Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486. The majority is actually playing procedural games here by including a nongermane provision to satisfy certain requirements. The two immigration bills that we are considering today are expensive, make no doubt about it. According to the CBO, the NO BAN Act will increase direct spending by $290 million over the next 10 years and increase deficits by $307 million over the same period. And a preliminary estimate from CBO notes that the Access to Counsel Act, which we will debate later today, will increase discretionary spending by at least $1 billion over the next 5 years. So the majority had to come up with a pay-for. They opted for prescription drug legislation, but chose to discard bipartisan committee past text to instead include a flawed prescription bill that will stifle investment and research, prevent new medications from coming to market, block truthful advertising, and disincentivize improvements in patient care. This Congress has unanimously passed six bipartisan bills out of committee to address the costs of prescription drugs. But today, instead of using bipartisan-negotiated text, my colleagues across the aisle have made prescription drugs a partisan issue in an effort to pass partisan immigration bills. Our President has consistently taken decisive action to help ensure the security of our immigration programs and, thus, the safety of our country. Every time he does so, my Democratic friends cry foul. They attempt to block the President's actions and threaten to take away the President's power. The Department of Homeland Security has identified several types of information that it needs in order to make a reliable decision regarding the admissibility of a foreign country's nationals seeking entry to the United States. This includes things like: Does the country report lost or stolen identity documents, including passports, to Interpol, and how often do they do so? Does the country share information about their known or suspected terrorists or about their criminals with us? Does the country issue modern electronic passports? These are clearly important things to know when determining whether to let a foreign national enter our country. Instead of expressing appreciation for what this President has been able to accomplish with regard to security, my colleagues have decided to consider this No BAN Act, which effectively eviscerates the ability of the administration to take quick and decisive action to protect our homeland when concerns arise, even action to prevent entry of aliens based on a global health crisis like COVID-19. Until the President signed the first travel executive order in January of 2017, very few had ever heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(f) authority. This provision provides the President broad latitude to impose restrictions on the entry of aliens or classes of aliens into the United States when such entry ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'' And this authority has been used successfully by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and others. Pursuant to the travel executive order, the President required the Secretary of DHS and Secretary of State, along with the Director of National Intelligence to determine what countries failed to meet international standards of information sharing or identity management or were at a risk of terrorism or public safety concern and to report their findings to him. Based on that assessment and the recommendations of the Secretaries, the President placed travel restrictions on seven nations. Pursuant to the continued review of countries and an updated report in January, the President issued a proclamation imposing narrowly tailored travel restrictions on six additional countries: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. It is important to understand that such restrictions are not permanent. When a country comes into compliance with the information sharing and other requirements, they can be removed from the list of restricted countries, and that has actually happened under this administration, for instance, Chad in 2018. And press reports note that the Government of Nigeria immediately began working to come into compliance. The President's use of 212(f) authority has helped improve our security and the vetting of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. As the DHS Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy testified last September: ``One country reinstituted a dormant program to help identify convicted criminals. Three countries have adopted more secure e-Passports. Two countries obtained access to Interpol databases for the first time. And eight countries began reporting lost and stolen passports to Interpol for the first time or they improved the regularity of that reporting.'' These are not insignificant improvements to the world's security. The No BAN Act would take 212(f) authority from the elected President and give it to an unelected subordinate who is not accountable to voters. Under this bill, only the Secretary of State can determine that the entry of aliens is a threat to the U.S. This is problematic in instances where other Cabinet officials should be involved, such as Health and Human Services or Treasury. The bill's undefined and broad terms, ``least restrictive means'' and the ``notion of harm,'' are ripe for litigation, especially considering the bill's expansive judicial review provision and explicit class action allowance. The No BAN Act also contains onerous reporting requirements, consultation with Congress before the President can act, and Federal Register publication of information about the action taken and the circumstances necessitating the action. But does it make sense for the U.S. Government to broadcast the deficiencies they have identified since those would likely be exploited by bad actors seeking to do us harm? Perhaps the most ridiculous of the bill's provisions is section 4, which not only terminates the travel executive orders in place but, incredibly, ceases all actions taken pursuant to any proclamation or executive order terminated by the bill. That means that information sharing on terrorists, criminals, and other security threats that has developed between the United States and other countries with travel restrictions would end. This bill is a knee-jerk response by my Democratic colleagues because of the disapprobation of President Trump, and it would undermine the safety and security of Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose the No BAN Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, just to point out, this bill does not say anywhere this contact will be limited to a simple phone call. Nowhere does it say that. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and express condolences for his loss of his dear friend. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my colleague and longtime friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). In Memory of Mary Ellen Witter

