the bill without articulating any constitutional analysis at all and rejected the opportunity to say that this legislation is unconstitutional. The reason 97 percent of Americans favor this legislation is because it is perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, and it sweepingly advances public safety at the same time. Third, this bill will dramatically lower gun violence in America. More than 90 percent of Brady background checks take less than 90 seconds to complete. But these checks have literally stopped more than 3 million illegal gun purchases by felons, fugitives, domestic offenders, the violently mentally ill, undocumented aliens, and so on. Every day, background checks stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from purchasing a gun. Imagine how much more effective this system will be when we close these gaping loopholes. Yet, even in the face of the shocking death toll which distinguishes our society from the other wealthy societies on Earth, despite the overwhelming public support for this legislation, and despite its clear constitutionality, our friends across the aisle oppose closing the internet, the gun show, and the private sale loopholes. Instead of getting on our side to close the loopholes, what do they give us? More loopholes. They brought us dozens of amendments to try to suggest more loopholes to the current law. That is obviously not the direction that America needs to go in, and you will hear some more about that today, Mr. Speaker. They have given us a veritable loophole factory. But now is the time to close loopholes, not reproduce them. Let's focus on the public safety, which is the cardinal purpose of law in the social contract in a democratic society. Let's pass this excellent bill, and let's pass H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which closes the Charleston loophole, the loophole that made it possible for a guy to go out and get a gun because the dealer decided to give him a gun after 3 days because they were still doing a background check. This loophole says that if it has taken 3 days or more, you have a right to go ahead and get your gun. We are going to close that one, the so-called default proceed provision. We are going to close that one, too, so that we don't see any repeat massacres like the one that took place in June of 2015 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RASKIN. Just to quote a small part of it: ``Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and does not support the contention that firearm possession is a protective factor for the victim.'' And there is more in here of interest. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for her thoughts on the question of sexual and domestic violence. We, indeed, have a provision within the legislation which allows for an exemption from the background check requirement in cases of an imminent threat of great bodily harm. The question has been raised: Does that include sexual assault, dating partner violence, stalking, and so on? We thought it was self- evident that it did, but, in any event, Representatives Horn from Oklahoma and Murphy from Florida are introducing a clarifying amendment to be very specific that it is included. At that point, perhaps we could welcome the support of the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona, because we are being very clear at that point that our exception for imminent bodily harm and violence includes sexual assault and so on. I am certain that the gentlewoman's intentions are good, just as are the intentions of the offerers of the amendment in the bill. Let me just address, in case the gentlewoman hasn't decided to come over to our side now, some of the general points that were made against the legislation. The gentlewoman articulated an argument we have been hearing a lot of from our counterparts, which is that criminals don't follow the law and, therefore, there is no reason to get rid of the loopholes and strengthen the law, because criminals won't follow the law. Now, the fallacy of that argument is plain to see. It is an argument against all law. It is an argument against the law against murder because murderers obviously don't follow the law against murder. It is an argument against the law opposed to theft because thieves don't follow the law against theft. But I think anyone who takes time to really study what law is understands that the purpose of the law is to deter people from negative, socially harmful action, the way that the Brady Act has deterred more than 3 million people--felons, fugitives, the mentally unstable, and other unauthorized categories--from accessing a weapon. Now, that argument sweeps so broadly that it is an argument against having the Brady Act that we have now, and perhaps that is the intention, simply to take down the law that we have got now. Another purpose of law, of course, is to punish people who violate it and then, again, to send a moral message about what the social norms are. And we have got social norms about driving, for example. Would we say we are not going to have driver's licenses in America because people who drive without a driver's license ignore the law requiring you to have a driver's license? It is a completely nonsensical argument. Let's come back to reality and talk about what the Brady Act actually requires the gun dealers to ask people. Here are the basic questions that are being asked: Are you under indictment for or have you ever been convicted of a felony? Are you a fugitive from justice? Are you an unlawful user of a controlled substance? Do you suffer from mental illness? Have you been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces? Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner? Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? Have you renounced your United States citizenship? Are you unlawfully present in the United States? Mr. Speaker, those questions have created a dragnet that has allowed us to stop more than 3 million people from getting weapons who shouldn't have them. But there are these big, gaping loopholes out there that they can go on the Internet and get one, or they can go to the parking lot of a convenience store in a private sale and get one, or they can go to a gun show and negotiate a private sale and get one without having to answer those questions. Well, the American people have spoken on this. That is really why this is the first legislation advocating gun safety to hit the floor of the House of Representatives in a quarter of a century. This is a great day for the gun safety movement that has overtaken America, rejecting the unconscionable toll of 100 people dead every single day in communities across the land. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 8, who has done such a magnificent job advocating this cause through thick and thin.