[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2005-H2016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NATIONAL ORIGIN-BASED ANTIDISCRIMINATION FOR NONIMMIGRANTS ACT

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1333) to transfer and limit Executive Branch 
authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 330, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1333

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. 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 striking ``Except as specifically provided in 
     paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 
     and 203, no'' and inserting ``No'';
       (2) 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'';
       (3) by inserting ``religion,'' after ``sex,''; and
       (4) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except as specifically provided in paragraph 
     (2), in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, if 
     otherwise expressly required by statute, or if a statutorily 
     authorized benefit takes into consideration such factors''.

     SEC. 3. 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 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;
       ``(D) consider waivers to any class-based restriction or 
     suspension and apply a rebuttable presumption in favor of 
     granting family-based and humanitarian waivers; and
       ``(E) comply with all provisions of this Act.
       ``(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.''.

     SEC. 4. 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 3 of this Act, that describes the 
     implementation of Presidential Proclamations 9645, 9822, and 
     9983 and Executive Orders 13769, 13780, and 13815, during the 
     effective period of each such proclamation and order.
       (2) Presidential proclamation 9645 and 9983.--In addition 
     to the content described in

[[Page H2006]]

     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 were 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 3 of this Act, 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 (G) of 
     subsection (a)(2) of this section and the 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 such congressional committees 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. 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. 1333.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1333, the National Origin-Based 
Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or NO BAN Act, is an 
important step toward reining in executive overreach and preserving the 
power of Congress to establish our Nation's immigration laws.
  Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA, 
authorizes the President to suspend the entry of noncitizens when the 
President finds that their entry would be detrimental to U.S. 
interests.
  From 1952, when this provision was enacted, until January 2017, 
Presidents of both parties invoked section 212(f) to exclude only 
narrow groups of individuals, such as human rights violators, North 
Korean officials, and individuals seeking to overthrow governments, for 
reasons that would clearly serve the national interest.
  But former President Trump abused this authority, twisting it in ways 
that were never intended. He first used it to deliver on his campaign 
promise to ban Muslims from the United States, an immoral and 
disastrous policy that traumatized children and families and made us no 
safer, while weakening our standing in the world.
  The former President then used this section to rewrite immigration 
laws with which he disagreed. For example, the INA expressly provides 
asylum eligibility to any individual who arrives in the United States 
``whether or not at a designated port of arrival.'' However, President 
Trump invoked section 212(f) to deny asylum to persons who cross the 
southern border between ports of entry, in direct conflict with the 
statute. Fortunately, the judiciary agreed that this was unlawful and 
stopped the policy from taking effect.
  H.R. 1333 will prevent such executive overreach by amending section 
212(f) to ensure it is used in a manner consistent with its intended 
purpose and historical norms.
  Although President Biden has repealed the egregious orders of the 
Trump era, including the Muslim ban, we must pass the NO BAN Act to 
ensure that this authority is never abused again. In advancing this 
legislation today, we uphold our Nation's founding ideals and reaffirm 
our commitment to the rule of law.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Members on both sides of the 
aisle should agree that no President, Republican or Democratic, should 
be permitted to usurp the powers of the legislative branch enshrined in 
the Constitution. The separation of powers is fundamental to our 
democratic Republic, and it must be protected.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Judy 
Chu, for her leadership and her steadfast commitment to this issue. Her 
efforts led to the introduction of the NO BAN Act, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock), the ranking member of the Immigration 
and Citizenship Subcommittee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, this bill presents a very simple 
question: Should we all but strip the President of his authority to 
restrict travel from countries that pose a danger to the United States?
  Ronald Reagan and George Bush used this authority to protect our 
country. So, too, did Barack Obama and even Joe Biden as recently as 
January 25.
  President Trump invoked this authority against countries that were 
hotbeds of international terrorism and that were not cooperating with 
the United States in providing basic information about travelers coming 
from these countries. Now, the left calls it a Muslim ban. What 
nonsense. The President's orders affected only a tiny fraction of 
Muslim-majority countries and a sizable number of non-Muslim countries. 
The Supreme Court cited this obvious truth when it fully upheld the 
President's actions. In fact, when a rogue government changed its 
policy and cooperated with us, the restrictions were lifted.
  Without this authority, the President would have been powerless to 
take simple, prudent precautions against terrorists and criminals from 
entering the United States.
  The President's ability to protect against threats, negotiate 
security protocols, and, when necessary, retaliate against 
discriminatory actions by other countries depends on his having this 
power at his immediate disposal.
  This bill, instead, forbids the President from taking action until he 
can show that it is the weakest possible measure at his disposal. It 
requires him to get his own Secretary of State's permission, which is a 
constitutional absurdity, and it gives anyone who claims any harm the 
standing to block an order in Federal district court.
  So, I ask, in this world that is becoming increasingly threatening 
and unstable, does this bill make us more safe or less safe? The answer 
should be self-evident to anyone who is not completely besotted with 
the woke insanity of the radical left.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu), the author of this legislation.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my 
legislation, the NO BAN Act.
  The Muslim ban was always wrong, needless, and cruel. Today, we can 
make sure it never happens again.
  First, this policy was wrong. America does not ban people because of 
their religion, and the Supreme Court acknowledged this. When they 
upheld the

[[Page H2007]]

