[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3624-H3642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FOSTERING UNDERGRADUATE TALENT BY UNLOCKING RESOURCES FOR EDUCATION ACT

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2486) to reauthorize mandatory funding programs for 
historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving 
institutions, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  Senate amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fostering 
     Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education 
     Act'' or the ``FUTURE Act''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 371(b)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1067q(b)(1)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2019.'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     subparagraph and inserting ``for fiscal year 2020 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.''.

     SEC. 3. SECURE DISCLOSURE OF TAX-RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY 
                   OUT THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

       (a) Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (13) of section 6103(l) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(13) Disclosure of return information to carry out the 
     higher education act of 1965.--
       ``(A) Income-contingent or income-based repayment and total 
     and permanent disability discharge.--The Secretary shall, 
     upon written request from the Secretary of Education, 
     disclose to officers, employees, and contractors of the 
     Department of Education, as specifically authorized and 
     designated by the Secretary of Education, only for the 
     purpose of (and to the extent necessary in) establishing 
     enrollment, renewing enrollment, administering, and 
     conducting analyses and forecasts for estimating costs 
     related to income-contingent or income-based repayment 
     programs, and the discharge of loans based on a total and 
     permanent disability (within the meaning of section 437(a) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965), under title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, the following return 
     information (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) with respect to 
     taxpayers identified by the Secretary of Education as 
     participating in the loan programs under title IV of such 
     Act, for taxable years specified by such Secretary:
       ``(i) Taxpayer identity information with respect to such 
     taxpayer.
       ``(ii) The filing status of such taxpayer.
       ``(iii) The adjusted gross income of such taxpayer.
       ``(iv) Total number of exemptions claimed, or total number 
     of individuals and dependents claimed, as applicable, on the 
     return.
       ``(v) Number of children with respect to which tax credits 
     under section 24 are claimed on the return.
       ``(B) Federal student financial aid.--The Secretary shall, 
     upon written request from the Secretary of Education, 
     disclose to officers, employees, and contractors of the 
     Department of Education, as specifically authorized and 
     designated by the Secretary of Education, only for the 
     purpose of (and to the extent necessary in) determining 
     eligibility for, and amount of, Federal student financial aid 
     under programs authorized by parts A, C, and D of title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by 
     Unlocking Resources for Education Act) and conducting 
     analyses and forecasts for estimating costs related to such 
     programs, the following return information (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(2)) with respect to taxpayers identified by 
     the Secretary of Education as applicants for Federal student 
     financial aid under such parts of title IV of such Act, for 
     taxable years specified by such Secretary:
       ``(i) Taxpayer identity information with respect to such 
     taxpayer.
       ``(ii) The filing status of such taxpayer.
       ``(iii) The adjusted gross income of such taxpayer.
       ``(iv) The amount of any net earnings from self-employment 
     (as defined in section 1402), wages (as defined in section 
     3121(a) or 3401(a)), taxable income from a farming business 
     (as defined in section 236A(e)(4)), and investment income for 
     the period reported on the return.
       ``(v) The total income tax of such taxpayer.
       ``(vi) Total number of exemptions claimed, or total number 
     of individuals and dependents claimed, as applicable, on the 
     return.
       ``(vii) Number of children with respect to which tax 
     credits under section 24 are claimed on the return.
       ``(viii) Amount of any credit claimed under section 25A for 
     the taxable year.

[[Page H3625]]

       ``(ix) Amount of individual retirement account 
     distributions not included in adjusted gross income for the 
     taxable year.
       ``(x) Amount of individual retirement account contributions 
     and payments to self-employed SEP, Keogh, and other qualified 
     plans which were deducted from income for the taxable year.
       ``(xi) The amount of tax-exempt interest.
       ``(xii) Amounts from retirement pensions and annuities not 
     included in adjusted gross income for the taxable year.
       ``(xiii) If applicable, the fact that any of the following 
     schedules (or equivalent successor schedules) were filed with 
     the return:

       ``(I) Schedule A.
       ``(II) Schedule B.
       ``(III) Schedule D.
       ``(IV) Schedule E.
       ``(V) Schedule F.
       ``(VI) Schedule H.

       ``(xiv) If applicable, the fact that Schedule C (or an 
     equivalent successor schedule) was filed with the return 
     showing a gain or loss greater than $10,000.
       ``(xv) If applicable, the fact that there is no return 
     filed for such taxpayer for the applicable year.
       ``(C) Restriction on use of disclosed information.--
       ``(i) In general.--Return information disclosed under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) may be used by officers, employees, 
     and contractors of the Department of Education, as 
     specifically authorized and designated by the Secretary of 
     Education, only for the purposes and to the extent necessary 
     described in such subparagraphs and for mitigating risks (as 
     defined in clause (ii)) relating to the programs described in 
     such subparagraphs.
       ``(ii) Mitigating risks.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `mitigating risks' means, with respect 
     to the programs described in subparagraphs (A) and (B),

       ``(I) oversight activities by the Office of Inspector 
     General of the Department of Education as authorized by the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and
       ``(II) reducing the net cost of improper payments to 
     Federal financial aid recipients.

     Such term does not include the conduct of criminal 
     investigations or prosecutions.
       ``(iii) Redisclosure to institutions of higher education, 
     state higher education agencies, and designated scholarship 
     organizations.--The Secretary of Education, and officers, 
     employees, and contractors of the Department of Education, 
     may disclose return information received under subparagraph 
     (B), solely for the use in the application, award, and 
     administration of student financial aid or aid awarded by 
     such entities as the Secretary of Education may designate, to 
     the following persons:

       ``(I) An institution of higher education with which the 
     Secretary of Education has an agreement under subpart 1 of 
     part A, part C, or part D of title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965.
       ``(II) A State higher education agency.
       ``(III) A scholarship organization which is designated by 
     the Secretary of Education as of the date of the enactment of 
     the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for 
     Education Act as an organization eligible to receive the 
     information provided under this clause.

     The preceding sentence shall only apply to the extent that 
     the taxpayer with respect to whom the return information 
     relates provides consent for such disclosure to the Secretary 
     of Education as part of the application for Federal student 
     financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(D) Requirement of notification of request for tax return 
     information.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to any 
     disclosure of return information with respect to a taxpayer 
     only if the Secretary of Education has provided to such 
     taxpayer the notification required by section 494 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 prior to such disclosure.''.
       (2) Confidentiality of return information.--Section 
     6103(a)(3) of such Code is amended by inserting ``, (13)(A), 
     (13)(B)'' after ``(12)''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--Section 6103(p)(4) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(A), (13)(B)'' after ``(13)'' each place 
     it occurs, and
       (B) by inserting ``, (13)(A), (13)(B)'' after ``(l)(10)'' 
     each place it occurs.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to disclosures made under section 6103(l)(13) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this 
     section) after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR TAX RETURN INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 494. NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR TAX RETURN 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``The Secretary shall advise students and borrowers who 
     submit an application for Federal student financial aid under 
     this title or for the discharge of a loan based on permanent 
     and total disability, as described in section 437(a), or who 
     request an income-contingent or income-based repayment plan 
     on their loan (as well as parents and spouses who sign such 
     an application or request or a Master Promissory Note on 
     behalf of those students and borrowers) that the Secretary 
     has the authority to request that the Internal Revenue 
     Service disclose their tax return information (as well as 
     that of parents and spouses who sign such an application or 
     request or a Master Promissory Note on behalf of those 
     students and borrowers) to officers, employees, and 
     contractors of the Department of Education as authorized 
     under section 6103(1)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, to the extent necessary for the Secretary to carry out 
     this title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 484(q) (20 U.S.C. 
     1091(q)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(q) reserved''.

     SEC. 5. INCREASED FUNDING FOR FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

       Section 401(b)(7)(A)(iv) (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(7)(A)(iv)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subclause (X), by striking ``$1,430,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,455,000,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (XI), by striking ``$1,145,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$1,170,000,000''.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than each specified date, the 
     Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall issue joint reports to the Committees on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions and Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives regarding the amendments made by 
     this Act. Each such report shall include, as applicable--
       (1) an update on the status of implementation of the 
     amendments made by this Act,
       (2) an evaluation of the processing of applications for 
     Federal student financial aid, and applications for income-
     based repayment and income contingent repayment, under title 
     IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et 
     seq.), in accordance with the amendments made by this Act, 
     and
       (3) implementation issues and suggestions for potential 
     improvements.
       (b) Specified Date.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     term ``specified date'' means--
       (1) the date that is 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,
       (2) the date that is 120 days after the first day that the 
     disclosure process established under section 6103(l)(13) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 3(a) 
     of this Act, is operational and accessible to officers, 
     employees, and contractors of the Department of Education (as 
     specifically authorized and designated by the Secretary of 
     Education), and
       (3) the date that is 1 year after the report date described 
     in paragraph (2).


                            Motion to Concur

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Ms. Jayapal moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 2486 with the amendments specified in 
     section 4 of House Resolution 891.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
question shall be divided among two House amendments.


      Amendment Specified in section 4(a) of House Resolution 891

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(a) of House Resolution 
891, the portion of the divided question comprising the amendment 
specified in section 4(a) of House Resolution 891 shall be considered 
first.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 22, 2020, on page H3625, the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(a) of House Resolution 
891, the portion of the divided question compromising the 
amendment specified in section 4(a) of House Resolution 891 shall 
be considered first.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. Pursuant to section 3(a) of House Resolution 891, the 
portion of the divided question comprising the amendment specified 
in section 4(a) of House Resolution 891 shall be considered first.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The text of House amendment to Senate amendment specified in section 
4(a) of House Resolution 891 is as follows:

       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of 
     the Senate, strike sections 1, 2, and 3 and insert the 
     following:

                          TITLE I--NO BAN ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLES.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Origin-Based 
     Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act'' or the ``NO BAN 
     Act''.

     SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISION.

       Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or a nonimmigrant visa, admission or 
     other entry into the United States, or the approval or 
     revocation of any immigration benefit'' after ``immigrant 
     visa'';
       (2) by inserting ``religion,'' after ``sex,''; and
       (3) by inserting ``, except if expressly required by 
     statute, or if a statutorily authorized benefit takes into 
     consideration such factors'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. 103. TRANSFER AND LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR 
                   RESTRICT THE ENTRY OF A CLASS OF ALIENS.

       Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Authority to Suspend or Restrict the Entry of a Class 
     of Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, determines, based on specific and credible 
     facts, that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens 
     into the United States would undermine the security or public 
     safety of the United States or the preservation of human 
     rights, democratic processes or institutions, or 
     international stability, the President may temporarily--
       ``(A) suspend the entry of such aliens or class of aliens 
     as immigrants or nonimmigrants; or
       ``(B) impose any restrictions on the entry of such aliens 
     that the President deems appropriate.
       ``(2) Limitations.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     President, the Secretary of

[[Page H3626]]

     State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
       ``(A) only issue a suspension or restriction when required 
     to address specific acts implicating a compelling government 
     interest in a factor identified in paragraph (1);
       ``(B) narrowly tailor the suspension or restriction, using 
     the least restrictive means, to achieve such compelling 
     government interest;
       ``(C) specify the duration of the suspension or 
     restriction; and
       ``(D) consider waivers to any class-based restriction or 
     suspension and apply a rebuttable presumption in favor of 
     granting family-based and humanitarian waivers.
       ``(3) Congressional notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Prior to the President exercising the 
     authority under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult Congress and 
     provide Congress with specific evidence supporting the need 
     for the suspension or restriction and its proposed duration.
       ``(B) Briefing and report.--Not later than 48 hours after 
     the President exercises the authority under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall provide a briefing and submit a written report to 
     Congress that describes--
       ``(i) the action taken pursuant to paragraph (1) and the 
     specified objective of such action;
       ``(ii) the estimated number of individuals who will be 
     impacted by such action;
       ``(iii) the constitutional and legislative authority under 
     which such action took place; and
       ``(iv) the circumstances necessitating such action, 
     including how such action complies with paragraph (2), as 
     well as any intelligence informing such actions.
       ``(C) Termination.--If the briefing and report described in 
     subparagraph (B) are not provided to Congress during the 48 
     hours that begin when the President exercises the authority 
     under paragraph (1), the suspension or restriction shall 
     immediately terminate absent intervening congressional 
     action.
       ``(D) Congressional committees.--The term `Congress', as 
     used in this paragraph, refers to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(4) Publication.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall publicly announce and 
     publish an unclassified version of the report described in 
     paragraph (3)(B) in the Federal Register.
       ``(5) Judicial review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an individual or entity who is present in the United 
     States and has been harmed by a violation of this subsection 
     may file an action in an appropriate district court of the 
     United States to seek declaratory or injunctive relief.
       ``(B) Class action.--Nothing in this Act may be construed 
     to preclude an action filed pursuant to subparagraph (A) from 
     proceeding as a class action.
       ``(6) Treatment of commercial airlines.--Whenever the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security finds that a commercial 
     airline has failed to comply with regulations of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security relating to requirements of 
     airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by 
     passengers traveling to the United States (including the 
     training of personnel in such detection), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may suspend the entry of some or all aliens 
     transported to the United States by such airline.
       ``(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed as authorizing the President, the Secretary of 
     State, or the Secretary of Homeland Security to act in a 
     manner inconsistent with the policy decisions expressed in 
     the immigration laws.
       ``(8) Clarification.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `public safety of the United States' includes efforts 
     necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health 
     significance (as defined in section 34.2(b) of title 42, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)).''.

     SEC. 104. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE ACTIONS.

       (a) Termination.--Presidential Proclamations 9645, 9822, 
     and 9983 and Executive Orders 13769, 13780, and 13815 shall 
     be void beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Effect.--All actions taken pursuant to any proclamation 
     or executive order terminated under subsection (a) shall 
     cease on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 105. VISA APPLICANTS REPORT.

