Fostering Undergraduate Talent By Unlocking Resources for Education Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2214, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or the No BAN Act, is critical legislation that will stop executive overreach, defend Congress' role in establishing our Nation's immigration laws, and right one of the original sins of the Trump administration: the Muslim ban.

When the Trump administration issued its first version of the ban in January 2017, it was immediately apparent that it was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally reprehensible. Its chaotic rollout only magnified the cruelty underlying this policy.

When news first broke that people were being detained at the airports, I immediately rushed to JFK Airport that morning along with Congresswoman Velazquez. Within hours, we were joined by hundreds of demonstrators demanding justice. What we found was chaos and heartbreak. Refugees, people with valid visas, and even legal permanent residents, people who had assisted American troops and saved their lives in Iraq were prevented from entering the country or even speaking with their attorneys.

We met people like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an Iraqi who put his life on the line for 10 years to work with American and coalition forces as a translator. He underwent a years-long extensive vetting process to secure a Special Immigrant Visa granted to people who assist our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. In return for his efforts, this hero was welcomed to the United States with a door slammed in his face and a grueling ordeal at the airport as he pleaded for his freedom.

I am pleased that Congresswoman Velazquez and I were able to work with officials in New York and Washington to secure his release eventually, but we should never have had to do that. That is not the country we are proud to represent in Congress. We do not betray those who save American troops.

Although the President's initial Muslim ban was ultimately blocked by numerous courts, in 2018, after protracted litigation and several court injunctions, the Supreme Court unfortunately upheld the third version of the ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645.

The Court reached this decision based on its broad reading of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the President to ``suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens'' when the President finds that such entry ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.''

I strongly disagree with the Court's broad interpretation of that provision. Section 212(f) was intended to give the President discretion to quickly address emergent issues involving public health, national security, public safety, or international stability. It was not intended to provide carte blanche authority to the President to ban large categories of individuals without justification or to rewrite immigration laws with which he disagrees.

That is why this legislation is so important. H.R. 2214 will repeal these shameful bans and stop executive overreach by amending 212(f) to prevent any President from using it in a manner that is unlawful or unconscionable.

The United States has always been and must continue to be a place that welcomes and embraces people of all religions and all nationalities. But as a result of the Muslim ban, our country's reputation as a beacon of hope, tolerance, and inclusion for those fleeing persecution, reuniting with their families, or simply seeking a better life has been forever tarnished.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Representative Chu for introducing this legislation and for her leadership and commitment to this issue.

I also want to thank the NO BAN coalition, led by Muslim Advocates, and all of the many organizations whose support was vital to bringing this bill to the floor today. It is long overdue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), the sponsor of the bill.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership in bringing the NO BAN Act for a vote on the floor today.

Three years ago, when President Trump first took office, within 1 week, he announced the first Muslim ban.

I will never forget that terrible day in January of 2017. I was on my way to a community event when I received a frantic call about 50 Muslims with green cards who were being detained at LAX for hours, with no end in sight.

At that moment, I decided to drop everything and help in any way I could. I rushed over to LAX to advocate for these people. Once I arrived, I found out that, indeed, there were scores of people with a legal right to be here kept for hours without food and blocked from receiving legal advice from an attorney.

With this action, Trump was immediately creating chaos and separating families with no justification. It was outrageous. When I pressed Customs and Border Protection for answers, they resisted and blocked me. I even got them on the phone, only to have them hang up on me.

I had never been more disrespected as a Member of Congress, but disrespect and chaos is what this Muslim ban is all about. Since then, the administration has steadily worked to make it harder and harder for individuals to come to the United States, which has meant keeping families and loved ones apart.

Partners and spouses have been kept apart for years at a time. Children have missed parent's funerals. Parents have missed children's weddings, birthdays, and graduations. Families have been languishing, wondering when they will be reunited, all because of a policy born from prejudice. This is a cruel abuse of power that must be stopped.

The NO BAN Act repeals all versions of the Muslim ban, including the travel ban imposed in February of this year that includes many African countries. It limits the President's authority to ban people from entering the United States unless there is a clear justification. The President would have to consult with the Departments of Homeland Security and State before implementing a ban and would have to brief Congress within 48 hours.

Let me make clear that this bill would not have impacted our ability to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in any way, as it does not interfere with the ability of a President to restrict immigration due to public health concerns.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this historic legislation which sends a strong message to our communities that you cannot be discriminated against based on your religion or national origin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Chu for this important statement that is necessary for the American people: In God, We Trust. And the God we trust is a merciful God.

