Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bernard A. ``Bud'' Barton, Jr. on his retirement from the Library of Congress and to thank him for nearly three decades of dedicated public service.

Mr. Barton has spent his career at the intersection of knowledge and technology. While serving as the deputy chief information officer for the North Carolina National Guard. Mr. Barton designed the agency's disaster recovery and continuity of operations capabilities, ensuring the Guard lived up to its ``Always Ready'' motto. As chief information officer for the Defense Technical Information Center, Mr. Barton ensured that the Department of Defense's largest library had the IT infrastructure necessary to fuse science and technology data and reliably deliver the knowledge needed to develop the next generation of technologies to support our Warfighters and help assure national security.

In 2015, Mr. Barton took on what Fortune Magazine labeled as possibly the hardest job in tech, serving as the Chief Information Officer for the Library of Congress. Mr. Barton has ably guided the nation's oldest federal cultural institution through a complete technological overhaul. Mr. Barton oversaw the centralization of Library technology activities; fostered the creation of an agency-wide digital strategy; and marshalled efforts to optimize and modernize the Library's IT infrastructure and critical IT business systems. Under his leadership, the Library completed a three-year data center transformation, embracing the best of traditional IT services and the Cloud to ensure a stable, flexible, scalable foundation for the future. He also completely revamped IT security, and successfully addressed more than 100 major technology recommendations identified by Congress and the

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend of the U.S. Government Publishing Office and of the U.S. Congress itself, former Public Printer William J. ``Bill'' Boarman, who passed away on August 22, 2021.

Appointed by President Barack Obama, Bill served as the 26th Public Printer of the United States, the former title for the head of the U.S. Government Printing Office, as it was then known. As Rep. Steny Hoyer has said, Bill's service set a new standard of achievement for his successors to emulate.

Bill's arrival at GPO found the agency confronting worrisome fiscal and technology challenges. He moved quickly to cut agency spending and aggressively collected funds owed to GPO throughout the government. In committee hearings and visits with Members of Congress, Bill provided persuasive testimony on the value of the services that GPO performs while at the same time ordering the first-ever survey of Congress's printing requirements, resulting in the largest single-year reduction in the number of printed Congressional Record copies delivered to Congress since GPO began an online version in 1994.

Bill made customer service GPO's primary strategic goal, a direction that earned the agency applause throughout the government. He ordered the development and release of GPO's first mobile web application. He devised and won congressional approval for a new investment and spending plan that put GPO on the path it is continuing to follow today. As a former GPO compositor, his return to the agency restored confidence and bolstered employee morale. While heralding technology change at GPO he appeared in ``Linotype: The Film,'' an independent production extolling the virtues of that long gone machine. Under his watch GPO observed its 150th anniversary, opening an exhibit of its history to the public and issuing an official history with a foreword by Bill. In addition to leaving the agency better than he found it, Bill made GPO history by appointing Ms. Davita Vance-Cooks as deputy public printer, the first woman ever to hold that post, and in 2013 the Senate confirmed her appointment to become the first woman and the first African American ever to head the agency.

The road to Bill's success at the GPO was paved from the beginning of his career. Bill spent his life in printing, frequently claiming that he had ``ink in my veins,'' and in his work supporting the rights and welfare of printers nationwide. Following high school in Hyattsville, MD, he took a four-year apprenticeship with the International Typographical Union (ITU) and became a journeyman printer at McArdle Printing in Washington, D.C. In 1974, Bill began his career as a proofreader at the GPO and eventually moved up to linotype operator. He quickly became a shop steward and at age 30 was elected president of the Columbia Typographical Union, Local 101, his home local and a craft union that traces its beginning to before the Civil War.

Bill served on the ITU executive board in 1987 where he was a key player in that organization's merger with the Communication Workers of America. He was elected to head the ITU as it moved to merger, and he subsequently became head of the CWA's Printing Sector.