       (a) Initial Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall submit a 
     report to the congressional committees referred to in section 
     212(f)(3)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended by section 103 of this title, that describes the 
     implementation of each of the presidential proclamations and 
     executive orders referred to in section 104.
       (2) Presidential proclamation 9645 and 9983.--In addition 
     to the content described in paragraph (1), the report 
     submitted with respect to Presidential Proclamation 9645, 
     issued on September 24, 2017, and Presidential Proclamation 
     9983, issued on January 31, 2020, shall include, for each 
     country listed in such proclamation--
       (A) the total number of individuals who applied for a visa 
     during the time period the proclamation was in effect, 
     disaggregated by country and visa category;
       (B) the total number of visa applicants described in 
     subparagraph (A) who were approved, disaggregated by country 
     and visa category;
       (C) the total number of visa applicants described in 
     subparagraph (A) who were refused, disaggregated by country 
     and visa category, and the reasons they were refused;
       (D) the total number of visa applicants described in 
     subparagraph (A) whose applications remain pending, 
     disaggregated by country and visa category;
       (E) the total number of visa applicants described in 
     subparagraph (A) who were granted a waiver, disaggregated by 
     country and visa category;
       (F) the total number of visa applicants described in 
     subparagraph (A) who were denied a waiver, disaggregated by 
     country and visa category, and the reasons such waiver 
     requests were denied;
       (G) the total number of refugees admitted, disaggregated by 
     country; and
       (H) the complete reports that have been submitted to the 
     President every 180 days in accordance with section 4 of 
     Presidential Proclamation 9645 in its original form, and as 
     amended by Presidential Proclamation 9983.
       (b) Additional Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the President exercises the authority under 
     section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(f)), as amended by section 103 of this title, and 
     every 30 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
     heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall submit a 
     report to the congressional committees referred to in 
     paragraph (3)(D) of such section 212(f) that identifies, with 
     respect to countries affected by a suspension or restriction, 
     the information described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of 
     subsection (a)(2) of this section and specific evidence 
     supporting the need for the continued exercise of 
     presidential authority under such section 212(f), including 
     the information described in paragraph (3)(B) of such section 
     212(f). If the report described in this subsection is not 
     provided to Congress in the time specified, the suspension or 
     restriction shall immediately terminate absent intervening 
     congressional action. A final report with such information 
     shall be prepared and submitted to such congressional 
     committees not later than 30 days after the suspension or 
     restriction is lifted.
       (c) Form; Availability.--The reports required under 
     subsections (a) and (b) shall be made publicly available 
     online in unclassified form.

      TITLE II--AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTIONS FOR PATIENTS ACT OF 2020

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Affordable Prescriptions 
     for Patients Act of 2020''.

     SEC. 202. PRODUCT HOPPING.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 26 
     (15 U.S.C. 57c-2) the following:

     ``SEC. 27. PRODUCT HOPPING.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Abbreviated new drug application.--The term 
     `abbreviated new drug application' means an application under 
     subsection (b)(2) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).
       ``(2) Biosimilar biological product.--The term `biosimilar 
     biological product' means a biological product licensed under 
     section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262(k)).
       ``(3) Biosimilar biological product license application.--
     The term `biosimilar biological product license application' 
     means an application submitted under section 351(k) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)).
       ``(4) Follow-on product.--The term `follow-on product'--
       ``(A) means a drug approved through an application or 
     supplement to an application submitted under section 505(b) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(b)) or a biological product licensed through an 
     application or supplement to an application submitted under 
     section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262(a)) for a change, modification, or reformulation to the 
     same manufacturer's previously approved drug or biological 
     product that treats the same medical condition; and
       ``(B) excludes such an application or supplement to an 
     application for a change, modification, or reformulation of a 
     drug or biological product that is requested by the Secretary 
     or necessary to comply with law, including sections 505A and 
     505B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355a, 355c).
       ``(5) Generic drug.--The term `generic drug' means a drug 
     approved under an application submitted under subsection 
     (b)(2) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).
       ``(6) Listed drug.--The term `listed drug' means a drug 
     listed under section 505(j)(7) of

[[Page H3627]]

     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(j)(7)).
       ``(7) Manufacturer.--The term `manufacturer' means the 
     holder, licensee, or assignee of--
       ``(A) an approved application for a drug under section 
     505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(c)); or
       ``(B) a biological product license under section 351(a) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)).
       ``(8) Reference product.--The term `reference product' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 351(i) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)).
       ``(9) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(10) Ultimate parent entity.--The term `ultimate parent 
     entity' has the meaning given the term in section 801.1 of 
     title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
     regulation.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Product Hopping.--
       ``(1) Prima facie.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     manufacturer of a reference product or listed drug shall be 
     considered to have engaged in an unfair method of competition 
     in or affecting commerce in violation of section 5(a) if the 
     Commission demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence in 
     a proceeding initiated by the Commission under subsection 
     (c)(1)(A), or in a suit brought under subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of subsection (c)(1), that, during the period beginning on 
     the date on which the manufacturer of the reference product 
     or listed drug first receives notice that an applicant has 
     submitted to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs an 
     abbreviated new drug application or biosimilar biological 
     product license application and ending on the date that is 
     180 days after the date on which that generic drug or 
     biosimilar biological product is first marketed, the 
     manufacturer engaged in either of the following actions:
       ``(A) The manufacturer engaged in a hard switch, which 
     shall be established by demonstrating that the manufacturer 
     engaged in either of the following actions:
       ``(i) Upon the request of the manufacturer of the listed 
     drug or reference product, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs 
     withdrew the approval of the application for the listed drug 
     or reference product or placed the listed drug or reference 
     product on the discontinued products list and the 
     manufacturer marketed or sold a follow-on product.
       ``(ii) The manufacturer of the listed drug or reference 
     product--

       ``(I)(aa) announced withdrawal of, discontinuance of the 
     manufacture of, or intent to withdraw the application with 
     respect to the drug or reference product in a manner that 
     impedes competition from a generic drug or a biosimilar 
     biological product, as established by objective 
     circumstances; or
       ``(bb) destroyed the inventory of the listed drug or 
     reference product in a manner that impedes competition from a 
     generic drug or a biosimilar biological product, which may be 
     established by objective circumstances; and
       ``(II) marketed or sold a follow-on product.

       ``(B) The manufacturer engaged in a soft switch, which 
     shall be established by demonstrating that the manufacturer 
     engaged in both of the following actions:
       ``(i) The manufacturer took actions with respect to the 
     listed drug or reference product other than those described 
     in subparagraph (A) that unfairly disadvantage the listed 
     drug or reference product relative to the follow-on product 
     described in clause (ii) in a manner that impedes competition 
     from a generic drug or a biosimilar biological product that 
     is highly similar to, and has no clinically meaningful 
     difference with respect to safety, purity, and potency from, 
     the reference product, which may be established by objective 
     circumstances.
       ``(ii) The manufacturer marketed or sold a follow-on 
     product.
       ``(2) Justification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the actions 
     described in paragraph (1) by a manufacturer of a listed drug 
     or reference product shall not be considered to be an unfair 
     method of competition in or affecting commerce if--
       ``(i) the manufacturer demonstrates to the Commission or a 
     district court of the United States, as applicable, by a 
     preponderance of the evidence in a proceeding initiated by 
     the Commission under subsection (c)(1)(A), or in a suit 
     brought under subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (c)(1), 
     that--

       ``(I) the manufacturer would have taken the actions 
     regardless of whether a generic drug that references the 
     listed drug or biosimilar biological product that references 
     the reference product had already entered the market; and
       ``(II)(aa) with respect to a hard switch under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the manufacturer took the action for reasons relating 
     to the safety risk to patients of the listed drug or 
     reference product;
       ``(bb) with respect to an action described in item (aa) or 
     (bb) of paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(I), there is a supply disruption 
     that--

       ``(AA) is outside of the control of the manufacturer;
       ``(BB) prevents the production or distribution of the 
     applicable listed drug or reference product; and
       ``(CC) cannot be remedied by reasonable efforts; or

       ``(cc) with respect to a soft switch under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the manufacturer had legitimate pro-competitive 
     reasons, apart from the financial effects of reduced 
     competition, to take the action.

       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     may be construed to limit the information that the Commission 
     may otherwise obtain in any proceeding or action instituted 
     with respect to a violation of this section.
       ``(3) Response.--With respect to a justification offered by 
     a manufacturer under paragraph (2), the Commission may--
       ``(A) rebut any evidence presented by a manufacturer during 
     that justification; or
       ``(B) establish by a preponderance of the evidence that, on 
     balance, the pro-competitive benefits from the conduct 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), as 
     applicable, do not outweigh any anticompetitive effects of 
     the conduct, even in consideration of the justification so 
     offered.
       ``(c) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Commission has reason to believe 
     that any manufacturer has violated, is violating, or is about 
     to violate this section, the Commission may take any of the 
     following actions:
       ``(A) Institute a proceeding--
       ``(i) that, except as provided in paragraph (2), complies 
     with the requirements under section 5(b); and
       ``(ii) in which the Commission may impose on the 
     manufacturer any penalty that the Commission may impose for a 
     violation of section 5.
       ``(B) In the same manner and to the same extent as provided 
     in section 13(b), bring suit in a district court of the 
     United States to temporarily enjoin the action of the 
     manufacturer.
       ``(C) Bring suit in a district court of the United States, 
     in which the Commission may seek--
       ``(i) to permanently enjoin the action of the manufacturer;
       ``(ii) any of the remedies described in paragraph (3); and
       ``(iii) any other equitable remedy, including ancillary 
     equitable relief.
       ``(2) Judicial review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of section 
     5, any manufacturer that is subject to a final order of the 
     Commission that is issued in a proceeding instituted under 
     paragraph (1)(A) may, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the Commission issues the order, petition for review 
     of the order in--
       ``(i) the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit; or
       ``(ii) the court of appeals of the United States for the 
     circuit in which the ultimate parent entity of the 
     manufacturer is incorporated.
       ``(B) Treatment of findings.--In a review of an order 
     issued by the Commission conducted by a court of appeals of 
     the United States under subparagraph (A), the factual 
     findings of the Commission shall be conclusive if those facts 
     are supported by the evidence.
       ``(3) Equitable remedies.--
       ``(A) Disgorgement.--
       ``(i) In general.--In a suit brought under paragraph 
     (1)(C), the Commission may seek, and the court may order, 
     disgorgement of any unjust enrichment that a person obtained 
     as a result of the violation that gives rise to the suit.
       ``(ii) Calculation.--Any disgorgement that is ordered with 
     respect to a person under clause (i) shall be offset by any 
     amount of restitution ordered under subparagraph (B).
       ``(iii) Limitations period.--The Commission may seek 
     disgorgement under this subparagraph not later than 5 years 
     after the latest date on which the person from which the 
     disgorgement is sought receives any unjust enrichment from 
     the effects of the violation that gives rise to the suit in 
     which the Commission seeks the disgorgement.
       ``(B) Restitution.--
       ``(i) In general.--In a suit brought under paragraph 
     (1)(C), the Commission may seek, and the court may order, 
     restitution with respect to the violation that gives rise to 
     the suit.
       ``(ii) Limitations period.--The Commission may seek 
     restitution under this subparagraph not later than 5 years 
     after the latest date on which the person from which the 
     restitution is sought receives any unjust enrichment from the 
     effects of the violation that gives rise to the suit in which 
     the Commission seeks the restitution.
       ``(4) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     may be construed as--
       ``(A) requiring the Commission to bring a suit seeking a 
     temporary injunction under paragraph (1)(B) before bringing a 
     suit seeking a permanent injunction under paragraph (1)(C); 
     or
       ``(B) affecting any other authority of the Commission under 
     this Act to seek relief or obtain a remedy with respect to a 
     violation of this Act.''.
       (b) Applicability.--Section 27 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to any--
       (1) conduct that occurs on or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (2) action or proceeding that is commenced on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Antitrust Laws.--Nothing in this section, or the 
     amendments made by this section, shall modify, impair, limit, 
     or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws as 
     defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), and of section 5 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that it applies 
     to unfair methods of competition.

[[Page H3628]]

       (d) Rulemaking.--The Federal Trade Commission may issue 
     rules under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     carry out section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as 
     added by subsection (a), including by defining any terms used 
     in such section 27 (other than terms that are defined in 
     subsection (a) of such section 27).
       (e) Confirmation.--Upon the request of the Commission, the 
     Secretary shall provide confirmation of--
       (1) any request made by the Secretary to the manufacturer 
     for an application or supplement to an application for a 
     change, modification, or reformulation of a drug or 
     biological product;
       (2) any withdrawal by the manufacturer of an application 
     for a drug or reference product; or
       (3) any request made by a manufacturer to the Secretary for 
     withdrawal of an approval of the application for a drug or 
     reference product or a request for placement of a drug or 
     reference product on the discontinued products list.

     SEC. 203. TITLE 35 AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 271(e) of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(C), in the flush text following clause 
     (ii), by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to a 
     submission described in clause (ii), the act of infringement 
     shall extend to any patent that claims the biological 
     product, a method of using the biological product, or a 
     method or product used to manufacture the biological 
     product.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), if the 
     sponsor of an approved application for a reference product, 
     as defined in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 262(i)) (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     `reference product sponsor'), brings an action for 
     infringement under this section against an applicant for 
     approval of a biological product under section 351(k) of such 
     Act that references that reference product (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the `subsection (k) applicant'), the 
     reference product sponsor may assert in the action a total of 
     not more than 20 patents of the type described in 
     subparagraph (B), not more than 10 of which shall have issued 
     after the date specified in section 351(l)(7)(A) of such Act.
       ``(B) The patents described in this subparagraph are 
     patents that satisfy each of the following requirements:
       ``(i) Patents that claim the biological product that is the 
     subject of an application under section 351(k) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) (or a use of that 
     product) or a method or product used in the manufacture of 
     such biological product.
       ``(ii) Patents that are included on the list of patents 
     described in section 351(l)(3)(A) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(l)(3)(A)), including as provided 
     under section 351(l)(7) of such Act.
       ``(iii) Patents that--
       ``(I) have an actual filing date of more than 4 years after 
     the date on which the reference product is approved; or
       ``(II) include a claim to a method in a manufacturing 
     process that is not used by the reference product sponsor.
       ``(C) The court in which an action described in 
     subparagraph (A) is brought may increase the number of 
     patents limited under that subparagraph--
       ``(i) if the request to increase that number is made 
     without undue delay; and
       ``(ii)(I) if the interest of justice so requires; or
       ``(II) for good cause shown, which--
       ``(aa) shall be established if the subsection (k) applicant 
     fails to provide information required under section 
     351(l)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262(l)(2)(A)) that would enable the reference product sponsor 
     to form a reasonable belief with respect to whether a claim 
     of infringement under this section could reasonably be 
     asserted; and
       ``(bb) may be established--
       ``(AA) if there is a material change to the biological 
     product (or process with respect to the biological product) 
     of the subsection (k) applicant that is the subject of the 
     application;
       ``(BB) if, with respect to a patent on the supplemental 
     list described in section 351(l)(7)(A) of Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(l)(7)(A)), the patent would have 
     issued before the date specified in such section 351(l)(7)(A) 
     but for the failure of the Office to issue the patent or a 
     delay in the issuance of the patent, as described in 
     paragraph (1) of section 154(b) and subject to the 
     limitations under paragraph (2) of such section 154(b); or
       ``(CC) for another reason that shows good cause, as 
     determined appropriate by the court.
       ``(D) In determining whether good cause has been shown for 
     the purposes of subparagraph (C)(ii)(II), a court may 
     consider whether the reference product sponsor has provided a 
     reasonable description of the identity and relevance of any 
     information beyond the subsection (k) application that the 
     court believes is necessary to enable the court to form a 
     belief with respect to whether a claim of infringement under 
     this section could reasonably be asserted.
       ``(E) The limitation imposed under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall apply only if the subsection (k) applicant 
     completes all actions required under paragraphs (2)(A), 
     (3)(B)(ii), (5), (6)(C)(i), (7), and (8)(A) of section 351(l) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(l)); and
       ``(ii) shall not apply with respect to any patent that 
     claims, with respect to a biological product, a method for 
     using that product in therapy, diagnosis, or prophylaxis, 
     such as an indication or method of treatment or other 
     condition of use.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to an application submitted under 
     section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262(k)) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This portion shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.