third iteration of Trump's Muslim ban, the Court insisted that, in 
order to prove this wasn't just a religious ban, the Trump 
administration would have to issue waivers to allow those we know not 
to be a threat to travel here. But that waiver process was a sham, with 
almost all requests ignored, proving the purpose of the ban was to keep 
Muslims out of the country, just as Donald Trump always said it was.
  Second, the policy was needless. As the Supreme Court's waiver 
requirement recognized, America has the best and strongest vetting 
system in the world. Many of those stopped by the Muslim ban had been 
vetted by U.S. officials many times over many years. I have met with 
many of them myself. These are people who are trying to escape 
dangerous situations or who simply wanted a chance at a better life. 
They turned to the U.S., as countless others have done over the 
generations. But instead of opportunity, they were met with bigotry, 
sometimes just days before they were supposed to arrive here.
  Which is why, thirdly, this ban was about cruelty. Afraid to leave 
America out of fear they wouldn't be able to return, or unable to visit 
here at all, families were intentionally isolated from each other, 
missing weddings, funerals, births, and graduations.
  This past year has shown us what the impact of missing such 
milestones feels like. To do it deliberately is inexcusable.
  Thousands of families were separated by this policy simply because of 
a lie that Muslims are dangerous, a lie that encouraged bigotry and 
xenophobia, even as hate crimes are on the rise.
  Fortunately, President Biden understood the harm of this policy and 
rescinded the Muslim bans on his first day in office. But we must make 
sure no President is ever able to ban people from coming to the U.S. 
simply because of their religion, which is why I am so pleased that we 
are voting to pass the NO BAN Act today.
  While preserving a President's ability to respond to national 
emergencies like pandemics, this bill amends the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to require that any future travel ban is based on 
credible facts and actual threats. The bill also requires the President 
to work in consultation with the Departments of State and Homeland 
Security to provide evidence of why a ban is needed in the first place.
  I am so grateful to Chairman Nadler, as well as my House and Senate 
cosponsors, for their support, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, if this bill passes, the President may only 
act if the Secretary of State allows him to act, and that is backward. 
The Secretary of State should not be authorized in statute to tell the 
President, the Secretary of State's boss, that the President may act. 
It is antithetical to the executive powers as set forth in the United 
States Constitution.
  Let me say that again. H.R. 1333 gives the authority to initiate a 
suspension of entry not to the President but to the Secretary of State 
in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  But it is the President, in whom all executive power vests, who 
should determine whether to suspend entry and not just in consultation 
with or the permission of the State and Homeland Security Departments.
  While we are discussing this, we have a crisis on our border, a 
crisis created by this President. For months, he refused to acknowledge 
the crisis. When he accidentally slipped and said it was a crisis, we 
were later told he didn't really mean it was a crisis.
  Well, here is the deal. You are housing illegal aliens in hotels. 
That is the kind of crisis this has become. The situation is so bad 
that the Biden administration has reopened and expanded facilities to 
house illegal aliens who have surged across the border.
  President Biden inherited a secure border and policies that were 
working and, instead, has created an inhumane border crisis.
  If he wants to solve the crisis, he needs to finish construction of 
the wall; reinstate the migrant protection protocols; reinstate the 
asylum cooperative agreements with Honduras, Guatemala, and El 
Salvador; and remove the other incentives to come, like $1,400 from the 
COVID package that was just recently passed.
  He can bring it under control, but the best way to bring it under 
control is to move immigration judges to the southern border to deal 
with asylum cases that are occurring today, not the backlog. Those 
people are already in here. Deal with those cases today.
  Getting back to this bill, it is representative of an executive 
branch that is willing to give over and cede Presidential authority to 
Cabinet members instead of the President himself. This bill should not 
be passed. It should not even be considered.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1333, 
the NO BAN Act.
  This legislation would prevent future abuses of power committed by 
the previous administration through its xenophobic Muslim ban, a 
despicable policy which undermined one of our Nation's founding 
principles, freedom of religion.
  My home State of Rhode Island was established by Roger Williams on 
the principle of religious liberty and separation of church and state, 
and his leadership inspired the Framers of our Constitution to 
incorporate these principles into our founding documents. This 
legislation will help to preserve that principle.
  From the very beginning, former President Trump was clear about 
exactly what his policy was, an explicit attempt to keep out as many 
people from Muslim-majority countries as possible, regardless of 
whether they were seeking refuge or asylum. It was never designed to 
make us safer. It was simply a way to spark fear and hatred among our 
citizens.
  On his first day in office, thankfully, President Biden rescinded 
this policy.
  Yet the impact of the Muslim ban remains. After 4 years of having 
this policy in place, the time it takes to reimplement normal 
immigration and travel policies brings delays in otherwise routine 
procedures, such as obtaining visas, thus delaying the reunion of 
families.
  Thankfully, however, with the Muslim ban rescinded, those families 
can take comfort in knowing they are a step closer to once again being 
with their loved ones.
  Despite this, it remains necessary to pass this NO BAN Act. Without 
making the necessary reforms to prevent the abuses of power of the 
previous administration, they could simply be put back in place by a 
future President.
  The NO BAN Act makes it unequivocally clear that we stand by the 
American ideal of freedom of religion. It will provide the necessary 
limitations on the President's ability to use overly broad terms to 
inappropriately and indiscriminately target and label entire groups of 
racial, ethnic, or religious minorities because of who they choose to 
worship.
  We must not tolerate discriminatory actions that undermine our core 
values and threaten our Nation's health and safety.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the NO BAN 
Act. I thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership, and I 
thank Congresswoman Judy Chu for her extraordinary leadership in this 
regard.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, at the heart of Democrats' border 
security policies is the assumption that America can assume an 
unlimited number of illegal immigrants without considering its impact 
on jobs, communities, security, and, in today's world, health.
  This assumption defies all historical evidence. More importantly, it 
defies the evidence right before our very eyes.
  Madam Speaker, in the last month alone, Border Patrol apprehended the 
largest surge of migrants in 20 years, 172,000 individuals in one 
single month. By September, we are on track to encounter 2 million 
illegal immigrants. Now, that is about twice the size of the population 
of Delaware, President Biden's home State.

[[Page H2008]]

  The surge was directly caused by the actions of the Biden 
administration. On day one, President Biden issued five executive 
orders that reversed the commonsense immigration policies that were 
working.
  Then his administration sent mixed signals to migrants that now is 
not the time to come, but promising not to deport children and many 
families.
  Now, as Monday's order demonstrates, the White House is more 
concerned with policing Border Patrol's language than it is protecting 
our border.
  I am very glad that President Biden finally admitted that there is a 
crisis at the border, but what we really need is for him to admit that 
his policies and rhetoric caused the crisis to begin with.
  The results of this crisis are as predictable as they are disastrous, 
for both migrants and American citizens. Just this past weekend, the 
Biden administration was forced to shut down a Houston migrant center 
for children because of unbearable conditions. Hundreds of 
unaccompanied minors had to be shuttled somewhere else.
  I know everybody in this body understands that that is heartbreaking. 
It is also a public health risk. That is because the Biden 
administration is releasing migrants into American cities without 
negative COVID tests, without court dates, and without a way to track 
where they will go. Already, that number is up to 15,000.
  Now, Madam Speaker, that doesn't come from me. I saw it on the news 
today from a Democratic colleague who put this number out and said it 
was disastrous.
  But the border crisis isn't just a humanitarian and public health 
crisis. It is also a national security crisis. Last month, I shared 
some alarming news. When I was down on the border, I was speaking to 
the Border Patrol agents, and they informed me that individuals on the 
terrorist watch list were caught trying to enter our country.
  Madam Speaker, I know how much you care about protecting this country 
from terrorism. I thought everybody on your side of the aisle would 
care just as much. Unfortunately, Congressman Gallego accused me of 
lying. Congresswoman Escobar said I was trying to fuel division, Madam 
Speaker.
  But the Customs and Border Protection agency confirmed that four 
suspected terrorists had been caught. Since then, more suspected 
terrorists have been caught at different times and different places, 
from Yemen, but not on the same day; two different individuals.
  Now, I am sure, maybe because of the challenges with COVID and the 
distance we must keep, that I have not received the apology of being 
accused of being a liar on a national security issue, but I assume that 
will come shortly.

