Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when it comes to $2 trillion, I don't think there can be enough oversight. I think our constituents expect us to make sure that that money is being spent where it should be spent, where Congress intended it. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the reason why we are doing this is because the President is undercutting oversight. Madam Speaker, I want to insert in the Record ``Trump Ousts Pandemic Spending Watchdog Known for Independence.'' [From The New York Times, April 7, 2020] Trump Ousts Pandemic Spending Watchdog Known for Independence (By Ben Protess, Steve Eder, and David Enrich) Washington--President Trump moved on Tuesday to oust the leader of a new watchdog panel charged with overseeing how his administration spends trillions of taxpayer dollars in coronavirus pandemic relief, the latest step in an abruptly unfolding White House power play against semi-independent inspectors general across the government. The official, Glenn A. Fine, has been the acting inspector general for the Defense Department since before Mr. Trump took office and was set to become the chairman of a new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to police how the government carries out the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill. But Mr. Trump replaced Mr. Fine in his Pentagon job, disqualifying him from serving on the new oversight panel. The move came at a time when the president has been reasserting authority over the executive branch and signaling impatience with independent voices within the government that he considers disloyal. In recent days, he fired an inspector general who reviewed the whistle-blower complaint that led to his impeachment, nominated a White House aide to another key inspector general post, declared that he would ignore certain oversight provisions in the new relief law and attacked another inspector general who criticized virus testing shortages. Mr. Trump even cheered the firing of the captain of an aircraft carrier for sending a letter to fellow Navy officers pleading for help for his virus-stricken crew, castigating the officer for airing unfavorable information. Only after a loud backlash over the firing and the acting Navy secretary's speech calling the captain ``stupid'' did the president partly reverse himself and say he would look into it. The acting Navy secretary, who said he had ordered the firing because he assumed Mr. Trump might have done it himself otherwise, took the hint and resigned on Tuesday. The questions of accountability and loyalty within the government have been persistent themes in the past three years as Mr. Trump has repeatedly waged war with what he calls ``the deep state.'' He has rejected the conventional views that figures like the director of the F.B.I., the attorney general, intelligence directors, uniformed military commanders, ethics officers and now inspectors general should have a degree of autonomy. At his daily coronavirus briefing, Mr. Trump offered no particular explanation for sidelining Mr. Fine but characterized it as part of a larger shuffle of inspectors general, some of them left over from past administrations, and cited unspecified ``reports of bias.'' Critics said on Tuesday that it sent a message to government watchdogs to tread softly. ``I cannot see how any inspector general will feel in any way safe to do a good job,'' said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group. ``They are all at the mercy at what the president feels.'' But Mr. Trump's allies said he felt burned by the investigations of his campaign and associates and therefore distrusts figures he perceives to be partisan foes within government, particularly former F.B.I. officials who obtained warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to investigate a campaign aide's ties to Russia. ``I've never heard the president express frustrations about independent oversight,'' said Cliff Sims, a former White House aide. ``But he doesn't think he should be subjected to his political enemies in supposedly apolitical oversight roles. This has been deeply ingrained in his psyche since the moment he learned that FISA had been abused to spy on his campaign.'' In removing Mr. Fine from his role overseeing pandemic spending, Mr. Trump targeted a former Justice Department inspector general who earned a reputation for aggressive independence in scrutinizing the F.B.I.'s use of surveillance and other law enforcement powers in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Replacing Mr. Fine as the Pentagon's acting inspector general will be Sean O'Donnell, who serves as the inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency and will do double duty for the time being. A group of inspectors general led by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, will determine who will replace Mr. Fine as chairman of the new pandemic oversight committee. Created as part of the coronavirus relief bill, the committee consists of nine inspectors general from across the executive branch and will have an $80 million budget to hunt for waste, fraud, abuse and illegality in the disbursement of the $2.2 trillion approved by Congress to provide relief to Americans affected by the pandemic. In announcing Mr. Fine's short-lived role last week, Mr. Horowitz had praised him as ``uniquely qualified'' to run oversight of ``large organizations,'' citing his 11 years as the top Justice Department watchdog and his four years serving as the top Pentagon one. ``The inspector general community recognizes the need for transparency surrounding, and strong and effective independent oversight of, the federal government's spending in response to this public health crisis,'' Mr. Horowitz said at the time. Democrats immediately condemned Mr. Fine's sudden ouster as ``corrupt,'' in the words of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. ``President Trump is abusing the coronavirus pandemic to eliminate honest and independent public servants because they are willing to speak truth to power and because he is so clearly afraid of strong oversight,'' Mr. Schumer said. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York and the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called Mr. Trump's actions ``a direct insult to the American taxpayers--of all political stripes--who want to make sure that their tax dollars are not squandered on wasteful boondoggles, incompetence or political favors.'' Still, it is not a given that Mr. O'Donnell will toe the line at the Pentagon. At the E.P.A., he has issued reports that are critical of Mr. Trump's appointed administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, who has sought to limit Mr. O'Donnell's authority and oversight. Only last week, after Mr. O'Donnell's office released a report concluding that the E.P.A. failed to adequately warn communities living in proximity to certain carcinogenic chemicals of their health risks, Mr. Wheeler publicly rebuked the inspector general's report for its ``tone and substance'' and demanded that he rescind it. Mr. O'Donnell refused. Privately, some people within the government's inspector general community suggested that the appointment of Mr. O'Donnell to the Pentagon post would divert his oversight from the E.P.A., which has continued to move forward with Mr. Trump's agenda of reducing or eliminating public health and environmental regulations, even as the coronavirus rages. Before being appointed as the E.P.A. watchdog, Mr. O'Donnell clerked for two federal judges and worked since 2005 as a career lawyer at the Justice Department, most recently in the criminal division working on cases involving fraud, corruption and national security. At the Pentagon, Mr. O'Donnell will serve in an acting capacity pending Senate action on Jason Abend, a Customs and Border Protection official, who was nominated by Mr. Trump last week to take on the post permanently. Mr. Fine remains the No. 2 official at the Pentagon's watchdog office. Late last month, several hours after Mr. Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief and stimulus bill with fanfare on television, he issued a signing statement challenging a key safeguard congressional Democrats insisted upon as a condition of approving $500 billion in corporate bailout funds: that a special inspector general be empowered to demand information about how the Treasury Department spends the money and who would be required to tell Congress if executive branch officials unreasonably balk. In his signing statement, Mr. Trump effectively declared that he could control what information goes to Congress about any disputes over access to information about how and why the money is spent. On Friday, he nominated Brian D. Miller, a White House aide, to serve as the special inspector general overseeing the corporate relief. Then late that night, Mr. Trump fired the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael K. Atkinson, whose insistence on telling Congress about the whistle-blower complaint about Mr. Trump's dealings with Ukraine prompted impeachment proceedings last fall. At the same time, Mr. Trump also announced a slew of other inspector general nominees, including Mr. Abend as the new Defense Department inspector general, and three current and former Justice Department officials to be the new inspectors general at the C.I.A., the Education Department and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. Trump redoubled his attacks on the acting inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, Christi A. Grimm, in a statement on Twitter on Tuesday, a day after she released a report about hospitals facing severe shortages in tests as they battle the pandemic: Why didn't the I.G., who spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!--Trump Tweet On Monday, Mr. Trump had suggested that Ms. Grimm's report was politically biased against him. Ms. Grimm is a career official who began work at the inspector general office late in the Clinton administration and stayed there throughout the Bush and Obama administrations, taking over the role of acting inspector general in an interim capacity this year. Mr. Trump's interest in inspectors general has grown more intense lately. Until his most recent nominations, he had failed to pick anyone for about one-third of the 37 inspector general positions that are presidentially appointed, according to the Project on Government Oversight. Those roles were temporarily assumed by other officials whose lack of job security and status typically makes them more cautious than a permanent appointee, government experts say.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also insert into the Record the President's signing statement, which is crystal clear that he is trying to undercut oversight. So we need to do our job here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we are waiting for a couple of other speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are still waiting for a couple of additional speakers but let me just say one thing here again. It is hard to believe what we are hearing here. My friends on one hand are telling the American people that we all care deeply about oversight, we all want to make sure that the money is being spent properly, but yet they are opposed to this. It is $2 trillion that we have responded with to try to deal with the crisis that we are faced with. That is a lot of money. To object to a select committee to basically make sure that it is being spent properly as this thing is unfolding, my colleagues have such a difficult time dealing with that. Madam Speaker, again, I applaud the Speaker of the House for her leadership during this pandemic, not only on this, but on a whole range of other issues. She has taken what my Republican friends in the Senate and what the White House has proposed and made it better and made it more responsive to average working people. That is what this is about: making sure the money gets to the people who need it, not to the people who don't need it, not to the big corporations, not to the well-off or the well connected. So I don't understand all of the hand-wringing over this select committee. This is an important select committee, just like the one that then-Senator Truman did to make sure that the moneys that were appropriated went to help win the war. We want to win this war too. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my good friend.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Cole--and he is my friend. I appreciate all of his counsel and advice in the Rules Committee, and I appreciate his respect for this institution. I want to thank the distinguished Speaker of this House for her leadership. This is a moment in history that demands strong leadership, and she has risen to the occasion, and I applaud her and I appreciate that. I also want to thank all of those who work on the Hill here: the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, the attending physician, the chief administrative officer, and all of the people who maintain this incredible building. I want to thank them. They protect us and they do an unbelievable job. Madam Speaker, I want to remind people that more than 855,000 cases of coronavirus have been confirmed. Nearly 48,000 lives have been lost as of today, more than 22 million initial unemployment claims filed in the past month. Families will be changed forever. We are in a crisis, and we should be proud that we have come together repeatedly in a bipartisan way to move legislation forward to respond to that crisis. Now, over $2 trillion we have approved to try to help our constituents, protect them, and help protect small businesses, but that is just part of our job. Our job is not just to appropriate the money and just hope it goes to wherever it is supposed to go. We need to do the oversight. We need to make sure that every single penny that we have appropriated goes to where it needs to go. I don't want to be here a year from now looking back and saying: Oh, look at all of the waste and all of the abuse. Look at all of the well- connected people who benefited, but look at all the people who needed the funds who didn't. We need to get this right. That is what this select committee is about. This should not be controversial. Again, I am stunned by the resistance to sunshine and transparency. That is what this is about, and I hope and pray that everything goes perfectly. But we cannot take that chance. We have to make sure we live up to our constitutional responsibility. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so that we can establish this select committee. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have once again been called to respond to a crisis. In the past, we have faced national security threats and natural disasters. But today, it is something radically different: A pandemic. What started half a world away has now spread to more than 100 countries, including the United States. Layoffs have begun, schools have cancelled classes, and large gatherings have been banned. The impacts of this virus are cascading across society. People's health is at risk. And for many their economic reality has changed overnight. People need to get tested. Quarantined workers are wondering how they will pay their bills. Healthcare workers are putting their own health at risk. And children are missing their school lunches. They need help. They need help now. The coronavirus knows no border. It knows no political party. And Mr. Speaker, our response shouldn't either.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome to the House floor my dear friend, Father Jonathan Slavinskas, who offered today's opening prayer. Father Jonathan, as most of his parishioners call him, is the pastor of St. Bernard's Church of Our Lady of Providence Parish on Lincoln Street in Worcester, Massachusetts. A lifelong resident of Worcester, he is also the police chaplain for Worcester, Auburn, and Southbridge. What makes Father Jon so extraordinary is his complete devotion to bettering the lives of his parish community, especially the young people. He hosts an annual Halloween party for hundreds of neighborhood kids so they have a safe place to go trick-or-treating. Stories abound of his little acts of kindness, like buying pizza for kids hanging out on the church steps or opening up the church gym for youth basketball games or making it a point to walk around the neighborhood and simply say ``hi.'' Madam Speaker, Father Jon's compassion and commitment to making everyone feel welcome at St. Bernard's--no matter who they are--is truly remarkable. He is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 891, providing for consideration of Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, S.J. Res. 68, and H.R. 6172. The rules provide for consideration of two House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, which contained the text of the NO BAN Act and the Access to Counsel Act. It also provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It also provides the joint resolution with one motion to commit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6172 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Lastly, this rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler to H.R. 6172 and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, we