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I suppose that we are in a rush to do anything, something, anything that works in order to curb the terrible toll of gun violence on our society. In the last Congress it is true there was other legislation that was brought to us. One was a proposal to legalize silencers in America, which sounds to me more like an agenda of organized crime than it is of the U.S. Congress trying to seek public safety. But there was this bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which was a massive assault on federalism and States' rights. It would have destroyed every State's concealed carry law in the country to a level at the lowest common denominator. So if you could get a license to carry a concealed loaded weapon in one State--and in some States there are more than a million people who have been able to get them through completely permissive and lax laws--then you could go anywhere in the country. That is their proposal. That is what is coming out of the loophole factory. I just would like to assure my friend that we have a provision in our legislation, if you read it carefully, which says that you can temporarily transfer a gun at a shooting range, at a shooting gallery, or for purposes of hunting, so he doesn't have to worry about this. Our friends are either not reading carefully enough or they are overlooking very clear passages in our legislation which deal with commonsense concerns. This is bipartisan legislation. It is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people, and it is going to advance common safety. So rather than searching for mysterious reasons to oppose it, why shouldn't everybody get together to say this is something that will promote the public safety? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the important work of the Rachel Carson Council (RCC), which is named after the visionary marine biologist, nature writer and environmentalist who was a proud resident of Silver Spring, Maryland. Founded and based in Bethesda, the RCC pays tribute to Rachel Carson's imperishable legacy by linking environmental, health, and social policy solutions ``with the goal of building a more just, sustainable, and peaceful future.'' The RCC recently released a comprehensive report called ``Clear Cut,'' examining wood pellet production and its adverse effects on the health and sustainability of our forests and communities. The report details the process by which Southeastern forests are being cut down, chopped up, and dehydrated before being shipped and burned as carbon- intense fuel. According to the report, despite being touted as a ``green'' alternative to fossil fuels, the sourcing of wood pellets contributes to widespread deforestation and pollution throughout much of the American Southeast. In North Carolina alone, the largest producer of wood pellets, Enviva, clear cuts more than 50 acres of forest each day. Left standing, these forests would help control the climate, maintain the biodiversity of our ecosystems, and filter our air and water. Following this environmentally invasive sourcing process of clear- cutting, pellets are burned, producing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NO), and carbon monoxide (CO2), all of which pose serious health risks to human beings. Although the pollutants emitted by wood pellet mills are indiscriminately harmful to nearby inhabitants, the RCC report notes that wood pellet mills have been disproportionally constructed near poor communities of color, which are bearing the disproportionate burdens of deforestation, including poor air quality and increased flood risks. Although the environmental drawbacks of wood pellet production are clear--wood pellet mills emit approximately 65-percent more C02 per megawatt hour than modern coal plants--the RCC argues that the industry has continued to mislead the public about the sustainability of this practice. Moreover, the RCC's report concludes that the expansion of the wood pellet industry is making it harder for us to maintain our environmental standards and address the global crisis of climate change. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to review the well-researched and well-documented ``Clear Cut'' report by visiting the RCC website at www.rachelcarsoncouncil.org. We must keep the profound concerns raised in this report in mind as we enact environmental, forestry, and energy policies and work to protect the public health and safety.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Georgia eloquently calls us back to bipartisanship, and I could not agree more. I would love nothing more than for him and for all of our colleagues across the aisle to join us in supporting the 2.6 percent pay raise for America's Federal workforce. I almost feel as though, if we were to add the names of our distinguished colleagues on the other side to the bill, they might support it. So I would reopen that offer and restate that offer: We invite everybody to come on and to be cosponsors with us in giving America's Federal workforce a pay raise right now. But we do have to think about this in bipartisan-nonpartisan terms. It was the President of the United States who maligned the Federal workforce, apparently, from his perspective, by calling them Democrats, and there are two problems with that. One, it is not true. I have got lots of Republicans who work as Federal employees. I have got lots of Independents who work as Federal employees, as well as Democrats, as well as Greens, as well as people who are not affiliated with any party at all and are probably sick of a lot of the partisanship that goes on here in Washington. Think about what the real problem with the President deriding Federal workers as Democrats is. The real problem is that they are Americans. We are all Americans. We stand together as Americans. That is why we have got to stand behind our Federal workforce. I want to just clear up one other thing that has been bugging me, because the gentleman from Georgia is so persuasive in his tactics, and he kind of mixed apples and oranges. We are talking about a pay raise for the workforce, and he said: Well, maybe most of the workers deserve one, but there might be some who don't. I just want to state generally what the procedure is for evaluating Federal workers. Federal agencies use formal performance-rating programs for almost all of their career employees, typically with five different levels. The ratings are used in deciding on promotions, merit pay increases, cash awards, or discipline. In the most severe cases, low-performing employees can be disciplined and removed from their jobs. Now, the gentleman, I am sure, has some ideas for how we can improve that system and make it better. By all means, let's discuss that, but let's not cloud the issue of the fact that our workers need a raise. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.