  The security problem also includes a flow of drugs. When I was on 
that same border in El Paso, talking to some of those same agents, they 
told me they have never seen the amount of fentanyl that has come 
across the border in the last month. Americans are dying because the 
cartels are exploiting the Biden border crisis to make a profit. 
Fentanyl overdoses are surging across the country.
  Now, in my home State, Madam Speaker, the Speaker's hometown of San 
Francisco saw more fentanyl-related deaths last year than COVID-related 
deaths, according to The Wall Street Journal.
  Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine anything more shortsighted than 
doubling down on Biden's failed border policies. But, incredibly, as I 
sit on this floor, the House Democrats want to respond to this 
humanitarian, public health, and national security crisis by passing 
recycled legislation from the last Congress.
  I know, Madam Speaker, the Speaker doesn't want us to work in 
committees and wants to do it from afar, but I still think we could 
have new ideas to a bigger problem created by a new administration.
  They want to strip future Presidents of their authority to keep 
Americans safe. That is what the NO BAN Act does.
  They also want to grant foreign nationals access to lawyers. But 
foreign nationals have never been entitled to this privilege before, 
and it will cost taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years. That may 
not sound like much if you just want to throw trillions out there, but 
that is hardworking taxpayers' money. It is a lot of money.
  But are Democrats working to repair the crisis its radical policies 
caused? No.
  Are they working to stop the mass flow of illegal migration? No.
  Are they working to secure our borders? No.
  Vice President Harris has refused to visit the border for 28 days.
  By contrast, more than one-third of the House Republicans have been 
to the border and seen the crisis for themselves. There have even been 
some bipartisan trips, Madam Speaker. And I was very excited to hear 
that, in the bipartisan trip, questions were asked.
  My understanding was the very first question one of our Democrat 
colleagues asked was: Is it really true we are catching terrorists?
  And the shock on their face when the border agent said: Yes, from the 
terrorist watch list, we have caught them.
  What is really concerning to me, if you read The Washington Post, is 
the thousands of people who come across per day who are not caught.
  How many terrorists are in that group? How much fentanyl are those 
people carrying?
  What we learned has led directly to the action we have taken here in 
Congress.
  Two weeks ago, Dr. Miller-Meeks introduced a bill to require a 
negative COVID-19 test before any illegal immigrant is released from 
custody.
  Madam Speaker, I was shocked that your side of the aisle blocked it.
  Last week, Representative Carter and Representative Peter Meijer 
offered a motion to combat the trafficking of fentanyl analogues, which 
are 100 times deadlier than regular fentanyl.
  Democrats blocked it, even though 137 of them voted for the same 
motion last year.
  Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker? 137 on your side of the aisle 
voted just last year for that amendment. I guess things have changed.
  Madam Speaker, Congress needs to do the right thing here. We should 
not be wasting our time on recycled legislation that weakens our 
national security. We simply need to return to commonsense border 
security policies that work.
  We need to finish the wall and deploy technology to the border.
  We need to fully reinstate the ``remain in Mexico'' policy and 
maintain the robustly implemented Title 42 authority.
  We need to require a negative COVID test before releasing migrants. I 
think that would be common sense. Most Americans have to have that.
  We need to send a clear message: Do not come to the United States 
illegally.
  Madam Speaker, if we want to fix the crisis, we need to fix its root 
cause. But that root cause isn't only in Guatemala, El Salvador, or 
Honduras; it is right here in Washington, D.C.
  You see, Madam Speaker, before the crisis hit, there wasn't 
legislation that was passed. It was just on day one with executive 
orders. So all they have to do is do the exact same thing they did, 
take the pen and bring them back. Let's bring common sense back to 
solutions.
  Madam Speaker, why don't we bring new ideas to committees? Why don't 
we have Members show up for work? And why don't we have committees 
actually work instead of just picking old ideas when they have created 
a new problem that will only expand it further?
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
leadership, and I thank Congresswoman Judy Chu for her leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I rise with great enthusiasm for the National Origin-
Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, and that is the NO BAN 
Act.
  I proclaim a breath of fresh air, and that was the election of 2020 
and the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala 
Harris, who made it very clear what our position is as it relates to 
those who come to this country.

[[Page H2009]]

  First of all, they did not turn a blind eye to the Statue of Liberty, 
which acknowledges the fact that we are a refuge for those who are 
fleeing persecution. They also understood that we are not a country 
that discriminates against individuals simply because of their 
religion. That is what the NO BAN Act represented. It had nothing to do 
with terrorism.
  I wonder why President Trump never said anything about domestic 
terrorists? Why didn't they have a structure to ban them, the very 
terrorists that jumped this Capitol on January 6th?
  I am reminded of a little 15-year-old on the day that the ban was 
issued. When I was flying in from Washington, I went straight over to 
the international terminal because my staff had called me and others 
had called me. This little boy, innocent, with legal documents, a 
tourist visa, coming to visit his family, innocently indicated who he 
was. And, of course, by law, those CBP officers had to detain him.

                              {time}  1300

  Do you know what was worse? He was not able to see anyone at that 
time, but more importantly, he wound up in Chicago.
  And so I rise to support the NO BAN Act, and I indicate that there is 
a policy. The border is closed. The Vice President will be working on a 
broader plan for dealing with the border. The shelter in Houston was a 
temporary shelter. It was an emergency shelter. It was rightly closed 
when other beds were found. 130 of those children were reunited with 
their families. This bill is important.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am delighted that this bill 
includes an important provision of mine offered last year during the 
committee markup, which requires the administration to report to 
Congress on the impacts, positive, negative, and unintended of any 
action by the President pursuant to executive orders.
  We know that banning Nigeria was the wrong thing to do, and I support 
the NO BAN Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, this is a dangerous piece of legislation 
that comes at a time when our national security and our public health 
are being threatened by a dire crisis at our southern border.
  Only Democrats would bring a bill to the floor during a surge at our 
southern border that would make it easier for terrorists to enter our 
country. As someone who served in the war on terror and served in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the last thing we should be doing as a Nation 
is making it easier for terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other 
terrorist-harboring nations to travel to the United States.
  Despite the harrowing statistics we see coming from the southern 
border with record-setting numbers of illegal crossings and 
unaccompanied minors, my colleagues on the left continue to ignore and 
downplay the actual facts, while terrorists and COVID-positive illegal 
immigrants are granted unprecedented access to our country.
  The Biden administration has driven illegal crossings up to historic 
highs by encouraging more illegal immigration and loosening 
restrictions to give criminals a free pass. These policy reversals, and 
now this legislation, will be directly responsible for what will go 
down in history as our biggest failure of border security in our 
lifetime.
  Now, rather than addressing the hundreds of thousands of illegal 
border crossings this year, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are still spending their time trying to attack the successful 
policies from the Trump administration that actually drove our border 
numbers down and kept Americans safe.
  Rather than attacking the Trump administration at the expense of the 
American people, my colleagues on the left should instead think about 
spending their time trying to reinstate some of his policies that were 
proven effective, like continuing border wall construction or ending 
chain migration.
  Even more hypocritical, while telling American citizens to stay home 
from work, school and to refrain from normal life due to a global 
pandemic, legislation like this keeps sending the message to illegal 
aliens, even those from dangerous countries, that the United States is 
open for them to flood our borders and be taken care of by our 
taxpayers.
  At a time when there is a border crisis, a global pandemic, and 
emerging national security threats, we should not be handicapping any 
current or future President from exercising their executive authority 
to keep our country safe.
  In fact, the Obama-Biden administration used this authority 19 times 
during their administration. The only reason why my colleagues are 
pushing this is because of their hatred for President Trump and his 
actions to restrict entry from certain countries that protected our 
national security.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairperson of the 
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, this is an important step towards the 
enactment of the NO BAN Act, which would prevent overreach in a 
President's authority to suspend the entry of noncitizens into the 
United States under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
  As a candidate for President, Donald Trump promised to ban ``all 
Muslims'' from entering the U.S., and he suggested without any evidence 
that it would somehow make our country safer.
  Immediately after his election and swearing in, he tried to deliver 
on that promise by using section 212(f), claiming the admission of 
individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries would be detrimental 
to the U.S. interests.
  In court, the Trump administration claimed the ban was necessary to 
keep our country safe from terrorists. And yet, a bipartisan coalition 
of former national security officials strongly rebuked those claims.
  In addition to this ban, President Trump also relied on section 
212(f) to circumvent clear statutory requirements related to asylum. 
Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically allows 
individuals to apply for asylum ``whether or not they arrive at a 
designated port of arrival.''
  The law could not be clearer. But apparently unhappy with it, the 
President invoked section 212(f) to categorically deny asylum to those 
who cross the border between ports of entry rather than seeking to 
amend the law by working with Congress.
  This was an attempt to rewrite our Nation's immigration laws in 
direct violation of the constitutional separation of powers. The power 
to write the law is ours, not the President's.

