Fostering Undergraduate Talent By Unlocking Resources for Education Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486. The majority is actually playing procedural games here by including a nongermane provision to satisfy certain requirements.
The two immigration bills that we are considering today are expensive, make no doubt about it. According to the CBO, the NO BAN Act will increase direct spending by $290 million over the next 10 years and increase deficits by $307 million over the same period. And a preliminary estimate from CBO notes that the Access to Counsel Act, which we will debate later today, will increase discretionary spending by at least $1 billion over the next 5 years.
So the majority had to come up with a pay-for. They opted for prescription drug legislation, but chose to discard bipartisan committee past text to instead include a flawed prescription bill that will stifle investment and research, prevent new medications from coming to market, block truthful advertising, and disincentivize improvements in patient care.
This Congress has unanimously passed six bipartisan bills out of committee to address the costs of prescription drugs. But today, instead of using bipartisan-negotiated text, my colleagues across the aisle have made prescription drugs a partisan issue in an effort to pass partisan immigration bills.
Our President has consistently taken decisive action to help ensure the security of our immigration programs and, thus, the safety of our country. Every time he does so, my Democratic friends cry foul. They attempt to block the President's actions and threaten to take away the President's power.
The Department of Homeland Security has identified several types of information that it needs in order to make a reliable decision regarding the admissibility of a foreign country's nationals seeking entry to the United States. This includes things like:
Does the country report lost or stolen identity documents, including passports, to Interpol, and how often do they do so?
Does the country share information about their known or suspected terrorists or about their criminals with us?
Does the country issue modern electronic passports?
These are clearly important things to know when determining whether to let a foreign national enter our country.
Instead of expressing appreciation for what this President has been able to accomplish with regard to security, my colleagues have decided to consider this No BAN Act, which effectively eviscerates the ability of the administration to take quick and decisive action to protect our homeland when concerns arise, even action to prevent entry of aliens based on a global health crisis like COVID-19.
Until the President signed the first travel executive order in January of 2017, very few had ever heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(f) authority. This provision provides the President broad latitude to impose restrictions on the entry of aliens or classes of aliens into the United States when such entry ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'' And this authority has been used successfully by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and others.
Pursuant to the travel executive order, the President required the Secretary of DHS and Secretary of State, along with the Director of National Intelligence to determine what countries failed to meet international standards of information sharing or identity management or were at a risk of terrorism or public safety concern and to report their findings to him.
Based on that assessment and the recommendations of the Secretaries, the President placed travel restrictions on seven nations. Pursuant to the continued review of countries and an updated report in January, the President issued a proclamation imposing narrowly tailored travel restrictions on six additional countries: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.
It is important to understand that such restrictions are not permanent. When a country comes into compliance with the information sharing and other requirements, they can be removed from the list of restricted countries, and that has actually happened under this administration, for instance, Chad in 2018. And press reports note that the Government of Nigeria immediately began working to come into compliance.
The President's use of 212(f) authority has helped improve our security and the vetting of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. As the DHS Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy testified last September: ``One country reinstituted a dormant program to help identify convicted criminals. Three countries have adopted more secure e-Passports. Two countries obtained access to Interpol databases for the first time. And eight countries began reporting lost and stolen passports to Interpol for the first time or they improved the regularity of that reporting.''
These are not insignificant improvements to the world's security. The No BAN Act would take 212(f) authority from the elected President and give it to an unelected subordinate who is not accountable to voters.
Under this bill, only the Secretary of State can determine that the entry of aliens is a threat to the U.S. This is problematic in instances where other Cabinet officials should be involved, such as Health and Human Services or Treasury.
The bill's undefined and broad terms, ``least restrictive means'' and the ``notion of harm,'' are ripe for litigation, especially considering the bill's expansive judicial review provision and explicit class action allowance.
The No BAN Act also contains onerous reporting requirements, consultation with Congress before the President can act, and Federal Register publication of information about the action taken and the circumstances necessitating the action. But does it make sense for the U.S. Government to broadcast the deficiencies they have identified since those would likely be exploited by bad actors seeking to do us harm?
Perhaps the most ridiculous of the bill's provisions is section 4, which not only terminates the travel executive orders in place but, incredibly, ceases all actions taken pursuant to any proclamation or executive order terminated by the bill. That means that information sharing on terrorists, criminals, and other security threats that has developed between the United States and other countries with travel restrictions would end.
This bill is a knee-jerk response by my Democratic colleagues because of the disapprobation of President Trump, and it would undermine the safety and security of Americans.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the No BAN Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's invoking President Reagan, because in 1981, President Reagan used 212(f) authority to suspend entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas, so I appreciate her reminding us of the use of 212(f) by Reagan.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you have heard a lot of incendiary language regarding the travel restrictions. The most incendiary language is always calling it ``incendiary,'' ``a white nationalist agenda,'' ``racist,'' ``hateful,'' et cetera.
Was it xenophobic, was it racist, was it hateful when the Obama administration implemented travel bans to the same seven nations?
Was it?
No. Nor is it here either.
