Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, as amended, would establish a framework to support greater access and use of government data. I thank Speaker Ryan, Senator Murray, and Representative Kilmer for their constructive and collaborative bipartisan work on this issue. The goal of the bill is to ensure that Congress and the executive branch are able to make important policy decisions based on evidence, facts, and science. We are in very strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, as the former majority leader of the New York Assembly, Representative Morelle is a fitting and worthy successor to Representative Slaughter, whom we all miss. I thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation forward. I urge passage of H.R. 7293. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in considering H.R. 7293, which will designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the Louise and Bob Slaughter Post Office. Representative Slaughter was a pioneering, ebullient, and groundbreaking Member of this body whose energetic service on the Rules Committee changed the dynamics and the culture of the House of Representatives. She served here for 31 years, was the first woman ever to chair the Rules Committee, and coauthored the landmark Violence Against Women Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for a further brief statement on her remarkable life and career.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of the Federal Personal Property Management Act, which would improve the accountability of unneeded equipment, furniture, and information technology resources at Federal agencies. It may be an appropriate time for us to take up this bill, given all the furniture strewn throughout the floors of the House of Representatives. The GAO recently found that most agencies do not have procedures in place to identify unneeded personal property on a regular basis. The GSA has issued regulations establishing a governmentwide excess property disposal process, but it lacks the authority to tell agencies how or when to identify excess property. As a result, agencies retain unneeded property that could be used elsewhere in the Federal Government, at State or local governments, or in the private sector. The report also found there is a wide variation in how Federal agencies classify according to value, which makes it difficult to measure the total value of the government's personal property holdings. The Federal Personal Property Management Act would direct Federal agencies to assess and inventory more valuable property assets once a year and assets of lower value on a regular basis, according to guidance issued by GSA. Requiring agencies to regularly inventory their excess property should spur agencies to declare excess property more often, allowing for its disposal. The bill also would give the GSA authority to establish a uniform standard for how agencies assess their most valuable property, allowing for a better understanding and use of its value. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 3191, the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act, which represents an important step toward finally solving more than 100 unresolved court cases in the civil rights field. The bill will establish a new civil rights cold case records collection and review board, so the public can review records related to these unsolved cases, with appropriate security and privacy safeguards. The bill will allow the expertise of outside investigators to help bring justice to the families and descendants and victims of these crimes. The bill also will provide a role for Congress in the appointments to this review board, to ensure proper expertise and accountability in the process. It is imperative that Congress appropriate sufficient funding to the National Archives and other agencies to carry out the important mission of this legislation. I urge all Members to support this bill and future funding measures for this endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) Awareness Month and the outstanding work of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association in the fight against this rare and debilitating disease. PH is a type of high blood pressure that occurs in the arteries of the lungs. It reflects the pressure the heart must apply to pump blood from the heart through the arteries of the lungs. As with a tangled hose, pressure builds up and backs up, forcing the heart to work harder and less oxygen to reach the body. PH symptoms generally include fatigue, dizziness, and shortness of breath with the severity of the disease correlating with its progression. If left undiagnosed or untreated it can lead to heat failure and death. When individuals are diagnosed with PH quickly and begin appropriate therapy, their prognosis and life-expectancy improve dramatically. However, it currently takes an average of 2.5 years to receive a diagnosis and three quarters of patients have severe PH when they are finally diagnosed. Without treatment, historical studies have shown a mean survival time of 2.8 years after diagnosis for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Patients with advanced PH cannot benefit as greatly from available therapies and often face dramatic and costly medical interventions, including 24-hour IV infused medication, increased risk for hospitalization and in some cases heart-lung transplantation. I am proud to represent the Pulmonary Hypertension Association, which is headquartered in my district in Silver Spring, Maryland. The Association is dedicated to extending and improving the life of those affected by PH and was the first organization in the world dedicated to providing comprehensive PH patient and caregiver support, medical education, specialty care services that improve patients' quality of life, and research funding. Thanks in large part to the Pulmonary Hypertension Association's advocacy for continued investment in medical research and sustained scientific progress, there are 14 Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted treatment options for two forms of PH. Additionally, their efforts to establish a PH Program at the CDC focusing on education, awareness, and epidemiology activities that promote early and accurate diagnosis and quality care for PH are to be commended. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing November as Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month and to continue supporting federal activities that improve the lives of those with PH, including research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate release of Abdul Shakoor, a prisoner of conscience currently incarcerated in Pakistan, and a man who has been persecuted for his belief in the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith. Mr. Shakoor is an 82-year old who manages an optician's store and bookshop in the main bazaar of Rabwah in Punjab province. Rabwah is the de facto headquarters of Pakistan's Ahmadiyya Muslim community, known as Ahmadis. Mr. Shakoor is a beloved figure in Rabwah where he is known as a pillar of the community, a leader, a conciliator, and peacemaker. He is referred to by all as ``Brother'' Shakoor. In 1997, Pakistan passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provided for a broad definition of terrorism and created special Anti-Terrorism Courts to try individuals accused of violating the law. In the 20 years since it became law, the Anti-Terrorism Act has been increasingly used as a cudgel to persecute religious minorities within Pakistan, with a specific malicious focus trained on Ahmadi Muslims. This is because Pakistan's Constitution declares members of the Ahmadiyya faith as non- Muslims, and Pakistan's Penal Code criminalizes their existence for ``posing as Muslim,'' subjecting them to three years imprisonment and potential capital punishment. Thus, Ahmadis are legally rendered heretical and thus illegal in Pakistan because Ahmadi Muslims believe that the founder of their faith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was divinely appointed as the promised Mahdi and Messiah. On December 2nd and 9th of 2015, Brother Shakoor's bookshop was raided by the Counter Terrorism Department of the Punjab police and the counterterrorism focused Elite Force. He and his assistant, Mazhar Abbas, a Shia Muslim, were arrested for the crime of distributing Ahmadiyya commentaries on the Qur'an. Brother Shakoor was charged with violating both the Anti-Terrorism Act, for ``disseminating any material to incite hatred,'' and the Pakistani Penal code for committing acts or speech that insult a religion or defile the Qur'an or the Prophet Muhammad. Brother Shakoor was brought to trial within a month before the Anti- Terrorism Court in Faisalabad, Punjab. The only witnesses at the trial were the officers who raided his bookstore who entered into evidence a letter supposedly recovered during the December 9 raid. The letter, purportedly from the Ahmadiyya Director of Public Affairs, notified Brother Shakoor that some Ahmadiyya literature had been banned and he should neither display nor sell it. However, the literature cited in the letter, and for which Brother Shakoor was prosecuted, was not banned until January 20, 2016, after the trial had concluded. Obviously, religious literature cannot be banned under international human rights law in any case. Brother Shakoor contended at trial, and maintains the position, that while he was in possession of the literature, he did not distribute it. Yet, the anti-terrorism court Judge Raja Parvaiz Akhtar announced Brother Shakoor's conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Sentenced him to eight years imprisonment for his alleged crimes, dealing a terrible blow to the local Ahmadiyya community. The shop assistant, Mr. Abbas, was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act as well and was sentenced to five years in prison. Since his conviction, Brother Shakoor has appealed the verdict and petitioned for bail on appeal to the Lahore High Court, but he has remained in jail. The case has been listed on the Lahore High Court's daily docket on several occasions, but it has been repeatedly postponed. The last postponed hearing date is believed to have been June 22, 2017, and the matter has not been noticed since to the best of our knowledge. Brother Shakoor remains in prison and is suffering from medical conditions which we cannot say are being attended to, including hernia and severe weakness owing to old age. For example, the distance within the jail facility between the daily meeting point and his cell is very long, and so he needs to be transported with help from a warden because he cannot even make that basic walk by foot. When anti-terrorism statutes are used to persecute practitioners of minority religious communities who have done nothing but observe their faith, they are obviously illegitimate instruments of tyranny and threaten public support for legitimate anti-terrorism policies. Brother Shakoor's imprisonment is a scandalous abuse of an anti-terror law and demands international condemnation. He should be freed immediately. As the world's first constitutional democracy, America must defend the freedoms of speech, expression, and religion against state persecution everywhere. So today, I ask my colleagues to join me in standing with Brother Shakoor and calling for his release, as well as that of Mr. Abbas.