  Fortunately, this ban has now been reversed by President Biden, but 
this bill is still important. It is important to take action to prevent 
any future President from trying to usurp the legislative power of the 
Congress.
  I thank Representative Chu for her persistence in pursuing this bill, 
and I think it is important to note that the President, if this bill 
passes, retains ample authority to act in the national interests of the 
United States to protect our security.
  The bill allows the President to suspend the entry of individuals or 
class of individuals if he determines that they would undermine the 
security of the United States.
  To be clear, under the current bill, if the President determines 
there is a national security issue related to a particular country that 
is so significant that it could only be addressed by suspending the 
admission of all nationals of that country, the President could still 
do so.
  It is important that we also address the issue of children at the 
border. This bill isn't about children at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we can do more than one thing at once. We 
need to make sure that the law is adhered to by the President. We also 
need to deal with the issue of unaccompanied children at the border and 
deal with the crisis in Central America that is causing it.

[[Page H2010]]

  

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, 172,331 border patrol 
apprehensions in March, a 233 percent increase in fentanyl seized, the 
worst crisis in 15 years, but more than that, no peak in sight.
  President Biden and the Democratic majority bury their heads in the 
sand. They have put the United States Government, charged with 
enforcing the border, in the service of Mexican drug cartels and their 
criminal enterprises. I have been there. I have heard from the CBP.
  And Democrats choose this moment to advance this bill to hobble the 
authority of the President of the United States to protect the Nation 
by excluding foreign nationals he or she might identify as posing a 
danger. Think North Korea.
  In fact, they strip the President and transfer to the secretary of 
state and Homeland Security the President's longstanding authority to 
protect the Nation in this way.
  And in case you would have concluded otherwise by the rhetoric, this 
is not limited to a religious criteria for entry.
  I offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to defer the 
effectiveness of this unwise legislation--to understate--until the 
current crisis can be brought under control by restoring the Trump 
administration's successful remain in Mexico policy. But Democrats 
rejected that and refused to consider it on the floor.
  Customs and Border Protection advised us on our trip the week before 
last that they told the administration revoking the remain in Mexico 
policy would cause a disaster. But they did it anyway.
  And here they have doubled down. Just the latest evidence that 
today's crisis is intentional. There is no intention to control it. 
There is an intention, yes, there is a plan, but the plan is to build 
out the capacity for bringing people illegally into the United States. 
This is a crisis. They serve not the people of America. You can't have 
a country if you don't have a voice.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for his 
yielding and for his leadership.
  The foundational model of this country is e pluribus unum, out of 
many, one. It doesn't say out of many Europeans, one. It doesn't say 
out of many Anglo-Saxons, one. It doesn't say out of many Confederate 
sympathizers, one. It doesn't say out of many Christians, one. It 
certainly doesn't say out of many nations, except Muslim countries, 
one.
  E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. That is what makes America a great 
country. And no matter what xenophobic behavior is coming out of the 
halls of power in this country, we are not going to let anyone take 
that away from us; not now, not ever.
  Vote ``yes'' on the NO BAN Act so we can continue our country's long, 
necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect Union.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, wow, the rhetoric is hot today. Bigotry, 
xenophobia, Muslim ban, racism, discrimination. This is what is coming 
from the left side of the aisle.
  They say that Biden rescinded Trump's Muslim ban--that he has 
rescinded the Muslim ban. I want to ask them: Which Muslim ban are they 
talking about? Which one are they talking about? Are they talking about 
the one they voted for?
  By the way, I think it is inappropriate to call it a ``Muslim ban.'' 
But let's use their language. Are they talking about the bill that 165 
of them voted for, including the chairman of this committee, the author 
of this bill, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee?
  Are they talking about the bill that they all voted for in 2015 that 
Obama signed into law called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and 
Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? I don't think Trump was 
President in 2015. Obama signed this bill.
  What did it do? It named four countries, not seven. We will get to 
the seven later. It named four countries to ban.

  What were those four countries? By the way, the ACLU was not happy 
about this when Obama and the Democrats on the other side of the aisle 
did it. Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan.
  And now the Democrats are complaining that the President has too much 
power to protect this country, and they want to take some of this back, 
but they gave Obama the power to add three more countries. What were 
the three he added? Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in 2016. Interesting.
  So where does that bring us to? It gets us to seven countries. Did 
they overlap or are they maybe five of the same countries? It is the 
seven exact same countries that the Democrats voted for that everybody 
over on the other side of the aisle who is hurling these claims of 
xenophobia voted for. Those same seven countries are now in and on the 
website at the State Department that Joe Biden runs.
  Now, what does this do? Again, I want to be clear. It is not a total 
ban. But, by the way, Trump's wasn't either. It was a temporary 
suspension. But what they have done, and what Joe Biden perpetuates on 
these same seven countries--this is not a Muslim ban, but he is doing 
it to the same seven countries, perpetuating the Terrorist Travel 
Prevention Act of 2015, he is saying you can't get a visa waiver if you 
are from one of those seven countries.
  Now which is worse? I mean, you can say, okay, it is not racist to 
just make it harder to travel, if we do it for 5 years or do it 
forever, that is not racist or xenophobic. But if you do it for six 
months, like Trump proposed, 180 days, well, now that is racist right 
there.
  This is so ridiculous. I can't even believe they have the audacity to 
pretend they didn't vote in 2015 to add these seven countries.
  Let's just get back to protecting this country. Let's not use these 
bills and these provisions to say that one side is racist, or one side 
is xenophobic, or you are a bunch of bigots. President Obama was not 
xenophobic when he put these seven countries on his list, because they 
were the seven countries that the Democrats on the other side of the 
aisle chose. They are the seven countries that Obama chose.
  I say, let's protect this country and get back to working together.