are now 3 years into a policy that is the antithesis of what this country stands for: the President's shameful and un-American Muslim ban. President Trump chose Holocaust Remembrance Day, of all days, to sign his first executive order on this. That shut the door to thousands of refugees fleeing war--the very people who had seen America as a beacon of hope and were trying to build a better life. Instead, this administration turned its back on innocent women, children, and families desperate to escape violence. That is callous, that is wrong, and it goes against everything America is founded on. President Trump has claimed his Muslim ban is all about national security. But let's be honest here, it was never about that. It is about a President trying to fulfill offensive campaign promises and further his harmful rhetoric about Muslims. As a candidate for President, Donald Trump said he would certainly look at closing mosques in the United States. He floated the idea of creating a database for all Muslim Americans. And he even suggested that Muslims in America were cheering as the World Trade Centers fell on September 11. What an ugly, ugly thing to say. Madam Speaker, I could go on and on and on. This is truly offensive stuff--ideas that should be left somewhere in the darkest corners of the internet. Then, in December of 2015, he called for, ``a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' This ban is his attempt at turning that campaign rhetoric into actual policy, however cruel and unnecessary. My colleagues, Representatives Chu, Jayapal, and Rose, put its impact best when they wrote in a recent op-ed piece: ``That means more grandchildren who will never be able to kiss their grandparents, more loved ones unable to say good-bye at a funeral, more graduations where the proud student has no beaming parents cheering for them in the crowd, and more families forced to make impossible decisions under the most trying circumstances.'' I have met people impacted by the Muslim ban, Madam Speaker. It is people like Benham Partopour, a chemical engineering student getting his Ph.D. at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in my home district in central Massachusetts. He is an Iranian national who was in Iran when President Trump's executive order went into effect. He had a visa, but no airlines were willing to sell plane tickets that would allow him to return to the United States. So, like many other people across the globe, he was stranded. My office worked with school officials and the ACLU Massachusetts every day until he was able to return home to the United States a week later. This is who the President is afraid of, Madam Speaker, a bright young man trying to study at a top American university. He is just one of the roughly 135 million people impacted by this policy. This isn't about crafting sound national security policy; this is about something much more sinister. That is shown by the fact that the President kept drafting versions of his Muslim ban until a watered-down version was able to pass legal muster with conservatives on the Supreme Court. But even they required the administration to grant waivers proving the ban had a ``legitimate national security interest.'' Yet, the State Department has approved just 10 percent of all waivers so far, just 10 percent. Madam Speaker, does this President really believe that 90 percent of Muslims from impacted countries are terrorists? There is absolutely no evidence of that. And it gets worse. According to reports, this administration is now considering expanding its travel ban to even more countries. Enough is enough. Our country already had one of the strongest vetting systems anywhere in the world. We don't need any arbitrary and offensive bans. We can tell the difference between a real threat and the student traveling back to college. That is why this underlying measure will reverse the bans the President has put in place over the last 3 years, and it will ensure people at ports of entry can seek legal advice during the screening process. The principle that our diversity is our strength, and the idea that our country is strengthened by immigration, these are core values of this Democratic majority. That is why we have made this a clear choice and provided a clean up-or-down vote. No stalling tactics. No partisan gimmicks. And I think it is an appropriate process because I want to prevent cynicism and ugliness from being celebrated here on the House floor. The administration's rhetoric and, quite frankly, so many people here on this floor have often demonized immigrants. It is offensive, and it is not worthy of a debate. Either you believe we are a nation defined by the Statue of Liberty welcoming immigrants or one that uses religious discrimination in immigration decisions. I think this is an easy call. Also included in this rule, Madam Speaker, is a reauthorization of the USA FREEDOM Act, as well as a War Powers Resolution led by Senator Kaine that would require a vote in Congress authorizing the use of force before the President escalates hostilities in Iran. Madam Speaker, this Democratic majority promised to take it up if it passed the Senate, and I am proud that it did, with broad bipartisan support. This is not a partisan measure. Eight Republicans joined with Senator Kaine in supporting this War Powers Resolution. Passage here would send the Kaine resolution directly to the President's desk. Madam Speaker, I don't support the FISA reauthorization bill. I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into trying to fashion a compromise, but in the final analysis, I, in good conscience, can't support it. But on the other matters, make no mistake: This is a historic opportunity. Congress has a chance to reassert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace; to live up to its Article I responsibility; and to truly respect our troops by giving them the debate on the future that they deserve, should tensions with Iran escalate again. I hope all my colleagues seize it, and I urge a strong vote for this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, for the record, I want my colleagues to know that pandemics and instances like the coronavirus are already covered by the legislation. Nothing in this bill prohibits the President from using authority under section 212(f) to contain the coronavirus. This bill allows the President to suspend the entry of a class of individuals if it is determined that they would undermine the security or public safety of the United States or the preservation of human rights, democratic processes or institutions, or international stability. But out of an abundance of caution, the Judiciary Committee added a clarification clause on page 7 of the NO BAN Act, which clearly states that the term ``public safety'' includes efforts necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health significance, as defined in section 34(2)(b) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations. So, this has nothing to do with coronavirus. We are taking action on this bill basically to end the President's discriminatory travel bans. Madam Speaker, I am quoting from a letter from the ACLU that I will include in the Record. American Civil Liberties Union, March 10, 2020. Vote ``Yes'' on No Ban Act, Vote ``No'' on Any Amendments or Other Changes Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and our more than 8 million members, supporters, and activists, we write to express our support for the NO BAN Act, though we have concerns about language that has been added. As the NO BAN Act is scheduled for a floor vote this week, it is essential that no further changes be made to the bill--so that this authority cannot be used to ban whole communities. We urge you to vote ``YES'' on the NO BAN Act in its current form and vote ``NO'' on any amendments or other changes. The ACLU will score this vote. The ACLU continues to support the version of the NO BAN Act scheduled for a floor vote this week. However, we have concerns about recent language included in the bill defining public safety to address ``communicable disease'' in response to the current climate and fear around COVID-19 (coronavirus). These changes are unnecessary and further stigmatize immigrant communities where many are facing discrimination in the United States given the Trump administration's stereotypes about communities of color and immigrants--including in reference to coronavirus. There is a long history in the United States of inaccurate connections between health risks and immigrants, which has resulted in irrational immigration policies and discrimination; we are not interested in repeating the