As the chief executive of the newly-merged organization, Bill oversaw bargaining and organizing in the printing industry. He also served as chair of the $1 billion CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan and the $125 million counterpart serving Canadian printers. His experience with pension investing, funding, and administration led to his appointment to a number of high-level pension policy councils.

Over the span of his career, Bill was a fierce advocate for workers' rights. He was frequently in attendance at labor rallies across the country, marching with Cesar Chavez in San Diego in 1990 and supporting Richard Trumka at the Detroit News Building during its

newspaper strike in 1996. His advocacy for workers was especially focused on GPO. For more than 40 years Bill advocated strongly and tirelessly for the agency, defending its essential role and the role played by its employees in supporting Congress and the Federal Government. His advice and counsel were sought and welcomed by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, as well as Presidents.

After his retirement from GPO in 2012, Bill remained committed to public service. He was appointed by Maryland's governor to serve on both the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities and the Anne Arundel Board of Elections. He was an avid boater who loved his home port on the Severn River and enjoyed the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay. He had a keen understanding of American history and thrived on lively political discussions. He loved sports, especially University of Maryland basketball and the Washington Football Team.

In Bill Boarman, American printers nationwide had a true friend; the Congress, an honorable and skillful servant; GPO, a champion whose impact continues to be felt. I ask my fellow Members of the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Bill's family and friends, as well as the thanks of a grateful nation for his dedicated service.

Madam Speaker, I support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Congress first passed the Voting Rights Act while Martin Luther King, Jr. led for civil rights and John Lewis stood by his side. The law made a difference, defeating racial discrimination in voting.

But the Court, in the Shelby and Brnovich cases, destroyed important parts of the law. This bill fixes that. With an updated coverage formula, practice-based preclearance, and rational standards to challenge racial discrimination, this bill is essential.

Representatives Butterfield and Fudge both chaired the Subcommittee on Elections, whose hearings established the factual bases for this bill. All the members of the Subcommittee on Elections worked hard holding hearings around America. I thank them, and I thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work.

As we vote to restore the Voting Rights Act, to protect the rights of Americans from being denied the right to vote because of their race, we should remember, honor, and thank those who came before us, and especially our late colleague, John Lewis.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As has been mentioned, it makes key changes in the Afghan Allies Protection Act to ensure that the Special Immigrant Visa program, which is part of current law, works as Congress intended to protect the lives of Afghan nationals who served honorably alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

For the past several years, many of us have expressed grave concerns about the challenges our allies face in navigating the Special Immigrant Visa process. It currently takes an average

of 3 years to complete the process, which includes numerous forms, applications, detailed documentary requirements, and lengthy criminal background and national security checks.

This bill makes important changes to streamline the application without compromising the national security interests or the integrity of the program.

Now, I think back to when we voted after 9/11, and I don't think any of us--and I will speak for myself--believed that we were starting a 20-year war, the longest war in America's history. During that war, Afghans stepped forward to serve beside our brave military.

I am proud that veterans in this Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have stepped forward to work together to make sure that this bill moves forward so that we can honor our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we are finally leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, our longest war. We have a moral obligation to ensure that our allies can safely and more quickly be removed from harm, so we need to stand by these brave men and women and pass this bill. It is in the national interest.

If we can't keep our promises to our allies, who is going to believe us in the future?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crow from Colorado, in particular, for leading on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of our former colleague Jerry Lewis.

My colleagues here have spoken to the mark he left on the House of Representatives. I'd like to take a moment speak to his legacy in the California delegation, where he was the longest serving Republican in our state's history.

Whether it was as my counterpart as Chair of the California Republican Congressional Delegation, during his tenure as Republican

Conference Chair, or his time as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Jerry was always willing to work with his California colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the needs of our state.

If Jerry had anything to say about it, California was getting its fair share.

During his time in Sacramento he helped establish the South Coast Air Quality Management District. He understood the need to deal with the horrific smog that was plaguing much of Southern California, and particularly the Inland Empire.