                              {time}  1030


                             General Leave

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2486.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring forward the No BAN Act 
amendment, and I thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership on this 
bill.
  In January 2017, President Trump issued the first Muslim ban, a 
xenophobic policy that has inflicted irreparable harm on Muslims here 
at home and around the world, a policy that says to Muslims that they 
are not to be trusted. This is hurtful, harmful to our global 
relationships, and deeply untrue.
  When the ban was implemented, I rushed to the Seattle airport along 
with Chairman Nadler in New York City. We joined thousands of people in 
protest. Thanks to these efforts, we successfully secured the release 
in Seattle of two individuals. But the chaos and the pain that the ban 
cast upon American citizens, lawful residents, and international 
visitors can never truly be undone.
  Today, new iterations of the Muslim ban and the most recent African 
ban have kept families separated; American businesses and research 
institutions can't recruit the best minds from abroad; and our Nation's 
doors are closed to people seeking safety from violence, war, and 
persecution.
  The bans have hurt our relationships with other countries, harmed 
refugees, isolated us from our allies, and given extremists propaganda 
for recruitment. Most important, they do not make our country safer.
  And let's be clear: A pandemic is not the time to push forward these 
xenophobic bans.
  Citizens from Muslim-majority nations made up 4.5 percent of the U.S. 
physician workforce in 2019; and yet, between 2016 and 2018, the number 
of applicants to the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical 
Graduates from Muslim-majority countries decreased by 15 percent, a 
decrease that exacerbates existing gaps in the U.S. physician workforce 
which is so desperately needed in a time of COVID-19.
  It is time to pass the No BAN Act to repeal President Trump's bans 
and stop any future President from implementing discriminatory bans 
that send the repugnant message that our foundational values of freedom 
of religion and liberty and justice for all do not apply.
  Today is historic, as the No BAN Act is the first bill to pass the 
House that directly addresses Muslim civil rights. And we would not be 
here today without the courage of Muslims and allies across the 
country, especially the very important people at Muslim Advocates who 
work to repudiate the Muslim ban and move Congress to action.
  This bill sends an important message to Muslims everywhere that 
America believes in liberty and welcomes people regardless of race or 
religion.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) control the 
remainder of that time.

[[Page H3629]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486. The majority is 
actually playing procedural games here by including a nongermane 
provision to satisfy certain requirements.
  The two immigration bills that we are considering today are 
expensive, make no doubt about it. According to the CBO, the NO BAN Act 
will increase direct spending by $290 million over the next 10 years 
and increase deficits by $307 million over the same period. And a 
preliminary estimate from CBO notes that the Access to Counsel Act, 
which we will debate later today, will increase discretionary spending 
by at least $1 billion over the next 5 years.
  So the majority had to come up with a pay-for. They opted for 
prescription drug legislation, but chose to discard bipartisan 
committee past text to instead include a flawed prescription bill that 
will stifle investment and research, prevent new medications from 
coming to market, block truthful advertising, and disincentivize 
improvements in patient care.
  This Congress has unanimously passed six bipartisan bills out of 
committee to address the costs of prescription drugs. But today, 
instead of using bipartisan-negotiated text, my colleagues across the 
aisle have made prescription drugs a partisan issue in an effort to 
pass partisan immigration bills.
  Our President has consistently taken decisive action to help ensure 
the security of our immigration programs and, thus, the safety of our 
country. Every time he does so, my Democratic friends cry foul. They 
attempt to block the President's actions and threaten to take away the 
President's power.
  The Department of Homeland Security has identified several types of 
information that it needs in order to make a reliable decision 
regarding the admissibility of a foreign country's nationals seeking 
entry to the United States. This includes things like:
  Does the country report lost or stolen identity documents, including 
passports, to Interpol, and how often do they do so?
  Does the country share information about their known or suspected 
terrorists or about their criminals with us?
  Does the country issue modern electronic passports?
  These are clearly important things to know when determining whether 
to let a foreign national enter our country.
  Instead of expressing appreciation for what this President has been 
able to accomplish with regard to security, my colleagues have decided 
to consider this No BAN Act, which effectively eviscerates the ability 
of the administration to take quick and decisive action to protect our 
homeland when concerns arise, even action to prevent entry of aliens 
based on a global health crisis like COVID-19.

  Until the President signed the first travel executive order in 
January of 2017, very few had ever heard of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act section 212(f) authority. This provision provides the 
President broad latitude to impose restrictions on the entry of aliens 
or classes of aliens into the United States when such entry ``would be 
detrimental to the interests of the United States.'' And this authority 
has been used successfully by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, 
and others.
  Pursuant to the travel executive order, the President required the 
Secretary of DHS and Secretary of State, along with the Director of 
National Intelligence to determine what countries failed to meet 
international standards of information sharing or identity management 
or were at a risk of terrorism or public safety concern and to report 
their findings to him.
  Based on that assessment and the recommendations of the Secretaries, 
the President placed travel restrictions on seven nations. Pursuant to 
the continued review of countries and an updated report in January, the 
President issued a proclamation imposing narrowly tailored travel 
restrictions on six additional countries: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, 
Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.
  It is important to understand that such restrictions are not 
permanent. When a country comes into compliance with the information 
sharing and other requirements, they can be removed from the list of 
restricted countries, and that has actually happened under this 
administration, for instance, Chad in 2018. And press reports note that 
the Government of Nigeria immediately began working to come into 
compliance.
  The President's use of 212(f) authority has helped improve our 
security and the vetting of foreign nationals seeking entry into the 
United States. As the DHS Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and 
Security Policy testified last September: ``One country reinstituted a 
dormant program to help identify convicted criminals. Three countries 
have adopted more secure e-Passports. Two countries obtained access to 
Interpol databases for the first time. And eight countries began 
reporting lost and stolen passports to Interpol for the first time or 
they improved the regularity of that reporting.''
  These are not insignificant improvements to the world's security. The 
No BAN Act would take 212(f) authority from the elected President and 
give it to an unelected subordinate who is not accountable to voters.
  Under this bill, only the Secretary of State can determine that the 
entry of aliens is a threat to the U.S. This is problematic in 
instances where other Cabinet officials should be involved, such as 
Health and Human Services or Treasury.
  The bill's undefined and broad terms, ``least restrictive means'' and 
the ``notion of harm,'' are ripe for litigation, especially considering 
the bill's expansive judicial review provision and explicit class 
action allowance.
  The No BAN Act also contains onerous reporting requirements, 
consultation with Congress before the President can act, and Federal 
Register publication of information about the action taken and the 
circumstances necessitating the action. But does it make sense for the 
U.S. Government to broadcast the deficiencies they have identified 
since those would likely be exploited by bad actors seeking to do us 
harm?
  Perhaps the most ridiculous of the bill's provisions is section 4, 
which not only terminates the travel executive orders in place but, 
incredibly, ceases all actions taken pursuant to any proclamation or 
executive order terminated by the bill. That means that information 
sharing on terrorists, criminals, and other security threats that has 
developed between the United States and other countries with travel 
restrictions would end.
  This bill is a knee-jerk response by my Democratic colleagues because 
of the disapprobation of President Trump, and it would undermine the 
safety and security of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the No BAN Act, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2214, the National Origin-Based 
Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or the No BAN Act, is 
critical legislation that will stop executive overreach, defend 
Congress' role in establishing our Nation's immigration laws, and right 
one of the original sins of the Trump administration: the Muslim ban.
  When the Trump administration issued its first version of the ban in 
January 2017, it was immediately apparent that it was unconstitutional, 
discriminatory, and morally reprehensible. Its chaotic rollout only 
magnified the cruelty underlying this policy.
  When news first broke that people were being detained at the 
airports, I immediately rushed to JFK Airport that morning along with 
Congresswoman Velazquez. Within hours, we were joined by hundreds of 
demonstrators demanding justice. What we found was chaos and 
heartbreak. Refugees, people with valid visas, and even legal permanent 
residents, people who had assisted American troops and saved their 
lives in Iraq were prevented from entering the country or even speaking 
with their attorneys.
  We met people like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an Iraqi who put his life 
on the line for 10 years to work with American and coalition forces as 
a translator. He underwent a years-long extensive vetting process to 
secure a

[[Page H3630]]

Special Immigrant Visa granted to people who assist our military in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. In return for his efforts, this hero was welcomed 
to the United States with a door slammed in his face and a grueling 
ordeal at the airport as he pleaded for his freedom.
  I am pleased that Congresswoman Velazquez and I were able to work 
with officials in New York and Washington to secure his release 
eventually, but we should never have had to do that. That is not the 
country we are proud to represent in Congress. We do not betray those 
who save American troops.

  Although the President's initial Muslim ban was ultimately blocked by 
numerous courts, in 2018, after protracted litigation and several court 
injunctions, the Supreme Court unfortunately upheld the third version 
of the ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645.
  The Court reached this decision based on its broad reading of section 
212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the 
President to ``suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens'' 
when the President finds that such entry ``would be detrimental to the 
interests of the United States.''
  I strongly disagree with the Court's broad interpretation of that 
provision. Section 212(f) was intended to give the President discretion 
to quickly address emergent issues involving public health, national 
security, public safety, or international stability. It was not 
intended to provide carte blanche authority to the President to ban 
large categories of individuals without justification or to rewrite 
immigration laws with which he disagrees.
  That is why this legislation is so important. H.R. 2214 will repeal 
these shameful bans and stop executive overreach by amending 212(f) to 
prevent any President from using it in a manner that is unlawful or 
unconscionable.
  The United States has always been and must continue to be a place 
that welcomes and embraces people of all religions and all 
nationalities. But as a result of the Muslim ban, our country's 
reputation as a beacon of hope, tolerance, and inclusion for those 
fleeing persecution, reuniting with their families, or simply seeking a 
better life has been forever tarnished.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague Representative Chu for 
introducing this legislation and for her leadership and commitment to 
this issue.
  I also want to thank the NO BAN coalition, led by Muslim Advocates, 
and all of the many organizations whose support was vital to bringing 
this bill to the floor today. It is long overdue.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the NO BAN Act, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).
  Mr. GOODEN. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Biggs for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to the NO BAN Act, which would tie the 
hands of our executive branch, restricting our ability to act quickly 
and decisively to defend America from her enemies.
  The President must have authority to act when our national security 
is at risk. When a situation demands we halt travel into our country, 
whether that be to protect us from a pandemic or other national 
security issue, the President must have the power to do so.
  Democrats, on March 11 of this year, debated this very measure in the 
form of a bill, ironically, the same day that President Trump 
instituted his ban on European travel. Because they knew the optics 
would look bad, they pulled the bill down. If it was a bad bill then, 
it is a bad bill today.
  Congress gave the President the authority we are discussing today 
when we passed, many decades ago, the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
In the years since, our courts have affirmed that authority on numerous 
occasions.
  So why, then, do my Democratic colleagues want to take this critical 
authority away?
  I would like to read an excerpt from a 1986 decision out of the D.C. 
Circuit, in which the court stated that the very authority we are 
debating today ensures that ``the Executive would not be helpless in 
the face of such a threat'' of an alien who posed a danger to the 
United States.
  Furthermore, the court stated that ``the President's sweeping 
proclamation power thus provides a safeguard against the danger posed'' 
to our national security.
  What far right extremist, ultraconservative judge wrote those words? 
No other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
  The safety and security of the American people should not be a 
partisan issue. It ought to be everyone's highest priority. We should 
not jeopardize the well-being of our citizens for the sake of political 
victories. If enacted, the NO BAN Act would put American lives and our 
country's national security at risk.
  Madam Speaker, I will be opposing this dangerous policy, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it is as well.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), the sponsor of the bill.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler 
for his leadership in bringing the NO BAN Act for a vote on the floor 
today.
  Three years ago, when President Trump first took office, within 1 
week, he announced the first Muslim ban.
  I will never forget that terrible day in January of 2017. I was on my 
way to a community event when I received a frantic call about 50 
Muslims with green cards who were being detained at LAX for hours, with 
no end in sight.
  At that moment, I decided to drop everything and help in any way I 
could. I rushed over to LAX to advocate for these people. Once I 
arrived, I found out that, indeed, there were scores of people with a 
legal right to be here kept for hours without food and blocked from 
receiving legal advice from an attorney.
  With this action, Trump was immediately creating chaos and separating 
families with no justification. It was outrageous. When I pressed 
Customs and Border Protection for answers, they resisted and blocked 
me. I even got them on the phone, only to have them hang up on me.
  I had never been more disrespected as a Member of Congress, but 
disrespect and chaos is what this Muslim ban is all about. Since then, 
the administration has steadily worked to make it harder and harder for 
individuals to come to the United States, which has meant keeping 
families and loved ones apart.
  Partners and spouses have been kept apart for years at a time. 
Children have missed parent's funerals. Parents have missed children's 
weddings, birthdays, and graduations. Families have been languishing, 
wondering when they will be reunited, all because of a policy born from 
prejudice. This is a cruel abuse of power that must be stopped.
  The NO BAN Act repeals all versions of the Muslim ban, including the 
travel ban imposed in February of this year that includes many African 
countries. It limits the President's authority to ban people from 
entering the United States unless there is a clear justification. The 
President would have to consult with the Departments of Homeland 
Security and State before implementing a ban and would have to brief 
Congress within 48 hours.
  Let me make clear that this bill would not have impacted our ability 
to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in any way, as it does not interfere 
with the ability of a President to restrict immigration due to public 
health concerns.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
historic legislation which sends a strong message to our communities 
that you cannot be discriminated against based on your religion or 
national origin.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank him for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I pay special tribute to Congresswoman Chu, the chair 
of the caucus in the House that represents the Asian Pacific American 
community, and Pramila Jayapal, a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
instrumental in bringing this legislation as well, the NO BAN Act, and, 
again, the right to counsel legislation.
  As I was thinking of this legislation today--I have a statement for 
the record, but I was thinking back to the

[[Page H3631]]

``rump'' hearing that we had under the leadership of the Judiciary 
Committee at the time the NO BAN was announced. The distinguished 
chair, Ms. Chu, talked about how people reacted at the airports and the 
rest--among them, John Lewis--going to the airport.