mistakes of our past. Any restrictions related to coronavirus, such as those regarding China and Iran, must be based in science and public health, not politics or xenophobia. The NO BAN Act continues to achieve the ultimate goals of the legislation, which are to rescind the Muslim ban, refugee Muslim ban, and asylum ban, and make critical changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by putting in place a more stringent standard for presidents invoking any similar suspension or restriction. During the House Judiciary Committee markup, the bill was amended to rescind the President's recently expanded Muslim ban which was issued on January 31st, and targets more African countries, and requires visa reporting related to this ban. Under current law, the executive branch claims the authority to bar the entry of large groups of people without effective accountability and without regard for the policies codified in other parts of the INA. The NO BAN Act would strengthen limitations on this authority by raising the standard for invoking it. Rather than the current broad and undefined standard, the proposed bill would require the executive branch to meet a more stringent standard--based on ``specific and credible facts'' that any suspension of or restriction from entry must be connected to ``specific acts'' that have actually occurred. Furthermore, the bill requires that any such suspension or restriction meet a compelling government interest and that the government use the least restrictive means in doing so. The NO BAN Act would also establish a system of checks and balances whereby Congress would be routinely notified and briefed on the status, implementation and constitutional and legislative authority of the executive branch's actions. Finally, the proposed legislation would expand the non- discrimination provision of the INA to prohibit discrimination based on religion. While language connecting these two critical changes to the INA has been removed, the bill now includes a rule of construction indicating that the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Homeland Security cannot use this authority to act in a manner that is inconsistent with other policy decisions in immigration law. This bill is a significant step forward for Muslim communities and other communities that could be targeted discriminatorily or without good reason. By creating substantive standards and accountability, it greatly reduces the possibility of future bias-based bans. The ACLU urges you to vote ``YES'' on the NO BAN Act in its current form and vote ``NO'' on any amendments or other changes. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Ronald Newman, National Political Director. Manar Waheed, Senior Legislative and Advocacy Counsel.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, one of the things they point out here, which I want to agree with, is that they say: ``There is a long history in the United States of inaccurate connections between health risks and immigrants, which has resulted in irrational immigration policies and discrimination; we are not interested in repeating the mistakes of our past. Any restrictions related to coronavirus, such as those regarding China and Iran, must be based in science and public health, not politics or xenophobia.'' What a radical idea, to actually base some of these decisions on science. Yet, we know that this administration doesn't have any regard for science. Madam Speaker, I will also include in the Record a May 20 Washington Post article titled `` `I think Islam hates us': A timeline of Trump's comments about Islam and Muslims.'' [From the Washington Post, May 20, 2017] I Think Islam Hates Us: A Timeline of Trump's Comments About Islam and Muslims (By Jenna Johnson and Abigail Hauslohner) President Trump is in Saudi Arabia this weekend to meet with Arab leaders, visit the birthplace of Islam and give a speech about religious tolerance with the hope of resetting his reputation with the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. But it's unclear if a two-day visit is enough to overshadow his past statements about Islam and its faithful, with his rhetoric becoming more virulent as he campaigned for president. Here's a look back at some of the comments that he has made: March 30, 2011: For years, Trump publicly questioned then- President Barack Obama's religious beliefs and place of birth. As he debated running for president in the 2012 election, Trump said in a radio interview: ``He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me-- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be--that where it says `religion,' it might have `Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way.'' (Obama is a Christian, and state records show he was born in Hawaii.) Sept. 17, 2015: At a campaign town hall in New Hampshire, a man in the audience shouted out: ``We have a problem in this country; it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.'' The man mentioned Muslim ``training camps'' and asked: ``When can we get rid of them?'' Trump responded: ``We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.'' Sept. 20, 2015: On NBC News, Trump was asked if he would be comfortable with a Muslim as president; he responded: ``I can say that, you know, it's something that at some point could happen. We will see. I mean, you know, it's something that could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don't know if we have to address it right now, but I think it is certainly something that could happen.'' Sept. 30, 2015: At a New Hampshire rally, Trump pledged to kick all Syrian refugees--most of whom are Muslim--out of the country, as they might be a secret army. ``They could be ISIS, I don't know. This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe,'' he said. In an interview that aired later, Trump said: ``This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts.'' Oct. 21, 2015: On Fox Business, Trump says he would ``certainly look at'' the idea of closing mosques in the United States. Nov. 16, 2015: Following a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump said on MSNBC that he would ``strongly consider'' closing mosques. ``I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred--the absolute hatred--is coming from these areas,'' he said. Nov. 20, 2015: In comments to Yahoo and NBC News, Trump seemed open to the idea of creating a database of all Muslims in the United States. Later, he and his aides would not rule out the idea. Nov. 21, 2015: At a rally in Alabama, Trump said that on Sept. 11 he ``watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.'' Nov. 22, 2015: On ABC News, Trump doubled down on his comment and added: ``It was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.'' (While there were some reports of celebrations overseas, extensive examination of news clips turn up no such celebrations in New Jersey.) Nov. 30, 2015: On MSNBC, a reporter asked Trump if he thinks Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or if it is an inherently violent religion. Trump responded: ``Well, all I can say . . . there's something going on. You know, there's something definitely going on. I don't know that that question can be answered.'' He also said: ``We are not loved by many Muslims.'' Dec. 3, 2015: The morning after Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called into Fox News and said: ``The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.'' (Killing the relatives of suspected terrorists is forbidden by international law.) Later, in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump criticized Obama for not using the phrase ``radical Islamic terrorism'' and commented: ``There's something going on with him that we don't know about.'' Dec. 6, 2015: On CBS News, Trump said: ``If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we're going to have to do something.'' Trump also said he didn't believe the sister of one of the San Bernardino shooters who said she was crestfallen for the victims, saying: ``I would go after a lot of people, and I would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.'' Dec. 7, 2015: Trump's campaign issued a statement saying: ``Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.'' Trump read this statement aloud at a rally in South Carolina. Dec. 8, 2015: On CNN, Trump quoted a widely debunked poll by an anti-Islam activist organization that claimed that a quarter of the Muslims living in the United States agreed that violence against Americans is justified as part of the global jihad. ``We have people out there that want to do great destruction to our country, whether it's 25 percent or 10 percent or 5 percent, it's