144,000 people dead from COVID-19. It is important when an administration, no matter who it is, fails the American people, the United States Congress must be the one that deals with that failure, and that is what the NO BAN Act stands for. It stands for expanding the INA's nondiscrimination provision to prohibit discrimination based on religion and extends the prohibition on discrimination beyond the issuance of immigrant visas to include the issuance of nonimmigrant visas, entry, admission to the United States, and the approval or revocation thereof.

I had an amendment that is added to this that makes it a surety that the administration report to Congress on the impacts of positive, negative, and unintended actions by the President. We must have oversight.

I stand in the name of Ali, a 17-year-old. When I landed from Washington, I went straight to the terminal immediately on that Friday. My tears were coming to my eyes as I saw little Ali denied entry into the United States.

That is why I am here. I support the NO BAN Act.

Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor and senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 2214, the ``National Origin-Based AntiDiscrimination For Non- Immigrants Act, or No BAN Act, which stops executive overreach by preventing the president from abusing his authority to restrict the entry of non-citizens into the United States under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

This legislation also repeals several of the President's section 212(f)-based executive actions, including his original Muslim ban as well as the most recent expansion of the ban announced in January 2020.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because the NO BAN Act amends section 212(f) of the INA to place checks and balances on the President's authority to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of aliens or classes of aliens into the United States, when it is determined that such individuals ``would undermine the security or public safety of the United States or the preservation of human rights, democratic processes or institutions, or international stability.''

Specifically, the bill requires the President to find and document that any suspension or restriction: (1) is based on specific and credible facts; (2) is narrowly tailored; (3) specifies a duration; and (4) includes waivers.

The NO BAN Act expands the INA's nondiscrimination provision to prohibit discrimination based on religion and extends the prohibition on discrimination beyond the issuance of immigrant visas to include the issuance of nonimmigrant visas, entry and admission into the United States, and the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit.

The NO BAN Act terminates several of President Trump's proclamations and executive orders invoking section 212(f) authority, including Presidential Proclamation 9645, also known as the ``Muslim Ban,'' and Presidential Proclamation 9983, barring the entry of immigrants from Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria, and suspending participation in the Diversity Visa program for nationals of Sudan and Tanzania.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the NO BAN Act includes an important amendment I offered during the committee markup of the legislation, which requires the Administration to report to Congress on the impacts--positive, negative, and unintended--of any action taken by the President pursuant to executive orders he has or will issue pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA.

I strongly support the provision in the legislation that nullifies the President's latest executive order which adds the countries of Belarus, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania to the President's new and offensive Muslim Ban.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Nigerian Caucus, the United States cannot afford to hamper diplomatic relations with Nigeria due to its importance in the region.

Nigeria is the largest economy and most populous country in Africa with an estimated population of more than 190 million, which is expected to grow to 400 million by 2050 and become the third most populous country in the world after China and India.

The United States is the largest foreign investor in Nigeria, with U.S. foreign direct investment concentrated largely in the petroleum and mining and wholesale trade sectors.

At $2.2 billion in 2017, Nigeria is the second largest U.S. export destination in Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States and Nigeria have a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement.

In 2017, the two-way trade in goods between the United States and Nigeria totaled over $9 billion.

Due to many of the residents of these countries practicing Islam, the President's executive order has been appropriately nicknamed the ``Muslim Ban'', and only exemplifies the xenophobic and prejudiced mindset that is unacceptable in this country.

With countries such as Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, and Eritrea, being considered as additions to the travel ban list, I strongly oppose this discriminatory act.

Tanzania is also an important partner of the United States, and through numerous presidential initiatives, the United States has provided development and other assistance to Tanzania for capacity building to address health and education issues, encourage democratic governance promote broad-based economic growth, and advance regional and domestic security to sustain progress.

Although Sudan has had some internal issues during the last decade, the U.S. was a major donor in the March 1989 ``Operation Lifeline Sudan,'' which delivered 100,000 metric tons of food into both government and rebel held areas of the Sudan, thus, averting widespread starvation.

The United States established diplomatic relations with Eritrea in 1993, following its independence and separation from Ethiopia.

The United States supported Eritrea's independence and through a concerted, mutual effort that began in late 2017 and continues today, there are vast improvements to the bilateral relationship.

U.S. interests in Eritrea include supporting efforts for greater integration of Eritrea with the rest of the Horn of Africa, encouraging Eritrea to contribute to regional stability and partner on shared peace and security goals, urging progress toward a democratic political culture, addressing human rights issues and promoting economic reform and prosperity.