  But at this hearing, it was so remarkable, because people turned out. 
Diplomats showed up and spoke for their colleagues who were still in 
the diplomatic service, saying how wrong this was. They took 
professional risk as members of our diplomatic corps. There were around 
a thousand of them who signed a statement opposing this ban.
  The military was there, our men and women in uniform. They were there 
saying: You are hurting us. We have made promises to interpreters and 
others who have helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan--they were Muslim--
and now they can't come to the United States? It is wrong on its face, 
but we are not even keeping our word. Who will trust us? Who will trust 
us if we don't have respect for people?
  Some military who were Muslim--actually Khizr Khan was there, a Gold 
Star father, he came and was very brief in his testimony. He had some 
good advice about what we could do about this.
  But our men and women in uniform who are Muslim were hearing this, in 
Khizr Khan's case, a Gold Star family whose son had given his life for 
our country, a Muslim, and now we were saying there is going to be a 
Muslim ban.
  What was interesting, though, was that a leader of the evangelical 
community was there. And this bill is sending a strong message. It is 
repealing all versions of the Muslim ban, the refugee ban, and the 
asylum ban, rescinding each cruel version of the President's 
discriminatory bans, including his executive order mandating extreme 
vetting for refugees and asylum seekers.
  Well, the person who was there, and the record will show, 
representing the evangelicals, he said in his testimony that the United 
States Refugee Resettlement Program is the crowning glory of American 
humanitarianism, and here this President is rejecting that focus of who 
we are as a country and the model we should be.
  In fact, all this administration has done is diminish the 
opportunities for those who would come here--some for fear of 
persecution, others because they had helped us, and others because of 
the Statue of Liberty, again, a beacon of hope to the world that is 
constantly undermined by this administration.
  So, Madam Speaker, I salute the maker of this amendment, Chairwoman 
Judy Chu. I salute Pramila Jayapal, who has been relentless, persistent 
on this matter, and I thank all of our colleagues who fought so hard.
  Just to recall, we remember the day after the inauguration that women 
turned out in huge numbers not only in Washington, but all over the 
country and all over the world. They knew the power of their presence.
  So, when this came shortly thereafter, people understood the power of 
their presence, and people showed up at airports and wherever a 
manifestation of support for our Muslim community was needed. It was 
really quite a defining time for our country, because people knew their 
power and the power of their presence, being there, being there for 
everyone in our country.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the makers of this motion, 
to the Judiciary Committee. And to Chairman Nadler, I thank him for 
giving us this opportunity to honor what the Statue of Liberty means to 
us and to the world.
  Then just go look at Ronald Reagan's statements about the Statue of 
Liberty and the beacon of hope that it is to the world and contrast it 
to the attitude that we see coming out of this White House now.
  I hope we have a good, bipartisan vote on this repeal of the Muslim 
ban and the access to counsel that goes with this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, on the base of the Statue of Liberty, which is a 
beacon of freedom and hope for the world, are inscribed these words: 
``Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free/ Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.''
  I rise to join my colleagues in support of the ``NO BAN'' Act to 
rescind the President's Muslim ban, which betrays everything the Statue 
of Liberty and our nation stand for.
  I salute Congresswoman Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian 
Pacific American Caucus, and the lead on this legislation--which is the 
first Muslim civil rights bill in our nation's history.
  Thank you also to Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal for her leadership to 
ensure that those unjustly detained have access to legal counsel.
  It is particularly senseless that the President continues to inflict 
his Muslim ban on the country as we face the COVID-19 pandemic.
  These bans harm the economy and public health by depriving our nation 
of the researchers, scientists, physicians and other medical 
professionals desperately needed to crush the virus.
  More than 100,000 medical professionals in our country are from just 
two of the countries included in the ban.
  Overall, the ban has led to a 15 percent drop in new physicians from 
Muslim-majority countries coming to America.
  These bans fuel anti-Muslim discrimination, which sadly, the White 
House is encouraging, when it misleads the public and says that the 
bans are needed to keep us safe--when in reality, the bans only weaken 
our response, by banning doctors and medical professionals from our 
shores.
  At the same time, the bans erode our national security and devastate 
families: separating families and preventing thousands from attending 
loved ones' births, graduations, marriages and funerals. One study 
finds that these bans have prevented more than 9,000 family members of 
U.S. citizens from entering the country, including more than 5,500 
children.
  More than 400 national, state and local civil rights, faith-based, 
national security and community groups, from AFSCME and Amnesty 
International to United We Dream and Veterans for Peace, have spoken 
out to demand passage of the NO BAN Act to ``end the harmful Muslim Ban 
and put in place vital protections against future discriminatory 
bans.''
  ``The NO BAN Act is a clear and unequivocal response to the Muslim 
Ban that would ensure no one can be banned from our country based on 
religious or nationality-based discrimination ever again.
  ``Regrettably, the Muslim Ban validates the worst stereotypes about 
Muslims; that they are inherently foreign and violent and pose such a 
threat to the United States they should be banned.
  ``The ban on Muslims comes after generations of politicians hostile 
to religious minorities have attempted to ban Jews, Catholics, and 
Latter-day Saints. Congress now has an opportunity to take action 
against the Muslim Ban and this troubling history by sending a strong 
message that our nation rejects religious bigotry.''
  With this bill, Congress is sending that strong message. We are:
  Repealing all versions of the Muslim ban, the refugee ban, and the 
asylum ban--rescinding each cruel version of the President's 
discriminatory bans, including his executive order mandating ``extreme 
vetting'' for refugees and asylum seeking;
  Strengthening immigration law to explicitly prohibit discrimination 
based on religion--and ensuring that it applies to non-immigrant visas, 
entry into the U.S. and the approval of any immigrant benefit; and
  Limiting executive authority to prevent any president from issuing 
future bans like the Muslim ban--imposing strict requirements before 
any future restrictions can be issued & enacting reporting requirements 
to Congress to create an oversight mechanism for the future.
  The Democratic House will always stand up to defend our values. As 
Pope Francis said, ``It's hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and 
chase away a refugee or someone seeking help.''
  I urge a strong bipartisan vote to put an end to this act of 
callousness and discrimination from the White House.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's invoking 
President Reagan, because in 1981, President Reagan used 212(f) 
authority to suspend entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas, 
so I appreciate her reminding us of the use of 212(f) by Reagan.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs 
for yielding.
  Representative Biggs just highlighted, frankly, the problem, Madam 
Speaker, that we see in this, and it has been reiterated over and over 
again.
  This is not about a policy. This is about a person. It is about a 
person, the President, who the other side, and especially this 
committee that I have served as ranking member on and now

[[Page H3632]]

serve as a member of, has consistently gone after for, now, almost 19 
months.
  It has nothing to do with policies that at one point they did or did 
not believe in because, if this were true, we would have had a mass 
outcry in 2011 when President Obama used this authority to keep out 
folks because of human rights issues and other things.
  So, again, the problem here is it is great to couch this in political 
terms; it is great to couch this in great, deep policy issues; but, for 
18 months, this is all that we have heard.
  I heard my chairman just a minute ago speak about how these policies 
that he disagrees with and doesn't like that are found under the law 
and that we are dealing with here today in this so-called NO BAN Act 
have tarnished us. Well, I will tell everybody what is tarnishing us in 
this country. It is acts like this and the constant back-and-forth.
  There are times I have wondered--and I know my friend from Arizona 
has as well. We have talked about this a little bit. I have wondered 
why we have sort of kept the House locked down for the last 5 or 6 
months, but if this is what we come back to do, maybe we should just 
stay away, because if this is what we are doing, it is, frankly, 
frustrating, because November 3 will be the chance to talk about this.
  It is very policy and politically driven when we come to this floor 
on anything that really has to do with a political agenda, when there 
is a date on the calendar, as I talked about before, more than actually 
changing policy, because when you look at this, I will almost guarantee 
you that my friends currently in the majority, if they had a President 
of their party in the White House, they would come back on this very 
quickly and be very scared of messing with this power Presidentially.
  This is a problem that we are seeing over and over and over and over 
again.
  This NO BAN Act would strip the President of his ability to use the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to ban travel from certain countries 
that present national security concerns.
  Ironically, as I said earlier, this is the very power that President 
Trump used in January to deal with the coronavirus in China. If this 
were in place, he may not have had the ability to actually work on what 
we know now as the pandemic early on to help stop the spread.
  There are consequences to political legislation. This is one of them. 
We saved countless lives because of that, and now they want to strip 
the President of the authority to do that.
  Now, others may say, well, we have got exceptions and we have got 
this. I am not taking anything from this committee on exceptions for 
this President. There have not been any. It is simply a partisan 
attack.

                              {time}  1100

  The Department of Homeland Security has identified several types of 
information that it needs in order to make a reliable decision 
regarding the admissibility of a foreign country's nationals to seek 
entry into the United States; things like: Does the country report lost 
or stolen identity documents, including passports, to Interpol, and how 
often they do so?
  Does the country share information about their known or suspected 
terrorists or about their criminals with us?
  And does the country issue modern electronic passports?
  Why would we want to restrict the President, any President, from 
considering this information when determining whether to let a foreign 
national into our country?
  Instead of appreciating what has been done here by this President 
with regard to our national security, like addressing the crisis on our 
border and China's increasingly hostile behavior, the Democrats have 
decided to move forward with this act, which we have talked about 
before in our committee and have pointed out many of the problems of 
this act. It eviscerates the ability of any administration to take 
nimble and decisive action to protect our homeland when cause for 
concern arises, like the threat of COVID-19.
  What is even more ironic, and I touched on this when I first started, 
Madam Speaker, is that the very power that the majority wants to strip 
from this President was used successfully by President Barack Obama and 
also--as was pointed out by my friend from Arizona--by the Speaker of 
this House, currently, and Ronald Reagan.
  When we understand this, this actually clarifies--it actually 
crystallizes it. So when you see every other President has used this in 
some form over the years, and it has only become a concern now because 
we do not like the current President, Donald Trump, and we have an 
election coming up very quickly, then we start seeing stuff like this.
  In January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to 
restrict travel from certain countries that were at a high risk of 
terrorism and were public safety concerns, based off recommendations 
from the Secretaries of DHS and State, along with the DNI.
  It is important to understand these restrictions are not permanent. 
This is, again, another thing that permeates even some conversations I 
have heard already that we are making permanent changes. These are not 
permanent. They are there until the country gets it in order and are 
actually able to answer our security concerns, which is not going to be 
talked about today. We are not talking about security. We are trying to 
make it feel like it is something else against certain groups and 
ethnic groups. This is about security.
  When you look at the law, and it says, when those public safety 
concerns are removed, they are removed from the restricted list, such 
as Chad was in 2018.
  Let me be clear; there is no doubt the President's use of the 212(f) 
authority has helped us improve our security and the vetting of foreign 
nationals seeking entry into the U.S. Some countries restricted by this 
order have taken positive steps to come into compliance with the 
information-sharing and public safety standards and have worked to 
participate in protecting international security.
  Is that not what we would want? Or is what is being said by the 
majority today that we prefer lax standards for those coming here; we 
prefer less safety for our people of people coming here. Is that the 
standard being left here?
  I don't think the majority wants to go there, but it is seemingly 
implied by what is being said. Because this is actually working with 
countries to come into modern-day compliance with known safety and 
international safety regulations.
  This bill would take authority away from the President and give it to 
a subordinate. Again, strange move here; taking the Presidential 
authority. It goes back and shows the real intent of this bill is about 
this President, not about the law.
  It would also outrageously terminate ``all actions taken pursuant to 
any proclamation or executive order,'' effectively shutting down the 
information sharing on terrorism, criminals, and security threats that 
have come from these restrictions. This is dangerous, Madam Speaker, 
and it is a bad policy.
  This bill is just another response, knee-jerk response, by the 
majority because they don't like the President and they don't like the 
decisions he makes on behalf of the country. Unfortunately, their 
never-ending desire to take him down comes at the expense of American 
security and safety if this bill were to become law.
  Fortunately, we know it will not; another day of political posturing 
on the floor of the House, wreaking havoc on our borders, backlogging 
our customs process. And here is the interesting one that nobody has 
talked about that I have heard so far. I may have missed it, but I 
don't think I did.
  Me and the gentleman from Arizona, we understand something. 
Everything coming here today has a price tag. This one does as well, $1 
billion.
  But then this is really where it gets concerning, Madam Speaker, 
because I have tried my best over the years to work with the majority, 
and I see some of my friends over there that we have passed legislation 
with that have made an impact in this country.
  But here is what really bothers me. How do they pay for it? How does 
the majority pay for this?
  The majority, Democrats, have decided to include in this bill a 
prescription drug measure that could have been by bipartisan, and was 
bipartisan, if only they had abided by the agreed-upon text negotiated 
by Members in both parties.
  Instead, we are considering an old, partisan version of a 
prescription drug

[[Page H3633]]

bill that will undermine critical innovation. We negotiated bipartisan 
changes to stop gaming while preserving the research that benefits 
patients, but the Democrats in the majority have abandoned that and, 
with this bill, they have abandoned any hope of showing the American 
people they truly want to legislate, instead of just constantly 
attacking this President.