too much,'' Trump said. Dec. 13, 2015: On Fox News, Trump was asked if his ban would apply to a Canadian businessman who is a Muslim. Trump responded: ``There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very sick.'' Jan. 12, 2016: At a rally in Iowa, Trump shared his suspicions about Syrian refugees and then read the lyrics to Al Wilson's 1968 song ``The Snake,'' the story of a ``tender woman'' who nursed a sickly snake back to health but then was attacked by the snake. Trump often read these lyrics at rallies. Feb. 3, 2016: Trump criticized Obama for visiting a mosque in Baltimore and said on Fox News: ``Maybe he feels comfortable there . . . There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.'' (It was Obama's first visit to a mosque during his presidency, and it was made in an effort to encourage religious tolerance in light of growing antiMuslim sentiment.) Feb. 20, 2016: After Obama skipped the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump tweeted: ``I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!'' (Obama did pay his respects when Scalia's body lay in repose in the Supreme Court.) That night at a rally in South Carolina, Trump told an apocryphal tale that he would return to repeatedly about U.S. Gen. John J. Pershing fighting Muslim insurgents in the Philippines in the early 1900s and killing a large group of insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs' blood. March 9, 2016: On CNN, Trump said: ``I think Islam hates us. There's something there that--there's a tremendous hatred there. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There's an unbelievable hatred of us.'' March 22, 2016: Soon after three suicide bombings in Brussels tied to a group of French and Belgian Muslims, Trump told Fox Business: ``We're having problems with the Muslims, and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the country.'' Trump called for surveillance of mosques in the United States, saying: ``You have to deal with the mosques, whether we like it or not, I mean, you know, these attacks aren't coming out of--they're not done by Swedish people.'' On NBC News, Trump added: ``This all happened because, frankly, there's no assimilation. They are not assimilating . . . They want to go by sharia law. They want sharia law. They don't want the laws that we have. They want sharia law.'' March 23, 2016: In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Trump said that Muslims ``have to respect us. They do not respect us at all. And frankly, they don't respect a lot of the things that are happening throughout not only our country, but they don't respect other things.'' March 29, 2016: During a town hall in Wisconsin, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Trump: ``Do you trust Muslims in America?'' Trump responded: ``Do I what?'' Cooper again asked: 'Trust Muslims in America?'' Trump responded: ``Many of them I do. Many of them I do, and some, I guess, we don't. Some, I guess, we don't. We have a problem, and we can try and be very politically correct and pretend we don't have a problem, but, Anderson, we have a major, major problem. This is, in a sense, this is a war.'' May 20, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims: ``They're going to have to turn in the people that are bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft.'' June 13, 2016: The day after the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Trump declared in a speech in New Hampshire that ``radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.'' He criticized his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, for refusing to use the term ``radical Islam'' and for speaking positively of Islam. ``Hillary Clinton's catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss. It's deadly--totally deadly,'' Trump said. Later he added: ``I want every American to succeed, including Muslims--but the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what's going on.'' June 14, 2016: At a rally in North Carolina, Trump noted that the Orlando shooter's parents are Muslim Americans who immigrated from Afghanistan. ``The children of Muslim American parents, they're responsible for a growing number for whatever reason a growing number of terrorist attacks,'' he said, adding that immigration from Afghanistan has increased five-fold. `` . . . Every year we bring in more than 100,000 lifetime immigrants from the Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. A number of these immigrants have hostile attitudes.'' June 15, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims who immigrate to the United States: ``Assimilation has been very hard. It's almost--I won't say nonexistent, but it gets to be pretty close. And I'm talking about second and third generation. They come--they don't--for some reason, there's no real assimilation.'' July 21, 2016: In accepting the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Trump focused heavily on ``brutal Islamic terrorism'' and promised: ``I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.'' July 24, 2016: On NBC News, Trump defended his proposal for a Muslim ban, despite some of his aides insisting he had rolled it back. ``People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. `Oh, you can't use the word Muslim,' '' Trump said. ``. . . But just remember this: Our Constitution is great, but it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious--you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that's great. And that's the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently. Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that?'' Aug. 11, 2016: At a meeting of evangelical leaders in Orlando, Trump said: ``If you were a Christian in Syria, it was virtually impossible to come into the United States. If you were a Muslim from Syria, it was one of the easier countries to be able to find your way into the United States. Think of that. Just think of what that means.'' Aug. 18, 2016: During a rally in North Carolina, Trump said that ``all applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who doesn't share our values and love our people.'' Sept. 19, 2016: At a rally in Florida, Trump reacted to explosions over the weekend in New York and New Jersey and said: ``There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in Minnesota and New York City and in New Jersey. These attacks and many others were made possible because of our extremely open immigration system, which fails to properly vet and screen the individuals and families coming into our country. Got to be careful.'' Jan. 27, 2017: Within a week of becoming president, Trump signed an executive order blocking Syrian refugees and banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. This order goes into effect immediately, prompting mass chaos at airports, protests and legal challenges. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a close adviser to the president, later said on Fox News: ``So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, `Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, `Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' '' Feb. 28, 2017: Despite urging from some of his Cabinet members, Trump continues to use the term ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' including in a speech to a joint session of Congress. March 6, 2017: Trump issues a new travel ban for citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, which is also challenged in the courts. April 29, 2017: At a rally celebrating his 100th day in office, Trump once again dramatically read ``The Snake.'' May 17, 2017: At a commencement ceremony, Trump previewed his upcoming overseas trip and said: ``I'll speak with Muslim leaders and challenge them to fight hatred and extremism and embrace a peaceful future for their faith. And they're looking very much forward to hearing what we, as your representative, we have to say. We have to stop radical Islamic terrorism.