George Miller once pointed out that Jerry and he were on opposing sides of legislation to create the Mojave Desert National Park, but that once the park was created, Jerry immediately turned around and worked with the delegation to ensure that the public had access and that there would be improvements to the park.

That's the kind of legislator he was--instead of being consumed by what divides us, Jerry like to move to the next problem to solve.

We've missed his presence in the House over the last decade. Our thoughts are with his wife Arlene and his children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the immediate and extended staff of the Office of Employee Assistance (OEA) at the United States

House of Representatives for their tireless service to the House, the United States Capitol Police, and Congressional Budget Office following the violent attack on our Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Through exemplary dedication, passion, and commitment to their profession, the team has developed the OEA into a preeminent employee assistance program over three decades, delivering comprehensive confidential services covering an array of personal and work-related issues to positively impact employee performance, productivity, and well-being.

The team's commitment and care has offered comfort and coping tools to those experiencing profound grief and distress after the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. These services included one-to-one crisis consultation, confidential counseling, debriefings on trauma and resilience, discussion group facilitation, and the development and dissemination of self-help material containing practical strategies to promote recovery.

Additionally, the OEA promptly secured and coordinated additional counseling assets for their appointment-based services as well as for the ongoing, around-the-clock crisis support efforts that would remain available to Capitol Police personnel in the weeks and months that followed.

Through in-person, telephonic, and video meetings and seminars, the OEA interacted with thousands of employees and family members in the first half of 2021 alone, far surpassing past utilization trends. Employee engagement in all their services has been unprecedented--as have been the needs--yet the staff of the OEA has never flinched.

The dedicated team provided impactful work not only through an extraordinary volume of interactions with individuals, but through regular training and briefing facilitation across the House, on-call responses after-hours, and ongoing efforts to promote the services throughout the House and the Capitol Police communities. All the while, the team maintained the resolve and perspective to effectively help others while processing their own attack-and-pandemic-related concerns as employees of this institution.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the entire Office of Employee Assistance and Well-Being teams who served throughout this tremendous support effort: Tiara Anderson, Breanna Becker, Briana Cragwell, Georgeanna Goldstein, Margot Hawkins-Green, Rhonda Kaalund, Malia Klee, Liz McBride, Jon Murphy, Emily Swartz, Paul Tewksbury, and Brian Weiss. Also worthy of our thanks are the contracted counseling partners. These special groups of professionals should all be commended for their commitment, dedication, and professionalism during a time of great need.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize and thank the Office of Employee Assistance for their extraordinary and unwavering service to this institution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the bill (H.R. 3005) to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It directs the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber with a bust of Justice Thurgood Marshall. It also directs the removal of statues and busts of individuals who served the Confederacy, and other white supremacists.

The United States Capitol is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, visited by millions of people each year before COVID hit, and soon we hope to be visited by millions of people again. What and who we choose to honor in this building must represent our values.

Chief Justice Taney, who, in the Dred Scott decision, declared that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States and had no constitutional rights, does not meet this standard; and neither do the white supremacists and Confederates we continue to honor with statues today.

Justice Taney's decision continued and permitted the expansion of slavery. Those who founded, served, and fought for the Confederacy were willing to spill American blood in defense of it.

In his infamous Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery and white supremacy were the cornerstone of the Confederacy.

There is no shortage of American figures like Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, more deserving of the honor of being displayed in our Capitol.

There are some who argue that this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must never forget our Nation's shameful periods of slavery, segregation, and racism.

This is, instead, about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on the pedestal and display as emblematic of our values.

We are just months removed from January 6, when a mob of insurrectionists looking to violently overturn a Presidential election stormed this very building. During that awful attack, the same Confederate flag carried into battle against the United States in the 19th century was again carried into battle against the United States and into this very Capitol.

It is long past time to remove from a place of honor in our Nation's Capitol the statues and busts of those who favored war against the United States in support of the so-called government founded on a cornerstone of racism and white supremacy.