  But what is of deeper concern here, especially when it comes to 
prescription drug costs--because I don't want to hear my friends in the 
majority now talk about how they want to save money, and how they want 
to encourage innovation. When they put this into this bill, they have 
torn down bipartisan work that could actually save money. They have got 
to pay for it somehow.
  I know their counsel; I know they are struggling right now. We have 
to pay for it somehow.
  Well, then why not go back to the bipartisan process of working on 
prescription drugs, instead of throwing it into this NO BAN Act?
  The majority's moral underpinning is severely damaged when you look 
at the fact that they are trying to play games with the prescription 
drug issue in our country on this bill; when we know, for a fact, that 
bipartisanship was the way forward on this, and I had worked with, and 
others had worked to bring a bipartisan solution. And now we throw it 
out the door because we are so bent on making a political statement on 
this floor that bipartisanship is gone. We might as well pack it up and 
wait for November 3. That hurts this body.
  As the chairman of this committee in this House talked about just a 
moment ago about tarnishing the work in the world standing by what the 
President has done, are we really not going to have a conversation, 
Madam Speaker, about what is happening?
  And I know--Madam Speaker, you do as well--concern about what happens 
here, concern about actually getting something done, concern about the 
very people that are lifted up by the majority and the minority, saying 
we are here for the American people. But when I see pay-fors like this, 
when I see the pay-for happening here, I know that this is not anything 
but another day on the campaign trail.
  We are here today, making a political statement, and you know who is 
going to suffer? The very ones--I don't want to hear it from anybody in 
the majority today talking about how they want to help healthcare; how 
they want to bring prescription drug costs down; how they want to get 
at the very issues that we are dealing with. Because today you are 
going to go on record when you vote for this, by saying we don't care 
about the American people's fixing prescription drugs and getting 
healthy in this country. This today proves you have nothing to do.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Chu for this 
important statement that is necessary for the American people: In God, 
We Trust. And the God we trust is a merciful God.
  144,000 people dead from COVID-19. It is important when an 
administration, no matter who it is, fails the American people, the 
United States Congress must be the one that deals with that failure, 
and that is what the NO BAN Act stands for. It stands for expanding the 
INA's nondiscrimination provision to prohibit discrimination based on 
religion and extends the prohibition on discrimination beyond the 
issuance of immigrant visas to include the issuance of nonimmigrant 
visas, entry, admission to the United States, and the approval or 
revocation thereof.
  I had an amendment that is added to this that makes it a surety that 
the administration report to Congress on the impacts of positive, 
negative, and unintended actions by the President. We must have 
oversight.
  I stand in the name of Ali, a 17-year-old. When I landed from 
Washington, I went straight to the terminal immediately on that Friday. 
My tears were coming to my eyes as I saw little Ali denied entry into 
the United States.
  That is why I am here. I support the NO BAN Act.
  Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor and senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support 
of H.R. 2214, the ``National Origin-Based AntiDiscrimination For Non-
Immigrants Act, or No BAN Act, which stops executive overreach by 
preventing the president from abusing his authority to restrict the 
entry of non-citizens into the United States under section 212(f) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
  This legislation also repeals several of the President's section 
212(f)-based executive actions, including his original Muslim ban as 
well as the most recent expansion of the ban announced in January 2020.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because the NO BAN Act 
amends section 212(f) of the INA to place checks and balances on the 
President's authority to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of 
aliens or classes of aliens into the United States, when it is 
determined that such individuals ``would undermine the security or 
public safety of the United States or the preservation of human rights, 
democratic processes or institutions, or international stability.''
  Specifically, the bill requires the President to find and document 
that any suspension or restriction: (1) is based on specific and 
credible facts; (2) is narrowly tailored; (3) specifies a duration; and 
(4) includes waivers.
  The NO BAN Act expands the INA's nondiscrimination provision to 
prohibit discrimination based on religion and extends the prohibition 
on discrimination beyond the issuance of immigrant visas to include the 
issuance of nonimmigrant visas, entry and admission into the United 
States, and the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit.
  The NO BAN Act terminates several of President Trump's proclamations 
and executive orders invoking section 212(f) authority, including 
Presidential Proclamation 9645, also known as the ``Muslim Ban,'' and 
Presidential Proclamation 9983, barring the entry of immigrants from 
Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria, and suspending 
participation in the Diversity Visa program for nationals of Sudan and 
Tanzania.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the NO BAN Act includes an important 
amendment I offered during the committee markup of the legislation, 
which requires the Administration to report to Congress on the 
impacts--positive, negative, and unintended--of any action taken by the 
President pursuant to executive orders he has or will issue pursuant to 
section 212(f) of the INA.
  I strongly support the provision in the legislation that nullifies 
the President's latest executive order which adds the countries of 
Belarus, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania to 
the President's new and offensive Muslim Ban.
  As a co-chair of the Congressional Nigerian Caucus, the United States 
cannot afford to hamper diplomatic relations with Nigeria due to its 
importance in the region.
  Nigeria is the largest economy and most populous country in Africa 
with an estimated population of more than 190 million, which is 
expected to grow to 400 million by 2050 and become the third most 
populous country in the world after China and India.
  The United States is the largest foreign investor in Nigeria, with 
U.S. foreign direct investment concentrated largely in the petroleum 
and mining and wholesale trade sectors.
  At $2.2 billion in 2017, Nigeria is the second largest U.S. export 
destination in Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States and Nigeria 
have a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement.
  In 2017, the two-way trade in goods between the United States and 
Nigeria totaled over $9 billion.
  Due to many of the residents of these countries practicing Islam, the 
President's executive order has been appropriately nicknamed the 
``Muslim Ban'', and only exemplifies the xenophobic and prejudiced 
mindset that is unacceptable in this country.
  With countries such as Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, and Eritrea, being 
considered as additions to the travel ban list, I strongly oppose this 
discriminatory act.
  Tanzania is also an important partner of the United States, and 
through numerous presidential initiatives, the United States 
has provided development and other assistance to Tanzania for capacity 
building to address health and education issues, encourage democratic 
governance promote broad-based economic growth, and advance regional 
and domestic security to sustain progress.

  Although Sudan has had some internal issues during the last decade, 
the U.S. was a major donor in the March 1989 ``Operation Lifeline 
Sudan,'' which delivered 100,000 metric tons of food into both 
government and rebel held areas of the Sudan, thus, averting widespread 
starvation.
  The United States established diplomatic relations with Eritrea in 
1993, following its independence and separation from Ethiopia.
  The United States supported Eritrea's independence and through a 
concerted, mutual effort that began in late 2017 and continues today, 
there are vast improvements to the bilateral relationship.
  U.S. interests in Eritrea include supporting efforts for greater 
integration of Eritrea with

[[Page H3634]]

the rest of the Horn of Africa, encouraging Eritrea to contribute to 
regional stability and partner on shared peace and security goals, 
urging progress toward a democratic political culture, addressing human 
rights issues and promoting economic reform and prosperity.
  Although the law contains a waiver program that allows residents of 
these countries to enter the country if they meet certain standards, 
this program is arbitrary and unfairly creates a separation of 
families, provides less work opportunities and greatly reduces the 
opportunity to apply for visas in the future, unless it is repealed.
  A comprehensive and coordinated strategy needs to be developed in 
coordination with the United States Congress to ensure that each 
country affected by this law may peacefully have its residents enter 
the United States and complete visa and asylum applications.
  We live in a nation of laws but we also live in a nation that seeks 
to establish and maintain diplomatic ties to these important African 
nations and imposing a discriminatory and arbitrary ban would adversely 
affect foreign relations with a critical continent for decades to come.
  Madam Speaker, in light of the crisis presented by current COVID-19 
pandemic, the NO BAN Act contains a provision to ensure that the 
President can use section 212(f) to protect the United States from the 
spread of communicable diseases, including the 2019 coronavirus, by 
suspending the entry of a class of individuals if the President 
determines their entry would undermine the public safety of the United 
States.
  However, to remove any perceived ambiguity and avoid the propensity 
of this president to abuse delegated authority, the legislation 
includes language to clarify that the term ``public safety'' ``includes 
efforts necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health 
significance.''
  Madam Speaker, the NO BAN Act is supported by a bipartisan coalition 
of the nation's leading immigrants' rights organizations, faith-based 
organizations, and civil rights organizations, including the following:
  American Civil Liberties Union; Church World Service; U.S. Conference 
of Catholic Bishops; Muslim Advocates Immigration Hub; Asian Americans 
Advancing Justice Association; Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State; Bend the Arc; Center for American Progress; The 
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans; Interfaith Immigration 
Coalition; Human Rights Campaign; Franciscan Action Network; HIAS; 
Jewish and Muslims and Allies Acting Together; Religious Action Center 
of Reform Judaism; National Council of Jewish Women; National Iranian 
American Organization Action; National Immigration Law Center; 
International Refugee Assistance Project; Friends Committee on National 
Legislation; Engage Action; and Airbnb.
  I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 2214 and send a powerful message 
to the President and the American people that this House will not stand 
idly by as this Administration tries to abandon America's well-earned 
and long-established reputation of being the most welcoming nation on 
earth.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority 
whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. And when you 
think about where we are as a country, we are in the middle of a global 
pandemic. And at the beginning of this, after China lied--and let's be 
very clear--China lied, not only to the United States, but to the 
entire world about this disease that started in Wuhan.
  And what they did, while they were lying, they corrupted the World 
Health Organization, that entity that typically we all would look to 
for guidance, and WHO literally was regurgitating the Chinese Communist 
Party's talking points, saying it wasn't spread from human-to-human 
contact, which was a lie. And we now have evidence to show that they 
manipulated and deceived the rest of the world.
  While they were doing that, Madam Speaker, they were hoarding PPE. 
They were not only buying it up around the world, they make most of it 
in China. We need to change that, by the way.
  We should be spending our time here on the House floor, not limiting 
the President's ability to keep Americans safe, which, fortunately, 
President Trump was able to do. He did so effectively, properly; he 
stopped flights coming in from China when we knew the disease was 
coming from China, for goodness sake.
  Why would you want to stop the President from being able to keep 
Americans safe?
  What we should be spending our time on right now, Madam Speaker, is 
bringing more manufacturing back to America so we don't need to rely on 
China, because they told even American companies like 3M that were 
making PPE, you can't ship it back to the United States when our nurses 
and doctors need it.
  So President Trump said, we are going to use the Defense Production 
Act. We are going to start making more of that here in America.
  We need to put incentives to bring more of that back from China, so 
we are not relying on them.
  But no, we are not spending our time on that today, Madam Speaker. We 
are spending our time with this bill that would limit and make it more 
difficult for the President of the United States, any President--just 
because some people don't like this President, they are going to make 
it harder for any President to keep Americans safe, whether it is from 
terrorists abroad, or whether it is for health pandemics that might 
break out again in the future.
  This is lunacy that we would be trying to make it harder for a 
President to keep Americans safe. Thank goodness President Trump used 
his executive powers to act like he did to stop the disease from 
spreading more into this country. He saved thousands of lives.
  If China wouldn't have lied to him, we would have had a few more 
weeks. There is data that shows scientifically that tens of thousands 
of lives would have been saved in America.
  But at least the President was able to act when he had the proper 
information. I know people like Joe Biden said it was xenophobic, for 
goodness sake; criticized the President stopping people from coming in 
from the place where the disease started. And others criticized him for 
doing it as well. But it was the right thing to do. I am glad he took 
that action.
  The last thing we need to be doing in the middle of this pandemic is 
making it harder for the President to keep Americans safe. I urge 
everybody to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, America is a Nation of immigrants; some 
voluntary, others involuntary. John Lewis would often remind us, 
however, that while we may have come over on different ships, we are 
all in the same boat now.
  We are a gorgeous mosaic of people from throughout the world, 
different races, different regions, yes, different religions; that is 
what makes America a great country, not xenophobia.
  Donald Trump's hateful Muslim ban is unacceptable, unconscionable, 
and un-American. It is inconsistent with the principles of religious 
freedom and tolerance embedded in the First Amendment of the United 
States Constitution. That is why we are going to make it unlawful.
  Vote ``yes'' on the NO BAN Act.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2214, 
legislation that will repeal the President's shameful Muslim ban, and 
strengthen our immigration system by ensuring immigration decisions are 
not made on the basis of religious discrimination.
  In the face of religious intolerance, Roger Williams established the 
great State of Rhode Island on the principles of religious liberty and 
separation of church and State. These are important principles that 
were ultimately incorporated into our founding documents.
  In fact, President Washington, addressing the Hebrew congregation at 
Touro Synagogue, wrote in a famous letter in 1790, when they asked, 
Will we have religious freedom in this new country? He wrote those 
words: ``For happily the Government of the United States gives to 
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.''

[[Page H3635]]

  And what has been the result of this religious discrimination, this 
Muslim ban? It has resulted in mothers and fathers being separated from 
their American children. Foreign students are prevented from studying 
at our Nation's great universities; and doctors from countries under 
the ban aren't able to come here to provide care to patients in the 
United States, despite healthcare shortages across the Nation during a 
global health pandemic.