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I will say that as we go forward, if we continue to denigrate all police officers because of a few police officers, if we denigrate all of our society because of a few in our society, we will see this Nation, the ideals of individual freedom, erased from this Earth. I used to do work at multilateral institutions and at the United Nations, and I will tell you this: This country, to me, is special and unique; imperfect, but the idea, the ideals, the people who have gone before us, how can we erase what they have done? Some made magnificent sacrifices that we might enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today, and yet they were wrong on other issues in their lives. How can we erase our history? We must face our history squarely and openly and build upon that history to the great promise of the ideals of this Nation if we are going to persist as a Nation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his passionate and heartfelt words. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his passionate comments about freedom. Madam Speaker, those of us who have had the good fortune of studying history, we know that it bumps and claws along. We do see progress sometimes, and we also see devolution sometimes. What we are seeing today, though, reminds me an awful lot of a revolution that took place in the early part of the 20th century. It was not a large revolution; it was a small revolution. It was the Bolshevik Revolution. It was funded by some of the bourgeoisie who did not like the form of government in then-Russia. It was not a massive revolution. It wasn't widespread, but it changed that entire nation's form of government. I am reminded that it was Trotsky who prevented the military from intervening against the lawless revolution. What I am seeing here today reminds me an awful lot of that. This is a small revolution that is violent in nature, is anti-American in nature. And so when my colleagues mention the police and what they need to do, what happens is there has been an emasculation of the police. They don't really want to get involved because, should they get involved, there is a legitimate concern that they will be sued, arrested, et cetera. So when you get rid of the blue line of defense against lawlessness, then you basically destroy the foundation of the protection of your freedoms. President Trump called certain groups antifa, domestic terrorists. In our debate in the Judiciary Committee, some of my colleagues said antifa is a fiction. So I said: Well, you know, is it a fiction? So I went to CNN, because I knew that if I went to FOX and referred to FOX, nobody was going to believe that that was not biased. So I went to CNN because I wanted to find out what they said, and you can go through and find extensive interviews where the conclusion is clear: antifa is a real organization. It is a group. And the group sometimes chooses to resort to violence. So what do you have? They are definitely domestic. They are committing terrorist activity in this country. Thus, they are domestic. And what would terrorism be? Terrorism is the use of force, intimidation, violence to change or alter behavior for a particular purpose. So you begin to see you have domestic terrorism going on. 18 U.S. Code, Section 2339A, I call on FBI Director Wray to begin using that statute, make the arrests necessary to restore order. And I call on Attorney General William Barr to use that same section to charge and prosecute these individuals who are attempting to intimidate Americans out of their freedom. A lot of these Federal monuments and statues that are coming down, these memorials that are being ripped to shreds, destroyed are on Federal property. And you know what? 18 U.S. Code 1369 is the statute that Director Wray should be having his Federal agency make arrests under. And then I call on Attorney General Barr to have his U.S. attorneys charge and prosecute under 18 U.S. Code 1369 for destruction of veterans' memorials. And we can go forward. But why do I even bring that up? It is because I believe sincerely that this country is built on the idea that each of us should have agency, will, choice. It hasn't always worked out really well or perfectly. There are those who have had their choices and will taken away from them. That is inexcusable, of course. But if we are going to have will and choice and freedom, then we are part of this great social contract where I delegate my right to defend myself because I can't do it all the time. There are people who are stronger or more vicious or are more malevolent who want to compel me to do something or take something from me. We delegate police authority to police. It is not carte blanche. It is reasonable. We have got to restore respect for the law, for the police, for the courts, and for process. It is imperfect. I worked in that system for a lot of years on both sides, prosecuting and defending. It is not a perfect process. The reality is, though, it is as Winston Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others. It is the best humankind has come up with. To destroy our history seems so antithetical to making progress, eradicating our history, erasing it. College professors are now saying we have got to go through and remove books from the library. Remove them from the library, because why? They have unpopular ideas in them. They may be unpopular ideas, but you know what is better than taking them out and burning them or removing them and trashing them ala Adolph Hitler and the Nazis? It is letting us read them, discuss them, and point out their flaws, and rehabilitate us, our hearts. Artwork being removed from museums, being removed from this House. Why? Because some were not 2020 politically correct. What they did was, to some, unconscionable and abominable. Let's have the discussion. Removing your history allows you to repeat the mistakes of your history. I simply don't understand it. We have now moved beyond a motivational or some kind of philosophical attempt to remove historical items. Now we are seeing indiscriminate action. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a series of articles. [From Breitbart News] A greater percentage of U.S. registered voters believe Confederate statues, which have been targeted by protesters in recent weeks, should remain standing despite activists' demands to remove them, a Morning Consult poll released this week revealed. The survey, taken June 6-7, showed that a greater number of Americans believe Confederate statues should remain standing, 44 percent, as opposed to the 32 percent who say they should be removed. Twenty-three percent expressed no opinion on the matter. The fundings reflect a slight shift in opinion over the last three years. In August 2017, 52 percent of voters indicated that the statues should be left alone, with just over a quarter, 26 percent, indicating otherwise. However, Morning Consult reported that the purported increase in support over the years is largely driven by Democrats: The rise in support for removing the statues was driven by Democrats, a majority of whom now take that position, and independents, who still favor keeping those statues standing by a 10-point margin. Eleven percent of GOP voters say the statues should be removed, virtually unchanged since 2017. The vast majority of Republicans, 71 percent, believe the Confederate statues should remain standing, whereas the majority of Democrats, 53 percent, believe they should be taken down. Forty percent of independents believe they should remain standing, with 30 percent vying for their removal and 30 percent expressing no opinion. The survey was taken among ``roughly'' 1,900 voters, with a margin of error of +/- two percent. The survey comes as protesters vandalize and, in some cases, tear down Confederate statues and others they deem offensive, including statues of Christopher Columbus. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also embraced the calls for change, requesting in a letter on Wednesday the removal of Confederate statues occupying the U.S. Capitol, or as she called them, ``monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end.'' ``Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals,'' she said in a letter to Committee Chair Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Vice Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). ``Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed.'' Interestingly, Pelosi has remained silent on her own father's role in the dedication of a Confederate statue in Baltimore's Wyman Park in 1948. As Breitbart News detailed: However, her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., oversaw the dedication of such a statue in Baltimore's Wyman Park--the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument--as mayor of the city in 1948. At the time, the Speaker's father said people could look to Jackson's and Lee's lives as inspiration and urged Americans to ``emulate Jackson's example and stand like a stone wall against aggression in any form that would seek to destroy the liberty of the world.'' World Wars I and II found the North and South fighting for a common cause, and the generalship and military science displayed by these two great men in the War between the States lived on and were applied in the military plans of our nation in Europe and the Pacific areas,'' D'Alesandro said at the dedication ceremony, as detailed by the Baltimore Sun. He continued: Today with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions . . . remain steadfast in our determination to preserve freedom, not only for ourselves, but for other liberty-loving nations who are striving to preserve their national unity as free nations. Pelosi's office did not return Breitbart News's request for comment.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I appreciate her comments. We do see an increase in the amount of lawlessness. We have moved from peaceful protests, which I support, I understand. That is what the guarantee of the First Amendment is for. We all get a right to assemble with whom we want to assemble with. We get a right to speak. We get a right to seek redress of grievances from the government. All of those are important rights that we support, we stand for. But we move into rioting, looting, mayhem. There has been murder. There has been assaults. There has been brutal violence. I have heard some of my colleagues in this body call those protests. It is not protesting. That is lawless rioting, and it needs to be curbed and checked. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his comments, and I echo his sentiment that what needs to happen to restore order here is one must arrest malefactors who are committing crimes. We must then charge them and prosecute them and give them due process. But without a restoration of order, no one in this country has freedom. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, particularly relating to history. I am reminded, as I was pondering that, that each of us has a history. Each of us has a personal history. None of us are perfect. Sometimes, we have flaws that seem almost insurmountable in our own lives. But if we deny our history, then we deny who we are and who we can become. When I hear folks out there attacking our history and saying, let's bring down this statue or let's do this or let's do that, some of it is so acontextual. By that, I mean it is as if there was no history to learn from. And I think, how in the world can we be so narcissistic that we don't accept the flaws of our own past and build upon the promise of the future? We have problems, for sure, but it does not inure to lawlessness, rioting, murder, and mayhem. It should, instead, inure to the better angels within us. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughts and taking time to share those with us. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko.)

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) an additional 30 seconds.