                  [From the State Department website]

Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 
                                  2015

       Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist 
     Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following 
     categories must obtain a visa prior to traveling to the 
     United States as they are no longer eligible to travel under 
     the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):
       Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been 
     present in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, 
     Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 
     2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or 
     military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
       Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or 
     Syria.
       These individuals can apply for visas using regular 
     appointment processes at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. For 
     those who require a visa for urgent travel to the United 
     States, U.S. Embassies and Consulates stand ready to handle 
     applications on an expedited basis.
       If an individual who is exempt from the Act because of his 
     or her diplomatic or military presence in one of the seven 
     countries has his or her ESTA denied, he or she may go to the 
     CSP website, or contact the CSP information Center. The 
     traveler may also apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. 
     Embassy or Consulate.
       U.S. Customs and Border Protection strongly recommends that 
     any traveler to the United States check his or her ESTA 
     status prior to making any travel reservations or travelling 
     to the United States. More information is available on the 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NO BAN 
Act, and I thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership.
  Yes, let's get back to protecting America. That is what we want to 
do.
  Madam Speaker, Anahita is an asylee from Iran. The last time she 
spoke to her father, he told her that, when she returned home, he would 
sit with her on the terrace and talk politics. That

[[Page H2011]]

never happened. Due to Trump's Muslim ban, Anahita could not get travel 
documents to see her dad before he died or to mourn with her family.
  Madam Speaker, for 4 years, families remained separated. That is not 
the America we want to protect.
  American businesses and universities couldn't recruit top candidates, 
and our Nation's doors were closed to people seeking refuge.
  President Biden rescinded the bans, but we must pass the NO BAN Act 
to prohibit any future President from issuing discriminatory bans.
  Now, that day, I was in my first month here in Congress, when the 
Muslim ban was passed. I rushed to the airport, along with our chairman 
and many other Members of Congress. We worked with attorneys to file 
the national lawsuits that called for an emergency petition that 
blocked the President's order from taking effect.
  We were also able, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to go 
onto the tarmac and stop a plane from taking off because of an 
emergency habeas from a judge there that allowed us to get two people 
back in who should have been here in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, just imagine the hearts and souls of people whose 
lives were thrown into chaos, thinking that they were going to land in 
the United States with valid travel documents and then were turned away 
by a President who issued a Muslim ban. The reason we need this bill is 
to make sure that that can never happen again.
  Madam Speaker, yes, we want to protect America's values. We believe 
that the way to do that is to pass the NO BAN Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would note, for all of our friends and fellow 
citizens who are watching at home on C-SPAN, that you are seeing 
something go across your screen that says, ``Prohibiting Religious-
Based Travel Restrictions.''
  Well, to C-SPAN, I say: Be better. Don't take the talking points from 
my Democrat colleagues about what we are actually debating here on the 
floor of the House because it is not that.
  What we are talking about is a power grab by Democrats who, for some 
reason, want to continue to perpetuate the lie that there was ever a 
Muslim ban. It is literally not true. It is absolutely not true. No 
matter how many times they say it, it doesn't make it more true.
  For example, the gentlewoman referred to litigation. Let's look at 
what the United States Supreme Court said precisely about what 
President Trump did to try to secure the United States from terrorists. 
Let's remember what we are talking about. The President of the United 
States, President Trump, working to secure the United States from 
terrorists, the Court said: ``The proclamation is expressly premised on 
legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be 
adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their 
practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the 
dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently 
included in the proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet, 
that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, 
given that 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 as posing national security 
risks,'' as my friend from Kentucky just laid out.
  Madam Speaker, these are the facts. Do not listen to Democrat talking 
points being thrown on the screen on your C-Span. Do not listen to 
repetitions and lies about Muslim bans when it is not true. The facts 
are completely opposite of that.
  Let's also add one more point here. As we talk about this, our 
borders are wide open. As we talk about this, foreign nationals come in 
between ports of entry because Border Patrol is distracted, processing 
immigrants who come here because Democrat policies entice them to be 
abused by cartels while cartels have operational control of our border, 
while they create a narco-terrorist state in Mexico, and while they 
exist in the district that I represent, where children are in cars 
being driven by American citizen employees of the Cartel del Noreste, 
being taken to stash houses to be put into the sex trade.
  Then, we sit here and listen to this? This is what we are focusing 
on, taking away the constitutional authority of the President to 
protect us from terrorists while terrorists are able to come into our 
southern border between ports of entry because my Democratic colleagues 
and this administration flat out refuse to do their job to secure the 
border of the United States?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, when the President first announced his 
Muslim ban, I immediately went to LAX. I went because constituents were 
telling me that they couldn't get their relatives into the U.S. 
Individuals who were traveling to the U.S. that had been approved 
by the U.S. State Department could not enter the U.S. I saw people who 
thought they were here for a regular, routine visit approved by the 
U.S. Government denied--denied on a whim.

  This bill is simply about making sure that no future President--Obama 
or Trump--will ever be able to deny entry into the U.S. based on 
religion or race. That is what the bill is. It is not about any 
specific President. It is about doing the right thing in America.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
  Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Jordan for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, right now, we have an immigration disaster at the 
southern border of the Biden administration's own creation. Instead of 
putting a stop to this madness, my colleagues across the aisle are 
encouraging this open borders agenda by bringing the NO BAN Act to the 
floor today.
  The NO BAN Act limits the President's ability to make executive 
decisions about who should be allowed to enter our country. This would 
dangerously weaken the President's executive authority on important 
issues related to national security.
  To put this reckless idea into perspective, Customs and Border Patrol 
agents recently caught two Yemeni terrorists at the southern border. 
Thank God, law enforcement caught these terrorists, but this is exactly 
why executive authority on immigration issues needs to remain in place.
  Madam Speaker, a responsible President would notice what is going on 
at the southern border and use his authority to step in for the sake of 
national security. It is naive to believe there aren't bad actors who 
want to hurt Americans actively trying to exploit this ongoing crisis.
  President Biden needs to use his executive authority to solve the 
immigration and national security crisis his administration has 
created. If he is not physically or mentally capable of doing this, he 
should step down.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding and for his leadership. What a busy time in the Committee on 
the Judiciary, bringing two bills to the floor today, with all the work 
that went into them under Chairman Nadler's leadership.
  Madam Speaker, here we are, under the gaze of our patriarch, George 
Washington, right there in this Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, 230 years ago, our patriarch, George Washington, who 
watches over us in this Chamber, famously wrote to the Hebrew 
Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. In that letter, he made a 
promise that would be our Nation's guide for centuries to come.
  He wrote: All possess ``liberty of conscience. . . . It is now no 
more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of 
one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent 
natural rights.''