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with members of minority groups in India who are facing persecution because of their faith or class standing. I recently met with Teesta Setalvad, a prominent civil rights lawyer in India. She updated me on the increasing religious violence being committed by extremist groups against religious minority communities in India including Muslims, Christians, and Hindu Dalits, also known as ``untouchables.'' Although this violence is not new, the United States Commission on International Religious freedom has noted a substantial deterioration in conditions for minority groups since 2014, when the ruling Bharati Jayanti Party (BJP) rose to power on a Hindu nationalist political platform. Intensifying religious-based violence has swept 10-of-29 states in India, including Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, which are controlled by the BJP, and which have begun enforcing anti-cow slaughtering and anti- conversion laws. While attacks on minorities are not always directly instigated by the government, a cloak of impunity covers mob violence that targets these communities. Human rights groups have criticized the pervasive police and judicial bias apparently backed by BJP and affiliated groups such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Singh (RSS) and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). The aggressive enforcement of anti-cow slaughter laws is being used to persecute and intimidate Muslims and Dalits whose families have engaged in dairy, leather or beef trades for generations. Mob violence is common against people suspected of harming cows. In 2017, there were at least 10 public lynchings conducted by ``cow protection'' mobs. One such attack occurred when a 55-year-old man, Pehlu Khan, was set-upon by a mob and beaten to death while transporting a cow home that he had bought at a fair. Most appalling are the cases of sexual assault against minorities for political purposes. In January of this year, eight Hindu men kidnapped and raped an eight-year-old Muslim girl in a Hindu temple before killing her. Her murder served the purpose of driving her nomadic community from the area. After the perpetrators were arrested, a mob of Hindu lawyers surrounded the police in an attempt to bar them from entering the courthouse to file charges against the perpetrators. Christians, like Muslims, have been targeted because of the paranoid suspicion that proselytizing could convert people away from Hinduism. Nuns and members of the clergy have suffered attacks for preaching Christian values. Just last month, the home of a pastor in Manipur was burned down and Chadarajupalli Subbaravamma, a woman in her mid-60s in Andhra Pradesh, reportedly was murdered because she converted to Christianity 10 years ago. Likewise, Dalits have been victim to structural violence. They face everyday humiliation as they are blocked from areas of worship and are denied the most basic of human rights, such as access to clean water. Additionally, attacks and sexual assaults against women of the Dalit community frequently go unreported or uninvestigated. In Kerala state, a woman was recently doused in gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband in the view of village council members. No one attempted to help the woman, and her husband managed to flee the scene. When individuals of minority groups resist violence and oppression, they are met with greater brutality. But liberal democracies stand up for all religious minorities who are fighting for the right to practice their beliefs in the face of vigilante violence and persecution from the majority. It is disheartening that communal violence against religious minorities is on the rise in India, a great ally of the United States and the largest democracy on earth. We must stand up and speak out against these abhorrent attacks on religious minorities. India's government can no longer look the other way in the face of accelerating violence against religious minorities and the Dalit community. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in standing with civil rights leaders such as Teesta Setalvad in urging India to recognize the humanity of all its people and put an end to these heinous crimes.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this Special Order hour, which we have decided to devote to the life and career of an extraordinary former colleague, Ron Dellums, the giant who has fallen and whose death has deeply affected this body. We have invited Members who have reminiscences and appreciations to come forward and to participate in remembrance of the life of Ron Dellums. I just have a few things to say. I never had the good fortune of serving with Congressman Dellums, but he was a very close friend of my family's, so, as a little boy, I grew up admiring him. He was an incredibly warm and dynamic, charismatic and brilliant man who really exuded love of people wherever he went. Among his many extraordinary achievements in public life, one of them was to bring into politics and government service our distinguished colleague Barbara Lee, who succeeded him in office