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's comments and tweets about Muslims are truly, truly offensive, and I could list everything he said here today, but it is a long, long list. I think repeating those words would be a mistake because they are unworthy of this floor. President Trump's Muslim ban continues a sad and unfortunate history of policies that used immigration law to target people based on their backgrounds. We have had policies in our history that targeted immigrants from China, Japan, and Asia, and laws that qualified people of White descent for naturalization at the expense of everyone else. Those policies are wrong. They are shameful. And they went against everything this country stands for. President Trump's Muslim ban belongs right beside them, in the dustbin of history, as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have high regard for my ranking member, Mr. Cole, and I know he and I both share enormous respect for this institution, but I am going to say for the record that this process that we are using is not unusual. It is a process that was used by Republicans numerous times during their majority, including 15 times during the past two Republican-led Congresses, to send bills over to the Senate for their expedited consideration. And I will say, with respect to the gentleman, he mentioned that we were consulted about these processes in the past. I was never consulted when the Republicans used this process. In fact, I remember a time when the Republicans basically hijacked a Democratic bill to attach something to it, without even consulting the sponsor of the bill. So I am not sure what the gentleman was alluding to, and I don't know what my friend's intentions were when they utilized this process. Madam Speaker, I can't speak to the motivations of the previous majority when they used this process over a dozen times, but what I can speak to is the impact. Each time this process was used by the Republican majority, the Democratic minority was unable to offer a motion to recommit. That is just a fact. Republicans used this process 15 times over the past two Congresses, and, you know, I get it. My Republican friends want to have an opportunity to try to politicize this debate even more around immigration. But I just want to remind everybody why we are here. The offensive things that this President has said about immigrants and about Muslims are unconscionable. These travel bans serve no purpose other than to discriminate against Muslims and people from predominantly Muslim countries. President Trump issued these baseless travel bans under the guise of national security. But we all know what they are really about. They fulfill Trump's offensive campaign promise calling for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' Those are the President's words. These discriminatory bans have a real impact on real people's lives and have already affected more than 135 million individuals. So that is why we are debating whether to terminate the travel bans and to stand up against discrimination and hate without any distractions, without any political gimmicks. I know my friends are not happy with that, but we are going to do the right thing. We are going to stand up to hate and bigotry and discrimination, and we are going to move this legislation forward, and everybody will have an up-or-down vote. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me just say for the record, nobody is changing the MTR. We are using a process that my Republican friends used over a dozen times in the past, in the last Congress. Yes, the Rules Committee has an obligation to try to make sure that we bring important legislation to the floor in a fair and reasonable process, and we are doing that. But we also have an obligation----

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would prefer not to be interrupted. I am in the middle of--Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, because he keeps on interrupting me.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time. Do you know what? The result, when my friends used this process, is the same. We were not allowed to offer an MTR to any of the bills when they utilized this process. And so, I just state that that is just a fact. But the Rules Committee also has an obligation, and I believe everybody in this House has an obligation to stand up against bigotry and hate and racism and religious discrimination, and that is what these underlying bills deal with. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 16, 2020, The Guardian article, titled; `` `Trump is deciding who is American': how the new travel ban is tearing families apart.'' [From the Guardian, Feb. 16, 2020] Trump Is Deciding Who Is American: How the New Travel Ban Is Tearing Families Apart (By Sean Levin) It started out as a joyous day for Olumide. On 31 January, the 32-year-old Nigerian American learned in an email that the US was finally processing the visa applications of his wife and daughter in Nigeria. Hours later, Donald Trump shattered their celebration, announcing that he was adding six countries to the travel ban, including Nigeria. The decision cuts off pathways to permanent US residency for Nigerians, throwing Olumide's case into limbo at the final stage of the process. It leaves his wife and and 11-year-old girl stuck across an ocean with little hope of making it to the US. ``This is inhuman,'' said Olumide, a systems analyst and US military veteran who served in Afghanistan and lives in Washington DC. He asked to use his middle name out of fear he might jeopardize his case. ``As a soldier, I understand the need to protect the country. But to completely shut the doors . . . it's just plain wrong.'' Millions of Africans now banned: `We are not criminals' Trump's January order builds on the 2017 travel ban that has continued to target five Muslim-majority countries, and significantly restricts permanent residency for nationals from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria and Myanmar. It also blocks people from Tanzania and Sudan from obtaining green cards through the ``diversity visa'' lottery. Just like the 2017 restrictions, it blocks permanent immigration from the targeted countries, making limited exceptions if applicants prove that denials would cause ``undue hardship'' and that granting them visas would support ``national interest''. The original ban already resulted in denied visas for more than 42,000 people, the majority from Iran. The addition of the new countries has doubled the number of Muslims targeted across the globe to roughly 320 million, advocates estimate. Roughly one-quarter of all Africans are now affected. The restrictions now apply to 13 countries, including Nigeria, home to Africa's largest population and economy. It cuts off countries where some are fleeing violence. Some estimate the new ban, which goes into effect on 21 February, could hinder more than 12,000 immigrants seeking to resettle in the US and reunite with family in the next year. The restrictions are a signature component of Trump's aggressive anti-immigrant agenda, which has included curbs on legal migration, a destruction of theAmerican asylum system, an all-time low cap on refugees, expanded detention and mass deportations. ``Trump started out by scapegoating Muslims in 2017,'' said Javeria Jamil, attorney with Asian Americans Advancing Justice's Asian Law Caucus, who has been fielding calls from families affected by the new ban. ``Now, it's not just the Muslim ban. It has turned into an African ban.'' The Trump administration has claimed that the ban, which blindsided some diplomats, is a national security measure, and that the added countries failed to meet US security and information-sharing standards. But immigrant rights groups said the policy is a political maneuver amid Trump's reelection campaign--and one that will have profound consequences. ``People are in turmoil,'' said Audu Kadiri, a 43-year-old community organizer who left Nigeria in 2014. He had planned to bring his mother to the US, but the ban may make that impossible. The activist, who now lives in the Bronx, hasn't yet told his mother about Trump's order, because he doesn't know how to break the news. ``There is so much collateral damage, it's hard to quantify.'' In Nigeria, Kadiri was an LGBTQ+ rights advocate who worked on HIV prevention and other human rights issues. He was forced to flee due to his activism and sought asylum in the US. It's now unsafe for him to return to Nigeria, which is why he wants his 68- year-old mother to come to the US. He hasn't seen her since 2014 and, if Trump is re-elected, he fears it will be at least another five years before they reunite. She'll probably miss the birth of his third child. ``Nigerians have contributed to the development of this country, like every immigrant community,'' he said. ``We are not criminals.'' Torn Apart, With Dwindling Options Before the January announcement, the Trump administration had already clamped down on travel from Africa, including hikes in visa fees, and new obstacles and increased denials for Nigerians seeking approval for short-term visits. The US further suspended visitor visas from Eritrea in 2017. That means families have been fighting for years to use the dwindling avenues available to them to reunite, and for those who have invested significant time and money into the process, the sudden