Outside the Old Supreme Court Chamber, before you get to the Taney bust, you pass another sculpture, which depicts the figures of History and Justice. Today, we can demonstrate to the Nation and the world that we have learned from our history and we continue to pursue justice.

Put another way, we can follow the advice of the great American poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou. This is what she said: ``Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.''

Let us now show ourselves and the world that we are who we claim to be. Let us do better.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3005, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would like to correct the record. The Joint Committee on the Library organized last Wednesday. Until last Wednesday, the Joint Committee was chaired by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican Senator, and I have now been chair for 6 days and hope to act promptly on the North Carolina matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), the distinguished chair of the Election Subcommittee in the House Administration Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I just want to note, for purposes of clarifying the historical record, that the Republicans of the 19th century and the early 20th century bear almost no resemblance to the Republican Party of today. Similarly, the Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are the same parties in name only.

In the 19th century, the Republicans were generally the party of the northerners, and the Democrats were the party of the South, and that has switched.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip. We are so lucky to have as our whip someone who started his public service as a fighter for civil rights. Like our colleague, the late John Lewis, our whip put his life on the line for civil rights and for voting rights.

Madam Speaker, just a note of the process. In fact, Arkansas is now selecting an artist to develop the Bates statue that has to be approved before we can proceed. Meanwhile, even though they want to get rid of that statue, it stays here. If we pass this bill, the statue will be gone while Arkansas pursues a replacement.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my colleague, a member of the Committee on House Administration, and a scholar and former constitutional law professor.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Well, the other speakers we are expecting I think are caught up in a long appropriations markup, so you may proceed. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a couple of clarifications because I think it may be confusing to the general public hearing about what is really a rather arcane process for States to add and remove statues.

The Joint Committee on the Library ultimately approves it, but the process is driven by the States, the Architect of the Capitol does all of the heavy lifting, looking at the statues, making sure that the replacement statue meets the engineering requirements and the like. I would just like to note that until last Wednesday, Senator Roy Blunt was chair of the Joint Committee on the Library, and I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library now for 6 days.

In that time, I actually have approved the reopening of the Botanical Gardens. I have approved the replacement of the Kansas statue that I received the letter on Friday. And I have just received the information on North Carolina, and I plan to work on that very hard and, hopefully, very promptly get a decision.

So I don't think that speaks to undue delay in the 6 days that I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library.

I do think it is important that we take the step to remove these Confederates and segregationists and pro-slavery statues from our Statuary Hall. In some cases, States have either started the steps to remove them. But while that process is ongoing, these individuals are on a pedestal. And we cannot forget our history, but we don't have to put segregationists and pro-slavery historical figures on a pedestal. We don't honor them, although we do remember them.

So let's adopt this measure to deal with those statues.

But there is another thing. There are situations such as the statue of Justice Taney that were not sent here by any State, and only we can remove them expeditiously. We have said, and we have heard from people more eloquent than I about why Justice Taney should not be honored.

In 1865, a few years before the Taney bust was ultimately commissioned, the Senate debated it. They debated whether to commission the bust of Justice Taney for the Supreme Court room. And during that debate, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts said this: ``I object to that; that now an emancipated country should make a bust to the author of the Dred Scott decision. Judgment is beginning now; and an emancipated country will fasten upon him the stigma which he deserves.''

Now, it may have taken longer than Senator Sumner envisioned, in fact, 156 years to attach the stigma that belongs to Justice Taney, but we will attach that stigma today if we pass this bill.

In closing, I just want to say that all of us are here for a few years. Some longer, some shorter, but we are just here for a little slice of history. And I feel fortunate that my little slice of history allowed me to be here the same time as the late John Lewis. I can almost imagine him standing here on the floor. How fortunate I am to have served with him. And how fortunate I am to serve with our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, who put his body on the line to fight against segregation and to fight for voting rights. They are leaders of our country. I am proud to serve with them. Let's show how much we honor them by voting for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for their extraordinary bipartisan leadership on these bills. These two bills recognize the urgency of Federal scientific investment.