and who will be taking over the Special Order hour after I say just a few words, but we should not understate the importance of that achievement. Congresswoman Lee served as his chief of staff for many years; she will tell you that story. Then he backed her for the seat that he occupied, so she is the proud and worthy successor to Congressman Dellums. But I wanted to say that, in a professional field where so many participants are known for putting their finger up to the wind and following simply what the pollsters or campaign donors are telling them to do, Ron Dellums was a diamond in the rough from day one. He always put his ideals and his values first, and he didn't waver from them, no matter how politically tough it became. He was raised in a politically engaged environment. His father was a longshoreman who was deeply involved in the labor movement. His uncle, Cottrell Lawrence Dellums, was instrumental in helping A. Philip Randolph organize the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters before being elected president of that union in 1966. Now, Ron, when he graduated from high school, enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and spent several years in the Marines before an honorable discharge. He went on to college and to receive his master's in social work and became a psychiatric social worker in the California Department of Mental Hygiene. He was elected to the Berkeley City Council in 1967 at the age of 32. He was deeply involved in the movement against the Vietnam war, which profoundly affected his political outlook and his development as a leader. He was elected to Congress in 1972. I will allow my colleague to talk about the various legislative efforts they were involved in with Congressman Dellums, but I will say, when I was in college, he was a great hero to college students across the country and to anti-apartheid activists, not just across America, but across the world for his leadership for comprehensive sanctions against South Africa, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which was passed as a culmination of a movement that he organized that involved civil disobedience at the South African Embassy. I was very proud to have played a tiny part in that as a college student, to have come and participated and submitted to arrest, along with thousands of other people who did that at that time in order to galvanize public opinion against American complicity and involvement with apartheid in South Africa. But I would say that one other thing that always made such a powerful impression on me was that Congressman Dellums, like another great leader for peace, George McGovern, was himself a veteran, and he saw no conflict between the two. He was someone who proudly served in the Armed Forces of his country and nobly did so, but thought that it was equally noble to fight for peace and to make sure that our defense budget was one that was very closely tethered to the actual military and national security needs of the country, not one that is bloated and subject to waste and corruption and graft and embezzlement and kickbacks and so on. That has been a historic struggle that goes back to the very beginning of our Republic. We want a military that actually serves the people, that serves the Republic, and is not an opportunity for other people to rip off the taxpayers. He was very focused on making sure that our military budget was really targeted to the actual defense and security of the country, and that America was a force for human rights and security of all peoples and peace all over the world. So he leaves an extraordinary and inspiring and difficult legacy for all of us to live up to. I am very proud at this point to turn it over to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has become, in her years in office, also a great and famous leader for peace, human rights, and social justice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Not only is this legislation completely illusory in terms of not really helping people who have the problem, but it might just be struck down. Mr. Speaker, how can you cut off the people of Newark, New Jersey, or Freehold, New Jersey, because of something that happens in Atlantic City, New Jersey? It doesn't even help the people in Atlantic City, New Jersey, who are facing the problem with the big real estate developer who has bought up all the political power to try to drive somebody out of their home.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman a couple of questions, but I want to preface my questions by saying I think that this is a terrible lost opportunity for serious, bipartisan legislation to address the problem of eminent domain abuse that has been taking place across the country and has been for several decades. I recommend to everybody a report of the Cato Institute by David Boaz, which summarizes what is taking place around the country. One of the worst perpetrators of eminent domain abuse in the country is a business developer named Donald Trump. In the mid-1990s, he built the casino and the hotel in Atlantic City, but he wanted to evict a woman named Vera Coking, who was exactly in the same position as Mrs. Kelo would be in a decade later. She had lived in this Victorian house at the end of the boardwalk in Atlantic City for several decades, but Donald Trump wanted to build a VIP limo parking lot to go with the existing hotel. He offered her some money and she said: No, thank you. My family has lived in this house for a long time. We want to stay