Madam Speaker, that kind of language is meant to incite public ridicule and distract from the real issue here.
As the Supreme Court noted, the text in this bill says nothing about religion. And as they went on to say: ``The policy covers just 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations''--read, Obama administration--``as posing national security risks.''
That is not a Muslim ban. This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this Nation.
Additionally, I heard from multiple friends across the aisle a straw man argument, a true straw man argument here, that this ban was religious in nature. But if that were the case, they would have stopped it after inserting religion with other proscriptions. But instead, they built up a huge bureaucratic apparatus to limit the authority of the President of the United States. So it is a straw man argument.
Madam Speaker, the chairman mentioned that the Supreme Court ruling, in his opinion, was without justification, and so I am going to read what the Supreme Court said: ``The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings--following a worldwide, multiagency review--that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest.''
The sole prerequisite, they said, is for the President to find that the entry of the covered aliens ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.''
But the President fulfilled that requirement by first ordering DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country's compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline.
That is what this policy was built upon. It is consistent with the Obama administration and the previous administrations.
But for whatever reason, and I think we all can surmise what that may be, when this President conducts an even more thorough evaluation of these nations and their processes and then issues a proclamation setting forth those extensive findings describing deficiencies in those practices--and, by the way, I am going here based on the Supreme Court decision again--in the practices of select foreign governments, several of which are state sponsors of terrorism, it is somehow xenophobic, a white nationalist agenda, racist, and hateful. But when the previous administration did it and actually came back to Congress and added three more nations, it wasn't.
The only ad hominem attack I would ever make here is that it surely seems potentially hypocritical to me. No visas would be revoked pursuant to P.P. 9645 or 9983. Individuals subject to those Presidential proclamations who possess a valid visa or valid travel document were permitted to travel and continue to be admitted to travel in this country.
To call it a Muslim ban is meant to incite--and I will say, we do terrible on this side of the aisle. My friends across the aisle, when you find that peg to hang your hat on, heck of a great job, because everybody uses it. It is very effective, but it is highly misleading.
What this bill does is it emasculates the very notion of executive power in the President. It really does. The idea, because you want to emasculate the power of President Trump.
But what it does is it gives more power to the bureaucratic state, more power to the bureaucratic state. So the timeline is also going to prevent the President from acting quickly on this.
These are the issues that we have just been distracted from, because it certainly appears--and I will say, my friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), when she talked about symbolism in her speech, she is right. This is symbolic. This bill is symbolic. It is symbolic, if you will, of a hatred of this President. Because when the previous President's administration did this, not a peep. This administration does the same thing, and it is outrageous.
Madam Speaker, the implementation was not great. They have admitted the implementation was not great, but that is an implementation problem, not a policy problem. And you want to change the entire policy and the entire structure not because the policy was bad--if it were, we would have heard about it the last 40 years--but, instead, because the original implementation was bad.
The Supreme Court has upheld what this administration did because what they did was conduct a thorough vetting of their own policy regarding these nations and those nations' policies in implementing safety mechanisms, and so they fulfilled that. Here we are today, saying: You know what? Because it is President Donald Trump, this is bad.
Madam Speaker, they are going to pass this bill. There is no doubt they are going to pass this amendment. But never forget the inherent inconsistency with the act that you are going to do on this bill with what you have done in the previous administrations.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486.
The Access to Counsel Act of 2020 is a way for the majority to test how far they can go toward their ultimate goal of taxpayer-funded counsel at every stage of the immigration process. I think we just heard that, that that is a stated goal.
Many immigration interest groups have made no mystery of the fact that they believe foreign nationals have a right to come to the United States and should all receive taxpayer-funded counsel at every stage of the process.
My colleagues across the aisle understand that it is currently a bridge too far to repeal outright the Immigration and Nationality Act provision that prohibits taxpayer-funded counsel during removal proceedings. But this amendment is a step forward in their march in that direction.
The bill mandates that the DHS Secretary shall ensure that an individual who has been selected by Customs and Border Protection for secondary screening at a port of entry has a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and an interested party during such screening.
It is important to understand exactly what secondary screening is, why it is used, and the ramifications that this bill would have on the port of entry operations.
My colleagues across the aisle provided the Judiciary Committee no opportunity to hear from DHS experts about any of these issues. There was no hearing on this legislation or even generally on the subject matter at hand.
CBP is extremely concerned about the impact the requirements of this bill would have on processing at ports of entry. Many of us have been to airports and seen the long lines of passengers from abroad waiting to be processed. We have been to land ports of entry and seen lines of passenger vehicles and cargo trucks that literally wait for hours for the opportunity to enter the U.S. The Access to Counsel Act would exponentially increase those processing and wait times.
Secondary inspection is used at ports of entry to give CBP officials time for additional screening that may take longer than the normal case. It can include more in-depth questioning, additional database searches, and physical searches when an individual is suspected of carrying contraband.
Secondary inspection is done in an area near the primary inspection booths. It serves to remove those whose admissibility may be in question from the primary inspection line so as to not slow the line down.