                              {time}  1115

  In addition to that, Madam Speaker, this legislation violates the 
founding principles of this country of religious freedom. I am very 
proud that this legislation is being brought to the floor so that we 
can reaffirm that important principle not only in the founding 
documents of our country but in the present immigration laws and their 
application.
  In addition to that, there has been a lot of discussion about how we 
are paying for this. I am very proud that this legislation includes 
provisions of the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Through 
Promoting Competition Act, which will save taxpayers over half a 
billion dollars in the form of lower prescription drug prices. All 
across the country, prescription costs are skyrocketing. People are 
going bankrupt and even dying because they can't afford prescription 
medication.
  H.R. 2214 addresses product hopping, an anticompetitive tactic used 
by Big Pharma to protect and extend their monopolies over certain 
prescription drugs, leading to dramatically higher prices. This 
legislation expressly prohibits hopping under the FTC Act, and the bill 
is subject to the same equitable remedies, including restitution and 
disgorgement of profits. So, all this talk about folding into the pay-
for would actually produce lower prescription drug prices for 
Americans, and somehow that is a bad idea? Give me a break.
  This bill reasserts the prohibition against religious discrimination, 
one of the most important founding principles of this country, and it 
pays for it by delivering lower prescription drug prices for the 
American people.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler, Congresswoman Chu, and 
Congresswoman Jayapal for their great work, and I urge my colleagues to 
pass this bill.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, let us not forget who we are. Our Framers 
rebelled against centuries of religious oppression, Inquisition, Holy 
Crusades, witchcraft trials, and state religion. They conceived America 
as a haven of refuge for people fleeing from religious and political 
persecution from all over the world. It would become an ``asylum for 
humanity,'' said Tom Paine--not an insane asylum, mind you, but an 
asylum for freedom.
  The President's Muslim ban desecrates this vision with the kind of 
religious discrimination that our Nation was created to oppose.
  The NO BAN Act now strikes down the President's infamous Muslim ban 
proclamation and restores the principle of no religious discrimination 
to the immigration process. It will be a proud day for this Congress 
when we invalidate the President's infamous and ugly attempt to 
scapegoat people based on their religion.
  Mr. BIGGS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in January of 2017, when President Trump issued his 
first Muslim ban executive order, I immediately rushed to LAX to help 
those individuals who were being held at LAX. These were individuals 
who had been cleared by our State Department to enter the United 
States. Let me repeat: These were individuals who had been cleared by 
our State Department to enter the United States, and then they were 
blocked by the President's random order.
  I immediately introduced my first bill, the DIRe Act, to provide due 
process guaranteed by our Constitution for Dreamers, immigrants, and 
refugees, due process that has been systematically denied by a 
President.
  Our Nation is built by immigrants who dare to dream better, 
immigrants who came to this country with nothing but their dreams of a 
better life.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of the NO BAN 
Act, a powerful bill that preserves the promise of America and rejects 
this administration's xenophobic and anti-Muslim immigration policies.
  The President's reckless bans on majority Muslim and African 
countries do not align with our American values or the unique promise 
that this country has offered immigrants and refugees for centuries. It 
will not make us safer, and it is yet another example of this 
administration's haphazard and cruel immigration policies.
  I am proud that I was able to successfully offer an amendment during 
the Judiciary Committee's markup, with the chairman's support, that 
added this President's latest ban to the underlying bill. It is not 
only the right thing to do for our country but also a matter very 
personal to me.
  As many in this Chamber know, my parents came to America nearly 40 
years ago as refugees from Eritrea, one of the very countries that this 
President has targeted in his latest ban. My parents' ability to start 
a new life in this country offered me and my family freedom, 
opportunity, and the privilege to truly experience the American Dream. 
There are countless success stories like my family's waiting to be 
told, stories that won't be written if this body does not pass this NO 
BAN Act today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleague to support it.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).
  Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the NO BAN 
Act to finally repeal the racist and discriminatory Muslim bans that 
have stained our Nation for the past 3 years.
  The Muslim ban undermines everything that this great country stands 
for, the greatest country in the history of the world.

  It has torn apart my constituents' families and trapped their loved 
ones in war zones and refugee camps. It has made Muslim Americans feel 
like second class citizens in their very own country. They are 
Americans just as much as I.
  This ban has done nothing to make us safe. Senator John McCain, in 
fact, once called the ban a self-inflicted wound in the fight against 
terrorism.
  The administration's own officials admit this does absolutely nothing 
to protect our country. The State Department says that just one-tenth 
of 1 percent of the people blocked from this country under the Muslim 
ban was deemed a security risk. Those stats do not lie. DHS cannot 
point to a single threat that our existing immigration policies and 
systems would not have handled.
  If we are going to fight for this country to fulfill its promise, 
this ban must be overturned.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise today in 
support of the NO BAN Act.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle might try to obscure the 
reality here by pointing to the Muslim countries that are not on the 
ban. The White House has tried to wrap their hateful policy up in a 
false story about national security, but we know the truth.
  I have spoken countless times, both before and since I have entered 
this office, about the hateful brutality of the Muslim ban.
  Today, I want to celebrate the work that brought us to this point. I 
want to

[[Page H3636]]

celebrate the countless Americans who went to the airport the day the 
first ban was announced. I want to celebrate the thousands of State 
Department employees who signed the dissent memo and those who resigned 
in protest. I want to celebrate Congresswoman Chu and Senator Coons for 
their tireless work on overturning this ban.
  Today's vote is a culmination of all of their work, starting at the 
grassroots level. We have been in the struggle together, and we will 
continue to be in it until this ban is in the dustbin of history.
  Mr. BIGGS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Benjamin Franklin once famously said that those who 
would give up liberty for security deserve neither.
  My home, Dearborn, Michigan, is home to the largest population of 
Arab Americans in this country. They are constantly targeted very 
irrationally. Yet, Michigan, unfortunately, also lays claim to the 
Michigan Militia, which was responsible for one of the worst acts of 
terrorism in this country.
  Muslims, Arab Americans, are my neighbors. They are my friends. They 
are doctors, teachers, and pharmacists. They are part of this country.
  Policies like the Muslim travel ban have no place in the United 
States of America. It disrespects freedom of religion, and it is 
unconstitutional.
  National security experts have been clear that the Muslim ban has 
made our country less safe. In fact, strong national security policies 
include protecting the fundamental pillars of our democracy: freedom of 
religion, freedom of speech, compassion, and justice. We must stand 
together as Americans against unjust policies like this.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). Both sides have 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Speaker, when President Trump first announced 
the Muslim ban, we were told it was temporary, 90 days, according to 
the executive order, or until we ``figure out what the hell is going 
on,'' in the President's own words.
  It has been 3\1/2\ years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, 
including many of my own constituents, are still cut off from their 
loved ones, missing births, missing weddings, and missing funerals.
  We are still not admitting refugees to this country for the first 
time since we turned back Jews fleeing Hitler before World War II. And 
by now, we know exactly what is going on.
  It has nothing to do with national security, and it never did. There 
has never been a deadly terrorist attack carried out in America by 
someone from any of these countries. One of them is Iran, after all, 
a country whose people have themselves been targeted for extinction by 
ISIS.

  How many times do we hear from the administration that we stand by 
the people of Iran even as we ban them from visiting our country?
  These good people were sacrificed for a cheap campaign promise. They 
were hurt, and our country's ideals were betrayed, because someone 
decided it would be easier to seek scapegoats than solutions to our 
country's problems. It is wrong, and it should stop.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for 
yielding and for his tremendous leadership. Also, I want to thank 
Congresswomen Chu and Jayapal for their tremendous and steady 
leadership and strong support of H.R. 2214, the NO BAN Act.
  This important legislation would end the Muslim ban and prohibit 
discrimination and migration on the basis of religion and national 
origin.
  Let me be clear. This is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation 
not only for Muslims but for our country's values. Our Nation was 
founded by, shaped by, and continues to be influenced by our immigrant 
communities who contribute so much to this country. Equating Muslims 
with terrorists is against our values as a nation. It is despicable.
  Make no mistake, the NO BAN Act would help ensure that this kind of 
discrimination ceases, prevents future such discrimination, and 
promotes our core values of religious freedom.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot allow President Trump's White nationalist 
agenda to continue. We must ensure that our country is open to 
everyone, not just those whom Trump deems acceptable. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Dingell). Members are reminded to 
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, when we heard of the Muslim ban being 
implemented, many New Yorkers, including our chairman, Congressman 
Nadler, rushed to JFK Airport to help families. What I witnessed there 
in many cases was, in fact, Muslim members of our Armed Forces were 
trying to be reunited with their mother, with their spouse, and they 
were being denied.
  As I entered the space, I was surrounded by Customs and Border Patrol 
officers, and we fought to make sure that these folks could unite. And 
so we witnessed the pain of a spouse without a husband, a son without a 
mother, a father without a child.
  Madam Speaker, this is not American. This is not American at all. But 
what was witnessed there and across the country was the best of our 
Nation, the spirit of our Nation, the fact that we would not be split 
along racial, ethnic, or religious lines.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today to declare loudly and clearly 
to every Muslim and every African person in Michigan's 13th District, 
in America, and around the world that the United States House of 
Representatives is taking action to end this administration's racist 
ban.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to send a message to marginalized communities 
everywhere that, in repealing the Muslim and African ban, we are also 
preventing discriminatory bans from ever happening again.
  Madam Speaker, I rise as a mother of two wonderful Muslim-American 
boys, Adam and Yousif, to say that Muslims and Muslim Americans are our 
family members, our friends, and our neighbors--and, yes, they are 
Members of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, it appears that this White House might not like that 
fact very much because this racist ban is a Federal endorsement of 
anti-Muslim rhetoric and discrimination in our country, but today we 
are coming together to finally put a stop to this.
  End the Muslim and African ban.
  End all discriminatory bans forever.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NO BAN 
Act.
  I remember when the Muslim ban was first implemented in January 2017, 
I went to JFK Airport with Chairman Nadler to demand the release of 
travelers being detained there. One of them was an Iraqi translator who 
had risked his life working for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His reward was 
being caught up in this hateful Trump administration policy.
  At the airport that day, I saw two Americas: Inside the airport was 
an America characterized by prejudice, weakness, and fear; but outside, 
where

[[Page H3637]]

thousands gathered to oppose this hateful policy, I saw the America I 
know, an America of strength and compassion.
  Madam Speaker, today, as we vote on this bill, we are being asked to 
choose between these two visions. We can choose a weak, bigoted America 
that says there is no place for our Muslim brothers and sisters or for 
Black people, or we can choose an America that lives up to its highest 
ideals, that welcomes those from around the world seeking a better 
life.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judy Chu's NO BAN Act.
  In the words of John Lewis: ``When you see something that is not 
right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up; you have to do 
something.''
  The NO BAN Act is doing something. It is stating in clear, powerful 
legislation that America will never again let racism or religious 
intolerance be a barrier to lawful immigration. We will not allow 
ignorance or xenophobia to dictate America's immigration policies.
  Our strength has always--always--been our diversity.
  A functional Muslim ban or a ban of entire countries simply because 
they comprise a race or a religion that some President does not like is 
not just evil, it is stupid. Watch which American communities recover 
most quickly from the pandemic--those with the most diverse 
populations.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today, as I stood at the airport at the 
onset of the ban, to ensure our immigration system cannot be hijacked 
by hatred.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the NO BAN Act.
  Today is about our commitment to the most sacred of American ideals: 
to celebrate our diversity. But this administration has embarked on a 
crusade to demonize immigrants and our Muslim-American community.
  Americans and their families have been targeted because of their 
religious beliefs, their race, and their ethnicity. Because of this 
bigotry, families and loved ones have been separated, unable to 
celebrate milestones or face hardships together.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today because one of the greatest and 
most beautiful things about our country is the diversity of people, 
views, and perspectives. We cannot allow an administration to upend our 
immigration system and upend our ideals. We must always stand up and 
speak out.

  Madam Speaker, I remember my grandparents' and parents' stories about 
World War II, when they were ostracized and ultimately removed to 
internment camps. Let's not forget this past xenophobic history.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, you have heard a lot of incendiary language regarding 
the travel restrictions. The most incendiary language is always calling 
it ``incendiary,'' ``a white nationalist agenda,'' ``racist,'' 
``hateful,'' et cetera.
  Was it xenophobic, was it racist, was it hateful when the Obama 
administration implemented travel bans to the same seven nations?
  Was it?
  No. Nor is it here either.
  Madam Speaker, that kind of language is meant to incite public 
ridicule and distract from the real issue here.
  As the Supreme Court noted, the text in this bill says nothing about 
religion. And as they went on to say: ``The policy covers just 8 
percent of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries 
that were previously designated by Congress or prior 
administrations''--read, Obama administration--``as posing national 
security risks.''
  That is not a Muslim ban. This is a legitimate travel restriction 
implemented for the safety of this Nation.
  Additionally, I heard from multiple friends across the aisle a straw 
man argument, a true straw man argument here, that this ban was 
religious in nature. But if that were the case, they would have stopped 
it after inserting religion with other proscriptions. But instead, they 
built up a huge bureaucratic apparatus to limit the authority of the 
President of the United States. So it is a straw man argument.
  Madam Speaker, the chairman mentioned that the Supreme Court ruling, 
in his opinion, was without justification, and so I am going to read 
what the Supreme Court said: ``The President lawfully exercised that 
discretion based on his findings--following a worldwide, multiagency 
review--that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the 
national interest.''
  The sole prerequisite, they said, is for the President to find that 
the entry of the covered aliens ``would be detrimental to the interests 
of the United States.''
  But the President fulfilled that requirement by first ordering DHS 
and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every 
single country's compliance with the information and risk assessment 
baseline.
  That is what this policy was built upon. It is consistent with the 
Obama administration and the previous administrations.
  But for whatever reason, and I think we all can surmise what that may 
be, when this President conducts an even more thorough evaluation of 
these nations and their processes and then issues a proclamation 
setting forth those extensive findings describing deficiencies in those 
practices--and, by the way, I am going here based on the Supreme Court 
decision again--in the practices of select foreign governments, several 
of which are state sponsors of terrorism, it is somehow xenophobic, a 
white nationalist agenda, racist, and hateful. But when the previous 
administration did it and actually came back to Congress and added 
three more nations, it wasn't.
  The only ad hominem attack I would ever make here is that it surely 
seems potentially hypocritical to me. No visas would be revoked 
pursuant to P.P. 9645 or 9983. Individuals subject to those 
Presidential proclamations who possess a valid visa or valid travel 
document were permitted to travel and continue to be admitted to travel 
in this country.
  To call it a Muslim ban is meant to incite--and I will say, we do 
terrible on this side of the aisle. My friends across the aisle, when 
you find that peg to hang your hat on, heck of a great job, because 
everybody uses it. It is very effective, but it is highly misleading.
  What this bill does is it emasculates the very notion of executive 
power in the President. It really does. The idea, because you want to 
emasculate the power of President Trump.
  But what it does is it gives more power to the bureaucratic state, 
more power to the bureaucratic state. So the timeline is also going to 
prevent the President from acting quickly on this.
  These are the issues that we have just been distracted from, because 
it certainly appears--and I will say, my friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee), when she talked about symbolism in her speech, she is right. This 
is symbolic. This bill is symbolic. It is symbolic, if you will, of a 
hatred of this President. Because when the previous President's 
administration did this, not a peep. This administration does the same 
thing, and it is outrageous.
  Madam Speaker, the implementation was not great. They have admitted 
the implementation was not great, but that is an implementation 
problem, not a policy problem. And you want to change the entire policy 
and the entire structure not because the policy was bad--if it were, we 
would have heard about it the last 40 years--but, instead, because the 
original implementation was bad.
  The Supreme Court has upheld what this administration did because 
what they did was conduct a thorough vetting of their own policy 
regarding these nations and those nations' policies in implementing 
safety mechanisms, and so they fulfilled that. Here we are today, 
saying: You know what? Because it is President Donald Trump, this is 
bad.
  Madam Speaker, they are going to pass this bill. There is no doubt 
they