here. Our kids go to school here. He offered her a little bit more money and she said: No, it's not for sale. We are going to stay here. So they created something called the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, controlled by, essentially, the Trump Corporation, but they got the city to do it, and they tried to force her out. Luckily, the Cato Institute and some libertarian lawyers defended her rights. But the legislation that is being brought forward today by the Republicans now on a totally partisan basis would do nothing for people in the situation of Mrs. Coking or Mrs. Kelo, because it doesn't give them any rights to sue. All it says is we are going to cut off money to government agencies. It would be like saying: Well, in a case like that, we will cut off money to every city and town in New Jersey, not just Atlantic City, but to Newark, New Jersey, and to Freehold, New Jersey. We are going to cut off money all over the State. It has got nothing to do with the actual problem. It doesn't help the people who are actually suffering under the problem of eminent domain abuse. If we want to help them, let's give them a Federal right of action; or, if all you can do is cut off Federal money, cut off the particular city that is involved, but not every city or county that is receiving money under a Federal program. Mr. Nadler made a point which I thought was really interesting, which is that this is a solution that doesn't address the problem. If we want to save people from getting evicted from their homes under the Kelo decision, which President Trump applauded and said he supports 100 percent, but if we want to save people from policies under the Kelo decision, shouldn't we give them rights rather than make some kind of Federal subsidy decision which is of constitutional question, in any event?

Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RASKIN. Reclaiming my time, rather than giving actual rights to people in the position of Mrs. Kelo or Mrs. Coking, who is going to be forced out of her house in Atlantic City, this, instead, places a very broad burden on the government and in such a way that it, I think, renders the whole legislation constitutionally suspect. Mr. Speaker, don't we have constitutional decisions that say the government or Congress can't go so far as to punish an entire State government for something that one municipality does? Doesn't it seem like it is sort of going nuclear in order to get a mosquito? I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RASKIN. Isn't that what the Medicaid decision was all about?

Mr. RASKIN. Doesn't it also say that we can't threaten to drive you out of the Medicaid program entirely because you refuse to accept one particular program that we want to impose upon you?

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, given that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that title VII sex discrimination includes discrimination against people based on their gender identity, it seems somewhat petty and churlish to exclude those words from the language of this charter. I hope that this will be corrected when the legislation goes through. Otherwise, I consider this a very fine bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4100, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2017, provides the Federal Bar Association, FBA, with the organizational flexibility it needs to fully meet its contemporary mission, and I support it. The original 1954 charter created a framework that has effectively served FBA for the last six decades. During these years, the Foundation has strengthened Federal jurisprudence, advanced legal education, and promoted effective legal practice. The organization's initiatives have also directly improved the lives of our people. For example, one of its community outreach programs, the Wills for Veterans Initiative, is a pro bono project where FBA chapters provide will drafting and signing services for veterans in their communities. I know a number of my constituents who participate have very much enjoyed working on this project. Another initiative establishes a mentorship program for law school students to work with experienced attorneys. The current FBA charter must be amended to allow the organization greater flexibility of operation and growth. For example, the existing charter codifies strict membership and governance requirements that constrain member development and nimble governance of the organization. This rigidity presents serious challenges as the organization seeks to expand its critical charitable and educational initiatives. H.R. 4100 makes technical fixes to the FBA charter that will give the FBA the needed flexibility. For instance, in the place of legislatively fixed membership criteria, it permits the FBA to proactively establish and update membership criteria through the bylaws process. Similar provisions authorize enhanced flexibility in the composition and duties of the members of the board of directors. In general, this measure would enable the FBA to swiftly meet its organizational needs and overcome the challenges of the times. I want to note, for the Record, that while the language of the bill's proposed nondiscrimination provision prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sex and sexual orientation, it does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as most of the new antidiscrimination legislation does. While the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex already covers gender identity discrimination, the