Although the law contains a waiver program that allows residents of these countries to enter the country if they meet certain standards, this program is arbitrary and unfairly creates a separation of families, provides less work opportunities and greatly reduces the opportunity to apply for visas in the future, unless it is repealed.

A comprehensive and coordinated strategy needs to be developed in coordination with the United States Congress to ensure that each country affected by this law may peacefully have its residents enter the United States and complete visa and asylum applications.

We live in a nation of laws but we also live in a nation that seeks to establish and maintain diplomatic ties to these important African nations and imposing a discriminatory and arbitrary ban would adversely affect foreign relations with a critical continent for decades to come.

Madam Speaker, in light of the crisis presented by current COVID-19 pandemic, the NO BAN Act contains a provision to ensure that the President can use section 212(f) to protect the United States from the spread of communicable diseases, including the 2019 coronavirus, by suspending the entry of a class of individuals if the President determines their entry would undermine the public safety of the United States.

However, to remove any perceived ambiguity and avoid the propensity of this president to abuse delegated authority, the legislation includes language to clarify that the term ``public safety'' ``includes efforts necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health significance.''

Madam Speaker, the NO BAN Act is supported by a bipartisan coalition of the nation's leading immigrants' rights organizations, faith-based organizations, and civil rights organizations, including the following:

American Civil Liberties Union; Church World Service; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Muslim Advocates Immigration Hub; Asian Americans Advancing Justice Association; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Bend the Arc; Center for American Progress; The Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans; Interfaith Immigration Coalition; Human Rights Campaign; Franciscan Action Network; HIAS; Jewish and Muslims and Allies Acting Together; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; National Council of Jewish Women; National Iranian American Organization Action; National Immigration Law Center; International Refugee Assistance Project; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Engage Action; and Airbnb.

I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 2214 and send a powerful message to the President and the American people that this House will not stand idly by as this Administration tries to abandon America's well-earned and long-established reputation of being the most welcoming nation on earth.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the NO BAN Act to finally repeal the racist and discriminatory Muslim bans that have stained our Nation for the past 3 years.

The Muslim ban undermines everything that this great country stands for, the greatest country in the history of the world.

It has torn apart my constituents' families and trapped their loved ones in war zones and refugee camps. It has made Muslim Americans feel like second class citizens in their very own country. They are Americans just as much as I.

This ban has done nothing to make us safe. Senator John McCain, in fact, once called the ban a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.

The administration's own officials admit this does absolutely nothing to protect our country. The State Department says that just one-tenth of 1 percent of the people blocked from this country under the Muslim ban was deemed a security risk. Those stats do not lie. DHS cannot point to a single threat that our existing immigration policies and systems would not have handled.

If we are going to fight for this country to fulfill its promise, this ban must be overturned.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I find it extremely disingenuous to deny the nature of the Muslim ban. You know why? Because the President told us so. He told us he was going to institute a Muslim ban, and then he did it. And every country he put on the list was Muslim. Every country he has added to the list was Muslim.

Only Muslims and Muslim countries pose threats to the United States of any nature; no one else in the world does? How stupid does he think we are?

This is a Muslim ban. It has been. It is an abuse of his office. It is an abuse of the law. It must be repealed. The honor of the United States must be redeemed. And that is why this dishonorable, hateful policy must be repealed. And that is why we must vote for this bill, to redeem the honor of the United States from the disgusting religious bigotry supported by the President and instituted by the President in this ban.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5581, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020.

Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore the Muslim ban, including the chaos that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first announced.

I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents of the United States were detained for hours and prevented from speaking with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable to call their family members.

Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is unfortunately a problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of the U.S. immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak with them, even if they can provide critical information or correct a legal error.

Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused admission. For example, an individual who is given an expedited removal order is barred from returning to the United States for 5 years.

H.R. 5581 will ensure that no one who presents themselves at a port of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the world during inspection. H.R. 5581 allows such individuals, including U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than one hour.

To be clear, this bill does not provide a right to counsel, nor does it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to pay for or otherwise provide counsel to individuals during CBP inspection proceedings. I wish it did, but it doesn't. This is confirmed by the fact that the Congressional Budget Office found that H.R. 5581 would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.

I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for championing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume again to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find it bizarre to suggest that you shouldn't vote for a bill because some other bill may do something that you don't like. This bill does not provide--I personally think maybe it would be a good idea, but that is not this bill. This bill does not provide for funded counsel in any way. It doesn't do that. Maybe I should introduce a bill to do that. That is not this bill, so let's forget about that.