Over the past few decades, Federal spending on R&D flatlined as a share of our economy, and it has fallen in absolute terms. Meanwhile, global competitors jump-started their economic growth through such investments that spur innovation.

Maintaining our leadership in research and development is arguably more important than ever. Now is the time to be bold in our vision of what is possible. We shortchange the Nation every year when we refuse to fund a rich portfolio of research opportunities.

I want to talk about the NSF for the Future Act. It is part of the remedy, and it strikes the appropriate balance of expanding popular and effective projects and programs while expanding the Foundation's role and mandate to new areas of evolving technologies.

The approach to the creation of a new directorate outlined in the bill sets an appropriate benchmark as we engage with the Senate, and it has received overwhelming support from the academic, scientific, and business communities.

We need to make sure we get this right.

The bill would allow NSF to improve the speed and scale of its core mission to advance basic and fundamental research while promoting innovative solutions to the challenges we face as a nation.

We must support this effort, the NSF bill, as well as the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these two pieces of legislation. I commend the committee for its excellent work.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It provides funding to respond to the January 6 attack, during which violent insurrectionists, incited and encouraged by the former President, attacked this Capitol where we stand today.

Since the attack, the Committee on House Administration, assisted by General Honore, has reviewed Capitol security and has been examining the Capitol Police's preparation for and response to the attack.

The supplemental narrowly tailors a response to that attack. It makes sure that we have the physical improvements we know will need to be taken, and it supports the Capitol Police with wellness and trauma support and provides officers with the training and riot control equipment they should have had on the 6th.

For those who say we should not do anything today, it is a mistake to say if we can't do everything at the same time, we should do nothing.

This bill is a first step toward having a more secure facility that lodges the legislative branch of government. There are measures that we sent to the House Administration Committee for further review. I welcome that.

Madam Speaker, to fail to act today is really to turn your backs on the men and women who fought as Capitol Police officers just yards from where we stand today. They were maimed. Their eyes were gouged. They lost fingers. Some of them died.

Don't turn your backs on them and vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, we had a hearing yesterday that went for more than 3 hours. We are likely to have additional hearings on that matter. It is not clear at the moment whether the board needs to be replaced, whether it was failings of the structure, or whether it was failings of the individuals holding the positions in that structure.

If I may, we will come forward with our best analysis of what changes should be made in the weeks to come.

Meanwhile, these officers need our support today. We can't hold back and do nothing.

Madam Speaker, I would take exception to that. The House Administration Committee has had more oversight and more hearings, both at a Member level and a staff level, than any other committee in the House or Senate about the Capitol Police.

We don't have jurisdiction over everything, but we have not been derelict in our duty. And I take exception on the part of the whole committee, Republicans and Democrats, and their staff.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, most of what is in this bill doesn't need a change in the law. You don't need a change in the law to provide training to the Capitol Police. That is baseline what our obligation is.

We failed to actually do what we are required to do, and to think that some further legislative action is needed is simply false.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) providing for the appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise to today to recognize Desseray ``Dez'' Vega, a Program Manager at Alum Rock Counseling Center (ARCC) in my Congressional district. I was proud to invite Ms. Vega to be my virtual guest to President Biden 's Joint Address to Congress on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.

ARCC provides behavioral health and community support services for more than 10,000 children and families in Santa Clara County each year. Before the Joint Address, I spoke to Ms. Vega about the effect the COVID relief bills have had on ARCC, the counselors she manages, her clients, and her family. I was glad to hear that the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) kept ARCC from laying off around 80 people, helping both the employees and their families as well as the children they serve.

Ms. Vega works one-on-one with in-need children in San Jose and manages a team of 15 counselors as part of ARCC's Prevention and Early Intervention program. Ms. Vega said, ``I was able to see firsthand how the PPP really made a difference. Having income and stability helps us [counselors] be more present and helps our clients and their families. During the pandemic, there has been trauma for the families we serve, and everything has been inconsistent except for the therapy we provide. From my personal experience, I'm so grateful'' for COVID relief legislation.