[[Page H3638]]

are going to pass this amendment. But never forget the inherent 
inconsistency with the act that you are going to do on this bill with 
what you have done in the previous administrations.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I find it extremely disingenuous to deny the nature of 
the Muslim ban. You know why? Because the President told us so. He told 
us he was going to institute a Muslim ban, and then he did it. And 
every country he put on the list was Muslim. Every country he has added 
to the list was Muslim.
  Only Muslims and Muslim countries pose threats to the United States 
of any nature; no one else in the world does? How stupid does he think 
we are?
  This is a Muslim ban. It has been. It is an abuse of his office. It 
is an abuse of the law. It must be repealed. The honor of the United 
States must be redeemed. And that is why this dishonorable, hateful 
policy must be repealed. And that is why we must vote for this bill, to 
redeem the honor of the United States from the disgusting religious 
bigotry supported by the President and instituted by the President in 
this ban.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2214 the 
``National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Non immigrants Act,'' or 
NO BAN Act. I wish this bill was not necessary, but unfortunately, it 
is now more imperative than ever.
  As a result of the President's relentless attempts to rewrite our 
immigration laws, we must take immediate steps to rein in his repeated 
abuse of executive authority.
  As a candidate for president, Donald Trump promised to ban all 
Muslims from entering the United States, suggesting--without any 
evidence--that it would somehow make our country safer. Immediately 
upon entering office, he tried to make good on that promise.
  Ultimately, it took the President 10 months, 3 attempts, and the 
inclusion of a sham waiver process to craft a ban that stood up to 
Supreme Court scrutiny.
  In a decision rightly criticized by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor--
and many of us in this chamber--the majority concluded that despite 
statements calling for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims 
entering the United States,'' the President's ban was somehow not 
inspired by blatant religious animus. Seeking to distance itself from 
these remarks, the Administration later claimed that the ban was 
necessary to keep our country safe from terrorist threats. And yet, a 
bipartisan coalition of more than 50 former national security officials 
found that rather than making our country safer, the ban actually 
undermines U.S. national security.
  H.R. 2214 not only invalidates the various iterations of the Muslim 
Ban, it also amends the authority the President relied on in invoking 
the ban--section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. But 
rather than gutting it, as some of my Republican colleagues have 
claimed, H.R. 2214 maintains its basic structure, and incorporates 
checks and balances to ensure that it can no longer be so flagrantly 
abused.
  H.R. 2214 will thus ensure that section 212(f) can only be used in a 
manner consistent with its intended purpose and historical norms, and 
that no President--Democratic or Republican--will be able to utilize it 
to usurp congressional authority.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Chu for 
her leadership and steadfast commitment to this issue. Her efforts led 
to the introduction of this legislation and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support the NO BAN Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
No BAN Act.
  This bill is being framed as a ``religious freedom'' initiative. I 
have fought for religious freedom throughout my career. I know what 
religious freedom means. This bill is not about religious freedom. It 
is about scoring cheap political points against President Trump.
  The President is granted broad authority to take quick action to 
limit the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. This is 
needed for a variety of reasons, including national security and public 
health. Whether it is addressing shortcomings in a certain country's 
vetting and information sharing or limiting the potential influx of 
coronavirus cases, we entrust the Executive Branch to keep America 
safe.
  President Trump's actions have been mislabeled as a ``Muslim Ban.'' 
But that is not the case. There is no religious test anywhere in the 
President's travel restrictions. North Korea, an essentially religious-
less society, is one of the countries included. Myanmar, another 
country affected, is more than 80 percent Buddhist. Indonesia, which 
was not included in the covered travel restrictions, has the largest 
percentage of the world's Muslim population at over 12 percent.
  Rather than try to paint with a broad brush, we should look at the 
causes of these travel restrictions. Eritrea--Does not comply with the 
established identity-management and information-sharing criteria. 
Kyrgyzstan--Does not comply with the established identity-management 
and information-sharing criteria. Nigeria--Does not comply with the 
established identity-management and information-sharing criteria. And 
so on.
  This isn't about religious freedom. It is only about convincing 
people it is.
  In addition to the deficiencies of the underlying policy, the 
Majority has made a mistake in including the Senate version of 
pharmaceutical legislation as its pay-for.
  Last year, the House Judiciary Committee worked on a bipartisan basis 
to advance two important bills. One to reduce the burdens of patent 
litigation when a company seeks to bring a complicated biosimilar drug 
to market. And another to create a new antitrust authority to prevent 
companies from playing games that could artificially suppress generic 
competition.
  Chairmen Jerrold Nadler and David Cicilline were great partners to me 
and then-Hanking Member Doug Collins in that effort. It was refreshing 
during a time of increasingly partisan hostility to work together in a 
thoughtful manner to address drug pricing in the country.
  Unfortunately, rather than take up that bill, the Majority has simply 
ignored our weeks of careful negotiation and has chosen instead to 
blindly attach the Senate language.
  The shortcomings of this version of the legislation were already 
addressed in committee. The text included in the No BAN Act gives the 
FTC the authority to find a company liable even if all they do is 
introduce an improved version of a product and then make truthful and 
non-misleading statements about the new product. This will undoubtedly 
stifle innovation. Why would any company invest the necessary research 
dollars to introduce a new product, if they can be held liable for 
truthful marketing of that product? In Committee, we fixed that.
  The bill we're voting on today is also out of step with current 
antitrust law. It would completely change the remedy and enforcement 
authority under traditional antitrust law, and for no obvious reason, 
apply those changes exclusively to just one industry. In Committee, we 
fixed that.
  I find it troubling that the Majority is choosing to abandon the good 
faith negotiations and bipartisan work. The gentlemen from New York and 
Rhode Island worked with the Minority to come up with a good product 
that addresses drug pricing through regular order. The committee 
process works. We should be voting on the legislation that passed the 
Judiciary Committee by a voice vote. Not this version.
  I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the previous question is ordered on 
this portion of the divided question.
  The question is: Will the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
the House amendment specified in section 4(a) of House Resolution 891?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.


      Amendment Specified in Section 4(b) of House Resolution 891

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
portion of the divided question comprising the amendment specified in 
section 4(b) of House Resolution 891 shall now be considered.
  The text of House amendment to Senate amendment specified in section 
4(b) of House Resolution 891 is as follows:

       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of 
     the Senate, strike sections 4, 5, and 6 and insert the 
     following:

                TITLE III--ACCESS TO COUNSEL ACT OF 2020

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Access to Counsel Act of 
     2020''.

[[Page H3639]]

  


     SEC. 302. ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE AT PORTS OF 
                   ENTRY AND DEFERRED INSPECTION.

       (a) Access to Counsel and Other Assistance During 
     Inspection.--Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Access to Counsel and Other Assistance During 
     Inspection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     ensure that a covered individual has a meaningful opportunity 
     to consult with counsel and an interested party during the 
     inspection process.
       ``(2) Scope of assistance.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       ``(A) provide the covered individual a meaningful 
     opportunity to consult with counsel and an interested party 
     not later than one hour after the secondary inspection 
     process commences and as necessary throughout the inspection 
     process, including, as applicable, during deferred 
     inspection;
       ``(B) allow counsel and an interested party to advocate on 
     behalf of the covered individual, including by providing to 
     the examining immigration officer information, documentation, 
     and other evidence in support of the covered individual; and
       ``(C) to the greatest extent practicable, accommodate a 
     request by the covered individual for counsel or an 
     interested party to appear in-person at the secondary or 
     deferred inspection site.
       ``(3) Special rule for lawful permanent residents.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     not accept Form I-407 Record of Abandonment of Lawful 
     Permanent Resident Status (or a successor form) from a lawful 
     permanent resident subject to secondary or deferred 
     inspection without providing such lawful permanent resident a 
     reasonable opportunity to seek advice from counsel prior to 
     the submission of the form.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     accept Form I-407 Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent 
     Resident Status (or a successor form) from a lawful permanent 
     resident subject to secondary or deferred inspection if such 
     lawful permanent resident knowingly, intelligently, and 
     voluntarily waives, in writing, the opportunity to seek 
     advice from counsel.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Counsel.--The term `counsel' means--
       ``(i) an attorney who is a member in good standing of the 
     bar of any State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 
     a possession of the United States and is not under an order 
     suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise 
     restricting the attorney in the practice of law; or
       ``(ii) an individual accredited by the Attorney General, 
     acting as a representative of an organization recognized by 
     the Executive Office for Immigration Review, to represent a 
     covered individual in immigration matters.
       ``(B) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual' 
     means an individual subject to secondary or deferred 
     inspection who is--
       ``(i) a national of the United States;
       ``(ii) an immigrant, lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad;
       ``(iii) an alien seeking admission as an immigrant in 
     possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa;
       ``(iv) an alien seeking admission as a non-immigrant in 
     possession of a valid unexpired non-immigrant visa;
       ``(v) a refugee;
       ``(vi) a returning asylee; or
       ``(vii) an alien who has been approved for parole under 
     section 212(d)(5)(A), including an alien who is returning to 
     the United States in possession of a valid advance parole 
     document.
       ``(C) Interested party.--The term `interested party' 
     means--
       ``(i) a relative of the covered individual;
       ``(ii) in the case of a covered individual to whom an 
     immigrant or non-immigrant visa has been issued, the 
     petitioner or sponsor thereof (including an agent of such 
     petitioner or sponsor); or
       ``(iii) a person, organization, or entity in the United 
     States with a bona fide connection to the covered 
     individual.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this title, or in any 
     amendment made by this title, may be construed to limit a 
     right to counsel or any right to appointed counsel under--
       (1) section 240(b)(4)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4)(A)),
       (2) section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1362), or
       (3) any other provision of law, including any final court 
     order securing such rights,

     as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This portion shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5581, the Access to 
Counsel Act of 2020.
  Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee held a hearing to explore the Muslim ban, including the chaos 
that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first 
announced.
  I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK 
Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, 
individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents of 
the United States were detained for hours and prevented from speaking 
with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable 
to call their family members.
  Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is unfortunately a 
problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of the U.S. 
immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding 
admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours 
undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.
  During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating 
with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to 
have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak with them, even if they 
can provide critical information or correct a legal error.
  Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused 
admission. For example, an individual who is given an expedited removal 
order is barred from returning to the United States for 5 years.
  H.R. 5581 will ensure that no one who presents themselves at a port 
of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the 
world during inspection. H.R. 5581 allows such individuals, including 
U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they 
are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than one hour.
  To be clear, this bill does not provide a right to counsel, nor does 
it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to pay for or 
otherwise provide counsel to individuals during CBP inspection 
proceedings. I wish it did, but it doesn't. This is confirmed by the 
fact that the Congressional Budget Office found that H.R. 5581 would 
have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
  I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, 
Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for 
championing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486.
  The Access to Counsel Act of 2020 is a way for the majority to test 
how far they can go toward their ultimate goal of taxpayer-funded 
counsel at every stage of the immigration process. I think we just 
heard that, that that is a stated goal.
  Many immigration interest groups have made no mystery of the fact 
that they believe foreign nationals have a right to come to the United 
States and should all receive taxpayer-funded counsel at every stage of 
the process.
  My colleagues across the aisle understand that it is currently a 
bridge too far to repeal outright the Immigration and Nationality Act 
provision that prohibits taxpayer-funded counsel during removal 
proceedings. But this amendment is a step forward in their march in 
that direction.
  The bill mandates that the DHS Secretary shall ensure that an 
individual who has been selected by Customs and Border Protection for 
secondary screening at a port of entry has a meaningful opportunity to 
consult with counsel and an interested party during such screening.
  It is important to understand exactly what secondary screening is, 
why it is used, and the ramifications that this bill would have on the 
port of entry operations.
  My colleagues across the aisle provided the Judiciary Committee no 
opportunity to hear from DHS experts about any of these issues. There 
was no hearing on this legislation or even generally on the subject 
matter at hand.
  CBP is extremely concerned about the impact the requirements of this

[[Page H3640]]

bill would have on processing at ports of entry. Many of us have been 
to airports and seen the long lines of passengers from abroad waiting 
to be processed. We have been to land ports of entry and seen lines of 
passenger vehicles and cargo trucks that literally wait for hours for 
the opportunity to enter the U.S. The Access to Counsel Act would 
exponentially increase those processing and wait times.
  Secondary inspection is used at ports of entry to give CBP officials 
time for additional screening that may take longer than the normal 
case. It can include more in-depth questioning, additional database 
searches, and physical searches when an individual is suspected of 
carrying contraband.
  Secondary inspection is done in an area near the primary inspection 
booths. It serves to remove those whose admissibility may be in 
question from the primary inspection line so as to not slow the line 
down.
  The vast majority of the over 400 million people admitted the United 
States annually do not get referred to secondary inspection, but about 
17 million do.
  Most ports of entry buildings and other infrastructure are not 
equipped to allow multiple counsel consultations at the same time. That 
means longer wait times and backlogs for entry. Allowing 17 million 
people to consult with counsel or some other interested party will 
bring legitimate trade and travel to a grinding halt.