This bill simply says that if an individual is held--an individual who may be an America citizen, who may be a green card holder, who if improperly, by mistake, is sent out of the country and may be forbidden from applying to come back in for 5 years, with all kinds of problems, who may be a cancer researcher who is supposed to work at Rockefeller Institute or Johns Hopkins or wherever and would be denied his or her talents because of a mistake.

All this bill says is that if someone is held in secondary inspection for at least an hour, they must be given an opportunity to call counsel, to call other people, to call their brother-in-law, to call whoever, and to communicate. That is all the bill says.

I fail to understand why it is at all controversial. It will prevent the kind of tragic mistakes that have been made in the past. It will prevent the kind of confusion that we saw, that I personally saw at the airport when people were held for hours and hours and weren't permitted to talk to counsel standing outside the door, when I physically had to prevent the door from closing and dared them to arrest a Member of Congress in order to allow an immigrant with valid papers to speak to an attorney who was standing on the other side of the door.

That is what this bill is. It is simple. It is humane. It is commonsensical and ought to be adopted. I urge everyone to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor and senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 5581, the ``Access to Counsel Act of 2020,'' which ensures that certain individuals who are subjected to prolonged inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at ports of entry have a meaningful opportunity to communicate with counsel and other interested parties.

This important legislation amends section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that certain individuals can communicate with counsel and other interested parties if they are subjected to prolonged inspection by CBP.

The protections afforded by the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 would apply to individuals who possess valid travel documents, but who are pulled out of the ``primary'' inspection line and referred to ``secondary'' inspection for extended processing.

If such individuals are held in secondary inspection for at least one hour, they must be permitted to communicate with counsel and other interested parties.

Counsel and interested parties would be able to provide information and documentation to the inspecting officer to facilitate the inspection process and offer support and assistance to the individual subject to inspection.

Madam Speaker, the stakes can be high for a person wrongfully refused admission and the consequences of being denied admission to the United States can be significant.

For example, a U.S. research institution may lose the opportunity to employ a next generation cancer researcher if that researcher is denied admission despite possessing a valid nonimmigrant visa.

Individuals who are refused admission may be unable to reunite with their families, receive critical medical care unavailable in their home country, or pursue higher education at a U.S. college or university.

Although some individuals may be permitted to withdraw their application for admission and return home without long term consequences, others may be ordered removed without a hearing or further review under ``expedited removal.''

An individual who receives an expedited removal order is barred from returning to the United States for five years.

Communication protocols are inconsistent across ports of entry and CBP provides no public guidance on an individual's ability to communicate with counsel and other individuals during the inspection process.

According to an American Immigration Council report, CBP policies and practices on access to counsel vary from one office to another.''

While some ports of entry completely bar counsel in primary or secondary inspection,'' others provide specific procedures for interacting with counsel or provide the inspecting officer with broad discretion to decide whether and with whom to communicate.

Madam Speaker, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 ensures that no one is cut off from the world due to the Administration's hasty and mismanaged rollout of the Muslim ban and the widespread chaos that it engendered at airports across the nation.

Affected individuals were detained at airports for hours, and many were sent back to their home countries without the ability to contact their families or receive the assistance of counsel.

Reports of similar treatment surfaced in January 2020, as tensions between Iran and the United States escalated and up to 200 individuals of Iranian descent were detained and questioned in secondary inspection at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington.

These individuals--many of whom were U.S. citizens or permanent residents, including seniors and children--were held for several hours, with some reportedly held for up to 12 hours.

Madam Speaker, although complications in the inspection process can arise in response to sweeping changes in immigration policy or shifting world events, the greatest impact on individuals comes from the consistent lack of access to counsel and other assistance at ports of entry on a day-to-day basis.

All individuals--including U.S. citizens--who seek to lawfully enter the United States are subject to inspection by CBP officers at ports of entry.

Without access to counsel and other parties, many individuals are refused admission or issued an expedited removal order instead of being provided the chance to vindicate their rights and lawfully enter the country.

The Access to Counsel Act will ensure individuals who are seeking to lawfully enter the United States are treated fairly and with dignity.

The bill permits counsel and interested parties to appear in person at the port of entry, but also gives DHS and CBP enough discretion to determine--based on operational and other practical limitations--how the consultation takes place.

The bill provides extra protection for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) by prohibiting DHS from accepting a Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status from an LPR without first providing the LPR a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel.

Madam Speaker, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020 is supported by an impressive coalition of highly respected organizations, including: Amnesty International; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); America's Voice; American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA); Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Immigration Hub; and National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5581, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source