FBA's current diversity statement expressly states that the FBA should not exclude persons based on gender identity. In light of this, and because it should be made clear that everyone is protected against invidious discrimination, I hope that when the Senate takes up our measure, it will explicitly clarify that this language includes protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity. I know that Congressman Cicilline of Rhode Island wants to address this point as well. I believe that H.R. 4100 will help the FBA to flourish for many decades to come. I strongly support this bill. I look forward to the FBA's continued positive involvement in our Nation's legal system, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 2245, the Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors Act, or KIWI Act, is bipartisan legislation to allow citizens of New Zealand to participate, along with the people of more than 80 other countries, in the E-1 and E-2 visa programs for treaty traders and treaty investors, so long as New Zealand provides the same reciprocal treatment to citizens of the United States. I favor this commonsense bill that will facilitate trade by making it easier for New Zealanders to invest here and will lead to the creation of new jobs in the United States. The E-1 treaty trader program provides temporary visas to employees of firms engaged in substantial trade with our country. The E-2 treaty investor program provides temporary visas to foreign investors who make substantial investments in American enterprise. These visas help increase trade with and direct investments in the U.S. More than 80 countries already participate in the programs, including almost all of our democratic allies and trading partners. Yet New Zealand, one our closest and dearest allies, is not on the list. There are already many New Zealand companies in the U.S., just as there are many of our companies in New Zealand. In 2016, our two countries engaged in approximately $12 billion of bilateral trade in goods and services; and the U.S. is already the second most popular destination for New Zealand foreign investment, accounting for 17 percent of all foreign investment by New Zealanders in 2016, for a total of $3.2 billion dollars. Bringing New Zealand into the E-1 and E-2 programs will increase trade and bilateral investment flows, helping both of our countries accelerate economic growth and job creation. While so much of our foreign policy is consumed today with dangerous and counterproductive trade wars against our allies, which is harmful to our farmers, especially our soybean, corn, and livestock farmers, I am glad that this bill will actually strengthen ties with one of America's closest and most steadfast allies. Congratulations are in order for Senator Hirono, who championed this bill in the Senate, where it passed last month by unanimous consent. I also congratulate my Judiciary colleague, Darrell Issa, who authored the companion bill in the House. They both deserve credit for identifying this deficiency in our immigration laws and working across the aisle to craft a smart solution that has gained broad support in the body for adoption. Our country will be more prosperous and so, presumably, will be New Zealand as a result of their efforts. I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairwoman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support and work on behalf of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2245, the KIWI Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the President put the ``hel'' and the ``sink'' back in ``Helsinki'' because our Republic is sinking under the weight of his radical actions in capitulating to Vladimir Putin in the eyes of the world. Now, some of my colleagues have called this appeasement. I want to correct that. Appeasement is a misguided policy where you give concessions in order to try to make peace and stability with a dangerous, aggressive foreign power. This was not appeasement. This was simple surrender. The President wasn't trying to make peace with a hostile power. He was trying to capitulate and have us go over to the other side of the hostile power. The President has sided with authoritarianism, with every kleptocrat, dictator, despot, and tyrant on the planet Earth today. We the people of the United States and we in Congress have a responsibility now to defend American constitutional democracy. We must invest in our elections and fortify our elections so we can begin to restore the principles we have lost under the terrible leadership of Donald Trump.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds indispensable to prevent Russian interference in American elections in 2018.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Mr. McGovern a question so we can get some clarity on where we are right now. As I understand it, one position is that the State election systems are fine, they don't need any infusion of Federal help. And then there is another position, which you are advancing, which is that we need to put in hundreds of millions of dollars in order to secure the elections to prevent a repeat of the cyber sabotage and the cyber invasion that we experienced in 2016. And yet we are not getting a chance to vote on that. Is that right?

Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. RASKIN. Well, why can we not vote on that? The American people are demanding that we defend our elections against foreign attack. Why can we not even vote on that in the House of Representatives?