The vast majority of the over 400 million people admitted the United States annually do not get referred to secondary inspection, but about 17 million do.
Most ports of entry buildings and other infrastructure are not equipped to allow multiple counsel consultations at the same time. That means longer wait times and backlogs for entry. Allowing 17 million people to consult with counsel or some other interested party will bring legitimate trade and travel to a grinding halt.
Of course, slowing down of trade and travel processing isn't the only concern with H.R. 5581. Under current regulations adopted in 1980, applicants for admission are not entitled to representation in primary or secondary inspections, unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.
But this bill gives all applicants for admission to the U.S., including nonimmigrants and lawful permanent residents, a new statutory right to counsel. This idea is based on the belief that everyone has a right to enter the U.S., and it is a first step toward what many of our Democrat colleagues ultimately want, taxpayer-funded counsel for foreign nationals.
In addition, there are serious concerns with what constitutes interested parties under the bill. The term is defined to include practically anyone, including any relative of the covered individual, the petitioner or sponsor of a visa, or anyone with a bona fide connection to the covered individual.
This could result in a scenario where a covered individual is referred for secondary inspection because he is believed to be smuggling drugs or some other contraband and then places a call to tip off his accomplices.
The Access to Counsel Act is a bad idea that would unduly hinder legitimate trade and travel.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, just to point out, this bill does not say anywhere this contact will be limited to a simple phone call. Nowhere does it say that.
Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am interested in the interpretation of the term ``meaningful opportunity.'' I tried a lot of cases in my career. I did both prosecution and criminal defense extensively. I can tell you what a meaningful opportunity would be as counsel. It would be sitting there with my client face-to-face, getting all the information possible.
If the intention was to include, specifically, a simple phone call, that is what should have been put in here. That is what should have been put in this bill, but it wasn't. So, when I read it, I think of places I have been to all along the border, having grown up in southern Arizona, and I have taken and led many congressional delegations over the last 3\1/2\ years.
I think of the Antelope Wells Port of Entry. I think about that being about a 4-hour drive for the Customs and Border Protection officers that manned that or worked there, that staffed that. I think, well, what is the communications like there? It is not good. It is not good. It is extremely remote. The nearest town on the Mexican side of the border is 60 miles away. The nearest town on the New Mexico side of that border is Lordsburg, which is about a good 1.5- to 2-hour drive away itself.
If you really wanted to get to narrow this, this bill should have been narrowed, but it wasn't narrowed.
I think of Naco, that little port of entry in southern Arizona. I think of Douglas. I am telling you, the problem that this bill has is it doesn't--if that is the goal. There are other problems, but if that is the goal, this language has not been specific enough.
I also have talked with those who have had the secondary inspection. If we are referring to the implementation of the travel restriction-- and I think the world, including the administration, admitted that it was rolled out poorly--that is a different animal than what happens on a normal basis.
I think of the San Luis Port of Entry or the Nogales Port of Entry, but, particularly, San Luis. It gets so much traffic through there. I can't imagine what will happen when you try to bog down everything by allowing everyone who moves to a secondary inspection have counsel or some other interested party, who we don't really know who that is. That is not defined very well, either.
I think of all the commercial truck traffic that comes through Nogales. We don't inspect but a small fraction of vehicles coming through there. It is very difficult to move traffic. The infrastructure itself is not conducive to this.
I will just say, the one thing I was reminded of as I was reviewing this bill for this debate today--and it really kind of came out in the debate when someone was talking about this notion of where we are now, which is if you become a focus of a criminal investigation, you do get counsel. You get that opportunity for counsel.
I started thinking that, yes, exactly, this is what we are doing. We are saying now, in a civil administrative function, we are going to give you a right to counsel. Are we going to expand that to every area where there are civil administrative regulatory violations or potential violations? The answer is that would be absolutely, totally bizarre. It would be unworkable, just as this will be unworkable.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will just say this, I appreciate the sponsor of this indicating that, in their interpretation, a simple phone call would suffice. I don't think that is the way CBP is interpreting this. I think they are interpreting this that they are going to have to build out infrastructure so there can be private facilities for counsel to meet with these folks.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I just want to go back to this and indicate there are a multiplicity of issues with this bill, but some things that I want to reiterate.
I think the bill is a step forward to providing state-funded counsel for folks who are here getting a secondary inspection, which in the vast majority of cases is almost perfunctory and incidental and is very quick, in the normal case.
Again, I think it is bad facts--or, actually, good facts to make the argument. It is not going to make good policy. You are, again, arguing implementation of the travel restriction, which wasn't great.
But the norm--the norm--if you get down to the border and spend time, as I have many times, you are going to see these secondary inspections are short, perfunctory. There is no need of counsel. They almost always turn out well for the person that is delayed, except for when they are a danger. Then, it becomes a problem, and they get an opportunity for counsel because now you have a criminal focus on them. That is the key here.
So, expanding this to civil cases, which is exactly what you are doing here, and putting us in line to walk down to where we ultimately are going to pay for that, that is not great policy. That is bad policy, and I am urging my folks to oppose this.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source