[[Page H2012]]

  He went on to say: ``For happily the Government of the United States, 
which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, 
requires only that they who live under its protection should demean 
themselves as good citizens.''
  Today, by passing the NO BAN Act, the House is upholding that 
fundamental promise--``to bigotry no sanction''--by taking action to 
ensure that no President or administration can ever again abuse its 
authority by waging discrimination on the basis of religion.
  Madam Speaker, thank you to Chair Judy Chu of CAPAC, our sponsor of 
this legislation and a national champion in combating discrimination 
and xenophobia, who has helped lead the Congress' response to recent 
anti-AAPI attacks.
  The NO BAN Act strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and it restores the 
separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive action to issue 
future religious bans, which are fundamentally un-American.
  As Justice Sotomayor wrote, echoing President Washington, in her 
dissent in the shameful Trump v. Hawaii Supreme Court case upholding 
the last administration's Muslim ban: ``The United States of America is 
a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders 
honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious 
neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court's decision today'' to 
uphold the Muslim ban ``fails to safeguard that fundamental 
principle.''
  Madam Speaker, I want to mention that when this happened 4 years ago, 
and the President came and did his Muslim ban legislation, we had a 
hearing. It wasn't an official hearing because we weren't in the 
majority, and the majority wasn't interested in having it, but we had 
a hearing on it.

  What we saw in that hearing were leaders of the security community 
saying that if this stays in place, it is going to hurt our national 
security because we will not be able to keep promises that we made to 
those who helped us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We won't be able to 
because many of them are Muslim.
  Madam Speaker, a thousand diplomats from the State Department--and 
this is highly unusual--signed on in opposition to what this did to us 
diplomatically in the world. Our rank-and-file men and women spoke 
directly to the problem that this would create, the danger it created, 
in people trusting our word when we asked them to help us and that we 
would help keep them safe.
  Madam Speaker, you have heard me quote, and Pramila has heard me 
quote, again and again in that same hearing because many of the people 
who come here for asylum and refugee status because of religious 
persecution where they are from, the National Association of 
Evangelicals testified the following: ``The United States' refugee 
resettlement program is the crown jewel of American humanitarianism.'' 
They were speaking in terms of religious refugees.
  Again, we cannot allow any President to abuse the power of his or her 
office in this regard.
  Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to also address another piece 
of legislation, and I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor, 
the Access to Counsel Act, protecting the civil liberties of those who 
face prolonged detention as they seek legal entry into the United 
States. Some of them are little children.
  This is a commonsense step to close a serious and dangerous gap in 
our immigration law that too often prevents the vulnerable from 
accessing not only legal counsel but also medical attention or contact 
with their families.

                              {time}  1330

  I am always proud to salute Representative Pramila Jayapal, the 
sponsor of the Access to Counsel Act and a champion for the dignity and 
rights of all newcomers to our Nation--in fact, everyone in our Nation; 
and I thank her for her efforts.
  Passage of these bills, the NO BAN Act and the Access to Counsel Act, 
should not be controversial. Over 400 immigrants' rights bills 
organizations, faith-based organizations, business groups, and civil 
rights organizations support the NO BAN Act, and many more support the 
Access to Counsel Act.
  These bills are about honoring our Nation's promise that, as 
President Washington said, we will give ``to bigotry no sanction; to 
persecution no assistance.''
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong vote for both of these bills honoring 
the vision of our Founders, and the aspirations of so many people in 
our country.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I am from the great State of Texas, and 
there is nothing great about the crisis at our border. It is 
unprecedented. It is unmitigated. It is ever-escalating. It is 
absolutely, absolutely self-inflicted and avoidable.
  Because of the actions of our Commander in Chief, whose first job is 
to protect the American people, and the irresponsible and reckless 
unilateral actions, we have got chaos at our southern border. The 
American people are suffering for it. The poor, vulnerable people being 
abused by the cartels are suffering for it. Endless lists of tragedies 
because of what is happening and what is coming out of the White House.
  The answer, the solution in the midst of this crisis and disaster 
like we have never seen from my Democrat colleagues is to offer 
legislation to grant mass amnesty and citizenship; more green lights, 
more incentives, more welcome mats to continue to violate our 
sovereignty and to break our laws; not to be detained and deported, but 
to be released and rewarded, cut in line in front of millions of 
people. They don't get a free lawyer paid for by the taxpayers.
  I can't believe this is happening in our great country. I can't 
believe my Democrat colleagues are pouring gasoline and inflaming the 
situation with more of the NO BAN Act, tying the President's hands to 
do his job, to prevent high-risk folks from coming to the U.S., giving 
legal counsel, giving navigators and people who can help aid and abet 
the exploitation of our laws.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, it makes no sense at all. In fact, 
Madam Speaker, it is insulting.
  We care about people. This country does more for the immigrant than 
any in the world. We welcome those who want to make America their home, 
those God-fearing, freedom-loving families. But they have to respect 
our sovereignty. They have to respect the safety and security of the 
American people. They have to respect our laws.
  And I am waiting for the Democrats to respect the laws of this land. 
On this issue, I am waiting. But this is spitting in the face of these 
families and communities that are terrified. Ranchers are terrified to 
leave their families in their homes.
  And this is the answer? This is what you got?
  Shameful. It is shameful. I am embarrassed.
  Yes, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the NO BAN Act.
  God bless America.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin just by correcting 
the understanding, I think, from the gentleman from Kentucky, who tried 
to align President Obama's temporary suspension of the Visa Waiver 
Program in foreign and southern countries with Donald Trump's complete 
suspension of visas.
  As one of the two U.S. Ambassadors to serve in this Chamber at the 
moment, I presided over 4 years of consular affairs. And the Visa 
Waiver Program is when you are allowed to get into a country without 
the deep background checks, without going through Homeland Security.
  This is not what Donald Trump did. He suspended visas completely.
  By the way, this is not about the southern border. I don't believe 
there is a single Muslim country south of the Rio Grande in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Six years ago, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump argued for a 
complete and total Muslim ban. Remember,

[[Page H2013]]

he didn't specify specific countries; he said no Muslims.
  I quickly produced a bill, the Freedom of Religion Act, to prohibit 
discrimination in our immigration system on the basis of religious 
belief, and I rushed to Dulles Airport after the inauguration as the 
ban was implemented, and many were stuck in limbo. I never expected 
that such an openly bigoted policy would be so intentionally executed, 
especially knowing the economic and reputational effects.
  Billions of people around the world were stunned by this destruction 
of the American ideal as a beacon of freedom.
  My bill then became part of Judy Chu's very thoughtful NO BAN Act, 
and I am proud to champion it. As reckless and thoughtless and cruel as 
the Muslim ban is, this bill is the opposite. It is a thoughtful way to 
ensure that a future President cannot simply use racism or religions 
discrimination as a basis for keeping individuals from entering the 
United States.
  We cannot erase the dark stain on our country's history left by 
Donald Trump's Muslim ban, but we can prevent it from happening again.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, there is an ongoing crisis at the 
border. President Biden himself had admitted it. Despite his political 
staff's best efforts to avoid acknowledging the truth, he has admitted 
it.