Madam Speaker, the truth is, it is us who should be grateful for Ms. Vega, counselors like her. and organizations like ARCC that serve our communities. It is my pleasure to recognize Ms. Vega and her positive contributions to the lives of children and families in my Congressional district before, during, and after the pandemic. I also call on all my colleagues to join me in continuing to meet the needs of communities across the country during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I include the following letter in the Record:

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, April 28, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: I hereby report to the House the

disposition of the election contest in Iowa's Second

Congressional District. Contestant Rita Hart properly filed a

notice of contest under the Federal Contested Election Act

(FCEA) on December 22, 2020. Contestee Mariannette Miller-

Meeks filed a motion to dismiss on January 21, 2021. On

February 19, 2021, the Committee adopted a resolution to

establish procedures in contested election cases properly

filed under the FCEA in the 117th Congress. After reviewing

additional filings from the parties, including a response to

the Contestee's motion filed by the Contestant and a reply

filed by the Contestee, the Committee on House Administration

voted on March 10, 2021, to postpone

disposition of the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2021,

Contestant Hart announced she would withdraw her contest. A

letter of withdrawal from Contestant Rita Hart, mailed on

March 31, 2021, was transmitted to the Committee on House

Administration by the Clerk of the House on April 8, 2021.

After a review of House and Committee precedent in

contested elections cases in which the contestant withdraws,

I have determined no further House or Committee action is

required to dismiss the contest. The contestant's letter of

withdrawal was entered into the record of the Committee on

House Administration's Markup on April 28, 2021, and the

Committee will take no further action on this contest.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill that allows individuals who have obviously valid travel documents to contact a member of their family or counsel if they are held for an extended period of time at a U.S. port of entry.

It has nothing to do with the inspection of contraband. It has nothing to do with providing a lawyer at government expense. That is prohibited. It has nothing to do with delaying the inspection. It is only if it is practical for the CBP to allow this to occur.

The immigration laws are very complex and fact-intensive, and for some people who are in secondary inspection for hours, providing a piece of information to the CBP can clear things up.

Madam Speaker, I will give you an example of a researcher coming in with a valid visa and the CBP wonders about that research: Is it true? Being able to communicate with the president of the university where the student is heading to can assure the CBP about the research and would clear the matter up.

This bill does nothing to alter the existing authority of the CBP to alter, to deny entry, or to issue an expedited removal order. It just allows individuals to communicate with their American family, with their employer, and with their counsel to help provide information. There are many red herrings that have been offered about this bill, but it is really about expediting a process that is impeded, oftentimes because of lack of information. These are individuals who are coming legally. It does not apply to people who are coming between ports of entry.

The lack of communication can cause harm to American families. Somebody who is coming to their American fiancee can be turned away. Somebody who is coming to work for an employer who needs their expertise could be turned away. Somebody who is coming to continue their groundbreaking medical research could erroneously be turned away.

It is important that information be made available to the CBP, and the way to do that is to make sure that individuals who are lawfully attempting to enter the United States with an apparently valid visa at a port of entry who has been held for secondary inspection have an opportunity to communicate with their American family or with their American boss or even a lawyer to get information that the CBP can then consider, and if they are not persuaded it is valid, they can still turn that individual around.

I think that the opposition is a bit overwrought.

Madam Speaker, I actually am surprised by some of the things in the rhetoric that have been offered in opposition to what is really just a commonsense, modest measure that will allow for communication for people who have legal visas who have been held in secondary inspection, so the confusion can be cleared up. It is important, not just to the people trying to enter, but it is important to Americans who are waiting for them--their families, their employers, and their teachers.

Madam Speaker, I urge approval of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I hereby include in the Record the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H. R. 1333, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act. The cost estimate was not available at the time of the filing of the Committee Report.