  Of course, slowing down of trade and travel processing isn't the only 
concern with H.R. 5581. Under current regulations adopted in 1980, 
applicants for admission are not entitled to representation in primary 
or secondary inspections, unless the applicant has become the focus of 
a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.
  But this bill gives all applicants for admission to the U.S., 
including nonimmigrants and lawful permanent residents, a new statutory 
right to counsel. This idea is based on the belief that everyone has a 
right to enter the U.S., and it is a first step toward what many of our 
Democrat colleagues ultimately want, taxpayer-funded counsel for 
foreign nationals.
  In addition, there are serious concerns with what constitutes 
interested parties under the bill. The term is defined to include 
practically anyone, including any relative of the covered individual, 
the petitioner or sponsor of a visa, or anyone with a bona fide 
connection to the covered individual.
  This could result in a scenario where a covered individual is 
referred for secondary inspection because he is believed to be 
smuggling drugs or some other contraband and then places a call to tip 
off his accomplices.
  The Access to Counsel Act is a bad idea that would unduly hinder 
legitimate trade and travel. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for his tremendous work and leadership on 
bringing these important issues to the floor.
  I am very proud that the House is considering my bill today, the 
Access to Counsel Act, H.R. 5581. It is a commonsense measure that 
would ensure that U.S. citizens, green card holders, and other people 
with legal status are able to consult with an attorney when Customs and 
Border Protection detains them for over an hour.
  I introduced this bill, Madam Speaker, as my first bill when I got to 
Congress, and it was in the wake of the Muslim ban. It was in the wake 
of that chaos that was unleashed at airports across the country as 
people from seven Muslim-majority countries found themselves detained 
for hours, in some cases pressured to sign papers giving up their legal 
status, and in many cases deported.
  More often than not, these people did not even have the opportunity 
to see an attorney or even call anyone. They did not even have the 
opportunity to use the restrooms or to get water and food.
  Since then, however, Madam Speaker--it isn't just that moment--there 
have been numerous cases of students detained for long periods at 
airports and sent back, despite holding valid visas secured after 
undergoing rigorous vetting by the State Department. One student was 
detained and deported in spite of a court order saying that he should 
be allowed to stay until a court could review his case.
  And earlier this year, we saw no less than 200 people of Iranian 
American descent detained at the northern border in Blaine, Washington, 
for up to 12 hours with no access to counsel. These lengthy detentions 
occurred while CBP repeatedly denied that Iranian Americans were being 
targeted for different treatment.
  Many of the people impacted were U.S. citizens, as well as elderly 
people and children. Some had even undergone extra vetting to 
participate in a program designed for trusted travelers at the northern 
border.
  A month later, CBP Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan said that border 
officials ``got a little overzealous in their actions,'' but the 
damage, Madam Speaker, had already been done. There were children of 
U.S. citizens--they themselves U.S. citizens--who watched their parents 
be detained and treated in a way that no American citizen should go 
through. No person should go through that type of indignity and 
disrespect.
  If my bill were enacted into law, it would ensure that any time CBP 
detains people with lawful status, then those individuals would simply 
have the right to call a lawyer and receive assistance. It does not 
stop CBP from doing its job; it does not create a right to counsel for 
everyone. This is just a simple phone call to their attorney.
  So I would like to thank those who bravely came forward to share 
their stories, to make clear the Access to Counsel Act is desperately 
needed, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, just to point out, this bill does not say 
anywhere this contact will be limited to a simple phone call. Nowhere 
does it say that.
  Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume again 
to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to quote directly from 
section 2 of my bill: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
provide the covered individual a meaningful opportunity to consult with 
counsel and an interested party not later than one hour after the 
secondary inspection process commences and as necessary throughout the 
inspection process, including, as applicable, during deferred 
inspection.''
  So again, this could be a phone call. ``Meaningful access'' is a 
broad term and it takes into account my colleague from the other side's 
concerns.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am interested in the interpretation of the term 
``meaningful opportunity.'' I tried a lot of cases in my career. I did 
both prosecution and criminal defense extensively. I can tell you what 
a meaningful opportunity would be as counsel. It would be sitting there 
with my client face-to-face, getting all the information possible.
  If the intention was to include, specifically, a simple phone call, 
that is what should have been put in here. That is what should have 
been put in this bill, but it wasn't. So, when I read it, I think of 
places I have been to all along the border, having grown up in southern 
Arizona, and I have taken and led many congressional delegations over 
the last 3\1/2\ years.
  I think of the Antelope Wells Port of Entry. I think about that being 
about a 4-hour drive for the Customs and Border Protection officers 
that manned that or worked there, that staffed that. I think, well, 
what is the communications like there? It is not good. It is not good. 
It is extremely remote. The nearest town on the Mexican side of the 
border is 60 miles away. The nearest town on the New Mexico side of 
that border is Lordsburg, which is about a good 1.5- to 2-hour drive 
away itself.
  If you really wanted to get to narrow this, this bill should have 
been narrowed, but it wasn't narrowed.

[[Page H3641]]

  I think of Naco, that little port of entry in southern Arizona. I 
think of Douglas. I am telling you, the problem that this bill has is 
it doesn't--if that is the goal. There are other problems, but if that 
is the goal, this language has not been specific enough.
  I also have talked with those who have had the secondary inspection. 
If we are referring to the implementation of the travel restriction--
and I think the world, including the administration, admitted that it 
was rolled out poorly--that is a different animal than what happens on 
a normal basis.
  I think of the San Luis Port of Entry or the Nogales Port of Entry, 
but, particularly, San Luis. It gets so much traffic through there. I 
can't imagine what will happen when you try to bog down everything by 
allowing everyone who moves to a secondary inspection have counsel or 
some other interested party, who we don't really know who that is. That 
is not defined very well, either.
  I think of all the commercial truck traffic that comes through 
Nogales. We don't inspect but a small fraction of vehicles coming 
through there. It is very difficult to move traffic. The infrastructure 
itself is not conducive to this.
  I will just say, the one thing I was reminded of as I was reviewing 
this bill for this debate today--and it really kind of came out in the 
debate when someone was talking about this notion of where we are now, 
which is if you become a focus of a criminal investigation, you do get 
counsel. You get that opportunity for counsel.
  I started thinking that, yes, exactly, this is what we are doing. We 
are saying now, in a civil administrative function, we are going to 
give you a right to counsel. Are we going to expand that to every area 
where there are civil administrative regulatory violations or potential 
violations? The answer is that would be absolutely, totally bizarre. It 
would be unworkable, just as this will be unworkable.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this 
legislation forward and to our colleague, Ms. Jayapal, for 
extraordinary work on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, you can learn an awful lot about a country by its 
approach to justice. You learn about its values, about the people it 
protects first, about the arc of its history, about the injustice it 
tolerates and the inequities it reinforces.
  When you aim that spotlight on our Nation, what it reveals is not 
pretty. It is not something to be proud of. Because for millions of 
people who call this Nation home, justice is not a guarantee. It is 
something withheld. It is something far too many will never experience.
  Very few battle that injustice more frequently than immigrants who 
arrive on our shores and at our border because they believe in the 
promise of our Nation. If we believe in that same promise as fiercely 
as they do, we shouldn't be scared to provide them with justice, with, 
at the very least, access to legal counsel.
  Madam Speaker, we need to pass this bill to, at the very least, take 
a small step forward in living up to those ideals, and we need to do it 
today.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will just say this, I appreciate the sponsor of this 
indicating that, in their interpretation, a simple phone call would 
suffice. I don't think that is the way CBP is interpreting this. I 
think they are interpreting this that they are going to have to build 
out infrastructure so there can be private facilities for counsel to 
meet with these folks.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to go back to this and indicate there are 
a multiplicity of issues with this bill, but some things that I want to 
reiterate.
  I think the bill is a step forward to providing state-funded counsel 
for folks who are here getting a secondary inspection, which in the 
vast majority of cases is almost perfunctory and incidental and is very 
quick, in the normal case.
  Again, I think it is bad facts--or, actually, good facts to make the 
argument. It is not going to make good policy. You are, again, arguing 
implementation of the travel restriction, which wasn't great.
  But the norm--the norm--if you get down to the border and spend time, 
as I have many times, you are going to see these secondary inspections 
are short, perfunctory. There is no need of counsel. They almost always 
turn out well for the person that is delayed, except for when they are 
a danger. Then, it becomes a problem, and they get an opportunity for 
counsel because now you have a criminal focus on them. That is the key 
here.

  So, expanding this to civil cases, which is exactly what you are 
doing here, and putting us in line to walk down to where we ultimately 
are going to pay for that, that is not great policy. That is bad 
policy, and I am urging my folks to oppose this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I find it bizarre to suggest that you shouldn't vote 
for a bill because some other bill may do something that you don't 
like. This bill does not provide--I personally think maybe it would be 
a good idea, but that is not this bill. This bill does not provide for 
funded counsel in any way. It doesn't do that. Maybe I should introduce 
a bill to do that. That is not this bill, so let's forget about that.
  This bill simply says that if an individual is held--an individual 
who may be an America citizen, who may be a green card holder, who if 
improperly, by mistake, is sent out of the country and may be forbidden 
from applying to come back in for 5 years, with all kinds of problems, 
who may be a cancer researcher who is supposed to work at Rockefeller 
Institute or Johns Hopkins or wherever and would be denied his or her 
talents because of a mistake.
  All this bill says is that if someone is held in secondary inspection 
for at least an hour, they must be given an opportunity to call 
counsel, to call other people, to call their brother-in-law, to call 
whoever, and to communicate. That is all the bill says.
  I fail to understand why it is at all controversial. It will prevent 
the kind of tragic mistakes that have been made in the past. It will 
prevent the kind of confusion that we saw, that I personally saw at the 
airport when people were held for hours and hours and weren't permitted 
to talk to counsel standing outside the door, when I physically had to 
prevent the door from closing and dared them to arrest a Member of 
Congress in order to allow an immigrant with valid papers to speak to 
an attorney who was standing on the other side of the door.
  That is what this bill is. It is simple. It is humane. It is 
commonsensical and ought to be adopted. I urge everyone to vote for 
this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor and senior 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I rise in strong and 
enthusiastic support of H.R. 5581, the ``Access to Counsel Act of 
2020,'' which ensures that certain individuals who are subjected to 
prolonged inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at 
ports of entry have a meaningful opportunity to communicate with 
counsel and other interested parties.
  This important legislation amends section 235 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) to require the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) to ensure that certain individuals can communicate with counsel 
and other interested parties if they are subjected to prolonged 
inspection by CBP.
  The protections afforded by the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 would 
apply to individuals who possess valid travel documents, but who are 
pulled out of the ``primary'' inspection line and referred to 
``secondary'' inspection for extended processing.
  If such individuals are held in secondary inspection for at least one 
hour, they must be permitted to communicate with counsel and other 
interested parties.
  Counsel and interested parties would be able to provide information 
and documentation to the inspecting officer to facilitate the 
inspection process and offer support and assistance to the individual 
subject to inspection.

[[Page H3642]]

  Madam Speaker, the stakes can be high for a person wrongfully refused 
admission and the consequences of being denied admission to the United 
States can be significant.
  For example, a U.S. research institution may lose the opportunity to 
employ a next generation cancer researcher if that researcher is denied 
admission despite possessing a valid nonimmigrant visa.
  Individuals who are refused admission may be unable to reunite with 
their families, receive critical medical care unavailable in their home 
country, or pursue higher education at a U.S. college or university.
  Although some individuals may be permitted to withdraw their 
application for admission and return home without long term 
consequences, others may be ordered removed without a hearing or 
further review under ``expedited removal.''
  An individual who receives an expedited removal order is barred from 
returning to the United States for five years.
  Communication protocols are inconsistent across ports of entry and 
CBP provides no public guidance on an individual's ability to 
communicate with counsel and other individuals during the inspection 
process.
  According to an American Immigration Council report, CBP policies and 
practices on access to counsel vary from one office to another.''
  While some ports of entry completely bar counsel in primary or 
secondary inspection,'' others provide specific procedures for 
interacting with counsel or provide the inspecting officer with broad 
discretion to decide whether and with whom to communicate.
  Madam Speaker, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 ensures that no one 
is cut off from the world due to the Administration's hasty and 
mismanaged rollout of the Muslim ban and the widespread chaos that it 
engendered at airports across the nation.
  Affected individuals were detained at airports for hours, and many 
were sent back to their home countries without the ability to contact 
their families or receive the assistance of counsel.
  Reports of similar treatment surfaced in January 2020, as tensions 
between Iran and the United States escalated and up to 200 individuals 
of Iranian descent were detained and questioned in secondary inspection 
at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington.
  These individuals--many of whom were U.S. citizens or permanent 
residents, including seniors and children--were held for several hours, 
with some reportedly held for up to 12 hours.
  Madam Speaker, although complications in the inspection process can 
arise in response to sweeping changes in immigration policy or shifting 
world events, the greatest impact on individuals comes from the 
consistent lack of access to counsel and other assistance at ports of 
entry on a day-to-day basis.
  All individuals--including U.S. citizens--who seek to lawfully enter 
the United States are subject to inspection by CBP officers at ports of 
entry.
  Without access to counsel and other parties, many individuals are 
refused admission or issued an expedited removal order instead of being 
provided the chance to vindicate their rights and lawfully enter the 
country.
  The Access to Counsel Act will ensure individuals who are seeking to 
lawfully enter the United States are treated fairly and with dignity.
  The bill permits counsel and interested parties to appear in person 
at the port of entry, but also gives DHS and CBP enough discretion to 
determine--based on operational and other practical limitations--how 
the consultation takes place.
  The bill provides extra protection for lawful permanent residents 
(LPRs) by prohibiting DHS from accepting a Record of Abandonment of 
Lawful Permanent Resident Status from an LPR without first providing 
the LPR a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel.
  Madam Speaker, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 is supported by an 
impressive coalition of highly respected organizations, including: 
Amnesty International; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); America's 
Voice; American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA); Coalition for 
Humane Immigrant Rights; Immigration Hub; and National Iranian American 
Council (NIAC).
  I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5581, the Access 
to Counsel Act of 2020.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5581, the 
``Access to Counsel Act of 2020'', a bill that will ensure that 
individuals who lawfully present themselves at our ports of entry are 
treated fairly and allowed to communicate with counsel and other 
parties if they are subjected to prolonged inspection.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act provides individuals in removal 
proceedings the right to representation at no expense to the 
government. Although federal regulations extend this right to 
immigration-related ``examinations,'' applicants for admission--
specifically those in primary or secondary inspection--are excluded 
unless they become the focus of a criminal investigation.
  However, our immigration laws are complex, and so are some questions 
regarding an individual's admissibility.
  Access to outside assistance is important to ensure that CBP has a 
complete understanding of the facts and the law before deciding 
admissibility. That is because grave consequences can result from being 
refused admission--consequences that extend well beyond simply turning 
around and getting back on a plane.
  Individuals who are refused admission may be unable to reunite with 
their families or receive critical medical care unavailable in their 
home country. They may be turned away from a U.S. employer who 
desperately needs their skills. Or they may be denied the opportunity 
to pursue higher education at a U.S. college or university.
  If that weren't enough, they could also be subject to a 5-year bar to 
returning to the United States if they are issued an expedited removal 
order.
  That is why this legislation is so critical.
  By allowing individuals who lawfully present themselves for 
inspection at a port of entry to communicate with counsel or other 
interested parties with information relevant to their request for 
admission, CBP will be better equipped to correctly resolve legal 
uncertainties and individuals will be treated more equitably.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Jayapal 
for her leadership and commitment to this issue. Her efforts led to the 
introduction of this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to 
support the Access to Counsel Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the previous question is ordered on 
this portion of the divided question.
  The question is: Will the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
the House amendment specified in section 4(b) of House Resolution 891?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________