  I have served as a doctor in private practice for more than 26 years. 
I have served on our Board of Health in Cincinnati. I have served in a 
combat support hospital in Iraq, where we provided outstanding care to 
thousands of detainees. I have seen quite a few crisis situations in my 
life.
  Two weeks ago, I led a group of healthcare experts and national 
security experts to the border. What we saw was a very difficult 
situation. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is a national security 
crisis. But it is also a national health security crisis.
  Our group visited HHS' Donna Processing Center, which, per COVID 
guidelines, is supposed to house 250 individuals. That day, it had 
3,500. Earlier that week, it housed 5,000.
  The sites we visited had seen cases of lice; scabies; meningitis; 
chicken pox; flu of unknown origin; and, of course, COVID-19. What 
really stuck out was that we are only testing symptomatic individuals 
for COVID-19.
  We have learned through this pandemic to know better, to know that 
this is not an effective way to stop COVID from spreading among the 
camp or fueling surges across our Nation.
  Worse, we are releasing people into our Nation without ever having 
tested them for COVID. You don't have to be a doctor to know that is 
dangerous.
  That is why I offer this motion to recommit today and delay this 
legislation until every migrant released by Customs and Border Patrol 
produces a negative COVID test before boarding a U.S. domestic flight.
  If international travelers are required to show proof of a negative 
COVID-19 test before they can come into the United States from a 
foreign country, why are we making an exception for this surge of 
migrants?
  American citizens are banned from the U.S. without a COVID test, but 
not non-U.S. citizens?
  That is bizarre.
  We risk all the progress we have made in this country to contain this 
virus by allowing this vulnerability to go unaddressed.
  Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct 
the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 1333 to 
require that migrants released by Customs and Border Patrol show proof 
of a negative COVID test before they are allowed to board a plane.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tlaib). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to express my incredible gratitude, first of all, to 
Congresswoman Judy Chu for her tireless leadership on this issue, and 
to the Muslim community in my district for their tireless work and 
advocacy on this issue.
  I remember the day well when President Trump issued this Muslim ban 
right at the beginning of his administration. And I remember running 
out to the airport immediately, to the international terminal. And 
shortly after I got there, there ended up being literally thousands of 
people who had gathered, at the shame on the United States of America. 
The people who came that day all had some documentation. They had 
visas. At first, even people with green cards were being held and 
oppressed.
  Who are we? Who are we as the United States of America?
  And I know that, finally, President Biden has said: No Muslim ban.
  But we want to make it the law of the land so no other President can 
do such a thing that, based on religion, people would be banned from 
the United States of America.
  I want to tell you, I take this personally as a Jew, myself. You 
know, I am a first-generation American. Neither of my parents was born 
in this country. They were able to emigrate to the United States.
  But I also remember the story of our history as Jews, when the St. 
Louis, a boat that came to protect people from annihilation, was turned 
away from the American shores; was told to go back to where it came 
from; and many of those people then perished in the Holocaust.
  Who are we?
  This bill is about who we are, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1333, the NO BAN Act.
  This legislation prohibits discrimination based on religion and 
limits the executive branch's ability to issue future travel bans.
  I stand here today during Arab American Heritage Month, a time to 
celebrate the diversity of our country and remind ourselves that our 
country is stronger for it.
  My district is home to the largest Arab-American population in the 
United States. Arab Americans are an integral part of Michigan's 
identity and have made enormous contributions to our society. Many of 
my constituents fled war and violence to seek a safer life;--have done 
it legally--and many of their families still experience this suffering 
every day.
  The former President's Muslim ban kept these families separated. It 
inspired fear. It perpetuated hate. And as the Speaker so eloquently 
stated, national security experts have made it clear that it has made 
us less safe, not more safe.
  I believe that every one of us in this Chamber loves our country, and 
that it is a priority for all of us to keep this Nation safe.

                              {time}  1345

  I would argue that the actions by the previous administration did 
not. The President called for a total ban on all Muslims entering this 
country. We must work together against terrorism, both foreign and 
domestic. We need to worry about what we witnessed in our own Chamber 
on January 6.
  This bill will not allow people to be targeted because of their 
religion again. We must work together to restore the faith and trust of 
the international communities targeted by the previous administration.
  Madam Speaker, I urge people to support this legislation.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, there is a crisis at the border, I mean, the President 
even said so. There is chaos at the border. The crisis and the chaos 
have been created by policies of this administration.
  We were down at the border 2 weeks ago. Every single Border Patrol 
agent we talked to said the crisis has been created by policy changes 
made by the Biden administration; specifically, three changes.

[[Page H2014]]

  They announced to the world that they weren't going to deport anyone. 
Moratorium on deportation. They announced to the world they weren't 
going to finish the wall. And, most importantly, they got rid of the 
remain in Mexico policy.
  And what do we have?
  In March, we had the highest number of illegal immigrants coming into 
our Nation since they have been keeping records. So it is definitely a 
crisis, definitely chaos.
  And what do the Democrats do? What do the Democrats do?
  Last month, they passed two bills that give amnesty to millions of 
illegal immigrants. You can't make this stuff up. And then, today, they 
are going to pass a piece of legislation that takes power away from the 
Commander in Chief, takes power away from the individual who was on the 
ballot and elected, and gives it to the unelected secretary of state 
and Secretary of Homeland Security.
  I mean, you would think, if they were going to take power away from 
the President, they would at least give it to the Vice President. After 
all, she is the one who has been put in charge of this thing. They 
don't even do that. They don't even do that.
  The answer is real simple. What we should be focused on is 
reinstating the policies that worked. In fact, again, when we were down 
there 2 weeks ago--by the way, we invited the Democrats to go with us, 
and they said no. When we were down there 2 weeks ago, every Border 
Patrol agent said: Reinstate the policies that were working and we 
don't have the problem, we don't have the crisis.
  But, no, we couldn't do something that common sense. We couldn't do 
something that simple, that basic. They, instead, come with this 
legislation.
  Reinstate the policies that work. Don't take power away from the 
individual who was elected by the American people, the Commander in 
Chief. Don't implement crazy policies. Do the things that work. But, 
no, that is not what we are going to do.
  And then after this bill is done, they are going to say, oh, by the 
way, bring in the lawyers. Give access to counsel to people coming into 
our country.
  It makes absolutely no sense.
  One of the speakers earlier said: Out of many, one.
  That is so true about this country.
  But is it too much to ask to have the many who come into this country 
do it legally?
  And have policies in place that make sense. Is that too much to ask?
  I think most taxpayers, most Americans, think that makes good, common 
sense.
  This bill does not. I hope we vote it down. I hope we go back to the 
policies that work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that I agree with some of what I heard from 
the Republicans. They said there is a lot of nonsense spoken on the 
floor today. Indeed, there was. Everything they have said about this 
bill is nonsense. They have said there is no Muslim ban. Everybody 
knows there was a Muslim ban. The President said he was going to impose 
a Muslim ban, and then he did.
  When Nydia Velazquez and I went to Kennedy airport, when Jan 
Schakowsky went to the airport in Chicago, when other people went to 
the airport, what did we find?
  We found Muslims being kept out of the country. People with perfectly 
valid visas, perfectly valid green cards, people whose relatives were 
waiting for them here because they had perfectly valid entry 
certificates, were being kept out of the country, and they couldn't 
even speak to their lawyers.
  That is the next bill we will be considering on the floor in a few 
minutes.
  That is what we found. And that has been in effect for a long time. 
It is un-American. It is unconstitutional. It is against the ethics of 
this country.
  As the Speaker said--I think it was the Speaker who said it--the 
motto of the country is E Pluribus Unum; from many, one.
  This situation, this Muslim ban, denies that. This says E Pluribus--I 
don't know the Latin from a few, not from all.
  Madam Speaker, we must pass this bill. More than 400 organizations 
and industry leaders support this bill. They include Muslim Advocates, 
the ACLU, Airbnb, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society.
  Yes, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Why? Because the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society remembers its futile efforts when Jews were 
turned away from this country to go back to the Holocaust; when the St. 
Louis was turned back to go back to the Holocaust; when the State 
Department deliberately wouldn't even use the quota. The quota was 
150,000, and they kept it down to 6,000 because of the anti-Semitism of 
some officials in the State Department. And the Hebrew Immigrant Aid 
Society--which was formed to aid Jewish immigrants, but has long since 
broadened its mission to aid immigrants from any country--knows what 
happens and doesn't want to see it happen again. That is why they are 
supporting this bill.

  Other organizations and industry leaders that support this bill 
include the Service Employees International Union, because so many of 
their members were born abroad; the National Immigration Law Center, 
MoveOn, and United We Dream.
  Members on both sides of the aisle should agree that no President, 
Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to usurp the powers of the 
legislative branch enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of 
power is fundamental to our democratic Republic and must be protected.
  For all these reasons, that is why passage of H.R. 1333 is so vital. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
NO BAN Act. In 2017, when the Trump administration implemented the 
first travel ban, nearly a thousand college students around Texas were 
forced to make a choice. Either stay in the United States to earn a 
world-class education or visit their family abroad and risk being 
blocked from returning to their studies. This is a choice that aspiring 
students should never be forced to make. Evidently, these travel bans 
were not in place because of national security. These bans were used as 
a tool to discriminate against the Muslim population. Texas is home to 
one of the largest and fastest growing Muslim populations in the 
country, and these bans separated families across many of our 
districts. I applaud the Biden-Harris Administration for revoking these 
discriminatory bans. But, now is the time for Congress to deliver to 
the American people by ensuring that no future administration works to 
discriminate against vulnerable communities. I urge a yes vote.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1333, the No Ban Act. This legislation would ensure that no 
president, Republican or Democrat, would carry the unilateral authority 
to restrict refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, and their families 
from entering the United States based on their nationality or religion.
  A little more than four years ago, I remember watching in horror as 
the Trump Administration first instituted the Muslim Ban--barring 
entrance for immigrants at airports throughout the country. But I found 
solace, and inspiration, in the thousands of demonstrations at the same 
airports, including at Dallas-Fort Worth International back home in 
North Texas. It was at this moment that Americans saw, for the first 
time, the severe damage that the Trump Administration would cause by 
targeting immigrants, refugees, and other underserved and vulnerable 
populations.
  This legislation is a direct result of those demonstrations, and of 
the spirit and advocacy of people who believe that the success and 
well-being of our country are built upon the contributions of 
immigrants. It doesn't just prevent an executive overreach; it sends a 
message to the rest of the world that the United States is once again a 
beacon of freedom and hope. This bill reaffirms the belief that 
immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers should be welcome here--free 
from discrimination. And no matter the nativist rhetoric spewing from a 
few on the other side of the aisle, we are, and will always be, a 
country of immigrants.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of 
this bill and ask the Senate to take up this important legislation in a 
timely manner.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary and a cosponsor, I rise in strong and enthusiastic 
support of H.R. 1333, the ``National Origin-Based Anti-Discrimination 
For Non-Immigrants Act, or No BAN Act, which stops executive overreach 
by preventing the abuse of

[[Page H2015]]

the system pioneered by the 45th President with his several abuses of 
the authority to restrict the entry of non-citizens into the United 
States under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA).
  Thankfully, it is unnecessary for Congress to repeal by legislation 
the several section 212(f)-based executive actions of the 45th 
President's, including his original Muslim ban, because were rescinded 
by his successor, President Joseph Biden, in the initial days of the 
new Administration.
  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.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the NO BAN Act includes an important 
provision offered last year during the committee markup of this 
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 this legislation, and President Biden's rescission 
of his predecessor executive order which added the countries of 
Belarus, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania to 
the President's new and offensive Muslim Ban.
  Madam Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Nigerian Caucus, it 
is important to convey to our colleagues that 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 
45th President's executive order was appropriately nicknamed the 
``Muslim Ban'', and only exemplified his xenophobic and prejudiced 
mindset that the American people renounced as unacceptable in the 2020 
presidential election.
  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 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.
  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 COVID-19, 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, Airbnb.
  I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 1333 and send a powerful message 
that this House stands firmly behind America's well-earned and long-
established reputation of being the most welcoming Nation on earth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 330, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Wenstrup moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1333 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Wenstrup is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act, and the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall not take effect until the date on which every 
     alien described in subsection (b) is required to produce to 
     the Transportation Security Administration proof of a 
     negative Coronavirus (COVID-19) test completed not earlier 
     than 24 hours before the alien attempts to board a domestic 
     flight in the United States.
       (b) Aliens Described.--An alien is described in this 
     subsection if the alien--
       (1) is inadmissible to the United States under section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a));
       (2) was encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     on or after January 20, 2021;
       (3) was released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     after such encounter; and
       (4) is traveling by plane to a final destination in the 
     United States.
       (c) Report.--Notwithstanding section 4(a)(1), and in 
     accordance with subsection (a), the report required under 
     section 4(a)(1) shall not be required to be submitted until 
     the date that is 90 days after the effective date under 
     subsection (a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

[[Page H2016]]

  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________