news of an outright ban was particularly brutal. ``There's nothing you can do, and it makes you feel so helpless,'' said Olumide, the veteran. Olumide arrived in the US from Nigeria when he was 10 years old. He met his wife in Nigeria in 2012 after he left the military, and the two got married last year. US Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petition for his wife and daughter in January, just before the announcement of the ban. But they don't yet have their visas--and the ban may make it impossible to get them. Olumide had hoped they would be starting their lives together in the US by now, and said he was pained by feelings of guilt: ``I made promises to her.'' The couple hasn't fully processed the news, he added: ``We don't want to think about not being together.'' He noted that his daughter has typhoid and his wife has malaria, and he constantly fears for their health and safety. Hana Mohamed, a 20-year-old student in San Diego, who grew up in Sudan, said she was eager for her grandparents to come to the US, especially so her grandmother could get medical care in California: ``It's just so sad and frustrating. They are getting older, and I want to see them before anything happens.'' Mohamed said it was difficult to accept that the US was banning large groups of Muslims in the name of safety while seeming to do little about the ongoing terror threat of American mass shootings: ``It's just so shocking that we have come to this day where a whole nation of people are getting discriminated against. Isn't the purpose of the United States to stand up for everyone who is getting hurt and treat them right?'' One Eritrean American who works as an engineer in Silicon Valley, and requested anonymity for fear of hurting his family's case, has petitioned for his mother to come live with him in the US and was hoping she would soon get an interview date at the embassy. Then the new ban was unveiled. ``We've waited our turn. We've followed the law. I'm a tax- paying citizen contributing to the economy,'' he said, noting that his mother is 69 years old and lives alone in Eritrea. ``This is just pure evil.'' He said he felt Trump was implementing the ban as a ``soundbite for the campaign'' while disregarding that it would leave Eritreans like his mother with no options: ``This was our only hope to get her here.'' For Eritreans, the ban comes as as the Trump administration has ramped up deportations of Eritrean asylum seekers, despite the US government's own acknowledgment of the torture and arbitrary detention Eritreans are currently facing. Abraham Zere, an Eritrean journalist who was granted asylum in the US and now lives in Ohio, said it seemed some Eritreans were reluctant to speak out about the ban and live in fear of potential repercussions from both governments: ``People are scared to even discuss it.'' Zere's own family is affected: his mother is still in Eritrea, separated from her children. She can't even video chat with her family because of the poor internet in Eritrea, which means she never gets to see her granddaughter, an eight-year-old she hasn't yet met, he said. Some warn the ban may have life-or-death consequences. For queer and transgender migrants in the targeted countries, it could lead them to embark on perilous journeys to escape to the US as they run out of options, said Zack Mohamed, who is Somali American and a member of the Black LGBTQIA+ Migrant Project: ``This is a big `not welcome' sign in front of our faces.'' In response to questions about the impact on migrants fleeing violence, a US state department spokesperson said the ban was not meant to ``limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum'', adding: ``Our first priority remains national security. We continue to work with our dedicated consular officers in the field to identify and expedite those individuals with urgent travel needs.'' Asked about charges that the ban is discriminatory, the spokesperson said the restrictions are based on ``nationality'' and ``visa category'' and that ``consular officers do not adjudicate based on religion''. The spokesperson said there were specific criteria to determine which countries are restricted and noted that Chad was on the original list but removed in 2018. Fighting to end the ban With the first travel ban upheld by the US supreme court, there are few recourses left to challenge the policy. Advocates are hoping a Democratic president will immediately repeal the ban and have also recently renewed the push for Congress to pass the No Ban Act, which would end the ban and prevent discriminatory immigration policies. Until then, Trump will continue to use his executive power to try to redefine what it means to be a citizen, advocates warned. ``The president of the United States, the US government is explicitly trying to decide who gets to be an American,'' said Eric Naing, who is Burmese American and works with Muslim Advocates, a group that has challenged the ban. His family would not have been able to come to the US if the ban on Myanmar had been in place. ``He's saying I shouldn't be American. My parents shouldn't be American. It's deeply upsetting.'' Olumide noted that the ban was punishing countless American citizens like him: ``It's hurting the exact people you're trying to protect.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's travel ban isn't just bad policy, it is cruel. And it is tearing families apart. That includes veterans who have served our Nation, some of whom were in the middle of the process of bringing their families to America when this policy came down. Now they worry their loved ones may never be able to join them here in the United States, all because of a completely arbitrary Muslim ban. One veteran said in this piece, ``As a soldier, I understand the need to protect the country. But to completely shut the doors . . . it's just plain wrong.'' These veterans aren't trying to endanger our country, Madam Speaker, they put their lives on the line to protect it. But this is the kind of real-life impact we are seeing. The President's ban is not just offensive, it is actively separating loved ones, including those who have served this country on the battlefield. I mean, it is time to say: ``Enough.'' My friends like to talk about how they support our troops and our veterans. Well, this policy is adversely impacting so many of our veterans. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 2, 2020, New York Times article, titled, ``New U.S. Travel Ban Shuts Door on Africa's Biggest Economy, Nigeria.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2020] New U.S. Travel Ban Shuts Door on Africa's Biggest Economy, Nigeria (By Ruth Maclean and Abdi Latif Dahir) The newlyweds had already been apart for half their yearlong marriage. Miriam Nwegbe was in Nigeria. Her husband was in Baltimore, and until she could join him, everything was on hold: finding a home together, trying for their first baby, becoming an American family. Then, on Friday, their lives were thrown into disarray by the expansion of President Trump's ban on immigration to include six new countries, including four in Africa. Nigeria, the continent's most populous nation, was one of them. ``America has killed me,'' Ms. Nwegbe's husband, Ikenna, an optometrist, texted her when he heard. ``We are finished.'' A year after the Trump administration announced that a major pillar of its new strategy for Africa was to counter the growing influence of China and Russia by expanding economic ties to the continent, it slammed the door shut on Nigeria, the continent's biggest economy. The travel restrictions also apply to three other African countries--Sudan, Tanzania, and Eritrea--as well as to Myanmar, which is accused of genocide against its Muslim population, and Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet state. The ban will prevent thousands of people from being able to move to the United States. The initial ban, which was put into effect in 2017, restricted travel from some Muslim-majority countries as part of Mr. Trump's plan to keep out ``radical Islamic terrorists.'' It has already affected more than 135 million people--many of them Christians--from seven countries. With the new expansion, the ban will affect nearly a quarter of the 1.2 billion people on the African continent, according to W. Gyude Moore, a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development, a research group, potentially taking a heavy toll on African economies--and on America's image in the region. ``Chinese, Turkish, Russian, and British firms, backed by their governments, are staking positions on a continent that will define the global economy's future,'' he said, adding, ``One hopes that the United States would follow suit and fully engage with the continent--but that hope fades.'' The rationale for the new restrictions varies depending on country, but the White House announcement said that most of the six countries added to the list did not comply with identity-verification and information-sharing rules. And Nigeria, it said, posed a risk of harboring terrorists who may seek to enter the United States. The country has been hit brutally by the Islamist group Boko Haram, though the extremists have shown little sign that they have the capability to export their fight overseas. Critics, many of whom also denounced the initial ban, saw something far more venal at play. ``Trump's travel bans have never been rooted in national security--they're about discriminating against people of color,'' Senator Kamala Harris, the former Democratic presidential candidate, declared on Sunday. ``They are, without a doubt, rooted in anti-immigrant, white supremacist ideologies.'' Two Democrats still in the race also weighed in. Elizabeth Warren described the measure as a ``racist, xenophobic Muslim ban.'' Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called it ``a disgrace.'' And Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said Democratic lawmakers would push ahead with a measure to forbid religious discrimination in immigration policy. Beyond those people who may now never make it across American borders, the new ban could also affect millions who have no plans to travel to the United States themselves but may have benefited from the billions of dollars in remittances visa holders send home each year. The United States may also emerge a loser, studies suggest. Nigerians are among the most successful and highly educated immigrants to America. (Mr. Trump, demanding to know why immigration policies did not favor people from countries like Norway, once disparaged those from Africa and Haiti, and said Nigerians would never go back to their ``huts'' if they were allowed in.) Hadiza Aliyu lives in Borno, the Nigerian state at the epicenter of the Boko Haram crisis that has left tens of thousands dead. But she thought she had found a way out. Ms. Aliyu was preparing to apply to move to the United States, where she once studied and where her two brothers live. She was furious when she heard about the extended ban. ``Trump has been looking for a way to get at us Africans for a very long time, and finally got us,'' Ms. Aliyu said. ``To hell with Republicans and their supremacist ideas.'' Mika Moses moved to Minnesota from Nigeria nine years ago to join his mother and siblings, who were allowed entry after the family was attacked in religious riots in their northern city of Kaduna in 1991. His wife, Juliet, and their daughter were planning to join him, but are stuck in Kaduna, where Ms. Moses sells soda in a small store. She said they were heartbroken by the news that the move would now be impossible. ``I have been struggling to raise our daughter alone,'' she said. ``Why would Trump do this to us, after we have waited for nine years?'' Nigerians already living in the United States have been calling lawyers to try to figure out whether they will have to leave. Marilyn Eshikena, a biomedical research ethicist, has lived in the United States for the past seven years, but her visa expires this year. Her employer sponsored her application for a green card. ``If it turns out that everything needs to stop, they will feel cheated, because they spent a lot of money on this process,'' Ms. Eshikena said. ``I will also feel cheated, because all the time that I spent working here will ultimately be for nothing. I can't even imagine what packing up and leaving will mean for me.'' Her departure may also have serious consequences for her brother, who is studying in Canada. Ms. Eshikena has been sending part of her earnings to help pay his rent. Some Nigerians praised Mr. Trump for his decision, arguing it might make it more difficult for those responsible for stealing government money back home to find cover in the United States, and force the country's leaders to be more honest and work harder to develop Nigeria. In 2018, 7,922 immigrant visas were issued to Nigerians. Of these, 4,525 went to the immediate relatives of American citizens, and another 2,820 to other family members. An estimated 345,000 people born in Nigeria were living in the United States in 2017, according to the census bureau. If the visas are coveted in Nigeria, they are just as prized in African countries like Eritrea, where government repression is rampant and those who try to leave face obstacles and danger. With more than 500,000 refugees living outside the country, Eritrea was the ninth-largest source of refugees in the world in 2018, according to the United Nations, but fewer than 900 Eritreans received immigrant visas to the United States that year. Abraham Zere, a journalist who moved to the United States from Eritrea in 2012, had dreamed of living in the same country as his mother since leaving home. On Saturday, he said his plans to bring her to the United States had been thrown into disarray. His family has been in constant communication on the messaging platform WhatsApp trying to understand what the ban will mean for them. ``This decision complicates everything and creates fear,'' said Mr. Zere, 37, a doctoral candidate at the School of Media Arts and Studies at Ohio University. Mr. Zere and other Eritreans say they can't go back. They fear they will be punished for criticizing the government or leaving without approval. ``If I can't be reunited with my mother,'' Mr. Zere said, ``it nullifies the whole notion of protection and punishes innocent citizens for reasons they had no slightest part in.'' With nine siblings scattered across Europe, Africa, and the United States, Mr. Zere said their family has never had a full family portrait taken. The economic consequences of the ban could be far-reaching, experts said. ``Being cut off from the largest economy in the world systematically is problematic,'' said Nonso Obikili, a Nigerian economist. The biggest impact, he said, could be on remittances. Nigerians abroad send home billions of dollars each year, $24 billion in 2018 alone, according to the accounting firm PwC. With Nigeria's economy highly dependent on oil and its unemployment rate at 23 percent, this money provides a lifeline for millions of its citizens. The new restrictions come at a time when the United States says it wants to jockey for power in Africa, particularly through its ``Prosper Africa'' initiative announced last summer, which aims to double two-way trade and investment. ``If on the one hand you're trying to make a push into Africa, and on the other hand you're barring the largest African country by population from moving to your country, then it does send mixed signals,'' Mr. Obikili said. In January 2017, Mr. Trump's travel ban targeted several other African nations, including Chad, Libya, and Somalia. Chad was later removed from that list, but the executive order halted the plans of thousands of Somali refugees living in camps in Kenya who were about to travel to the United States and start new lives. According to the United States Department of Homeland Security, nearly 30,000 Nigerians overstayed their nonimmigrant visas in 2018. The number of Nigerians visiting the United States dropped sharply after the Trump administration made it harder for visitors to obtain visas last summer. The new restrictions affect those who want to move to the United States, not visit it. The six countries newly added to the immigration ban are not easily categorized together by religion. Nigeria, for example is thought to be home to more than 200 million people, roughly half of them Muslim and half Christian. Of the four African countries newly singled out, only Sudan has a significant majority of Muslims. The United States has left Sudan on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, even as the country works to reverse decades of authoritarian rule under President Omar Hassan al- Bashir, who was deposed in April. ``This ban contributes to the overall impression that Sudan remains a very fragile state,'' said Cameron Hudson, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, a research group. Many people from the countries newly targeted by the ban said the uncertainty was the hardest thing to bear. Ms. Nwegbe, the newlywed, who works as the chief operating officer of a tourism company that tries to encourage people to visit Africa, said the ban came as she and her husband were building their future. ``We're in limbo and our relationship is suffering,'' she said. ``This is unnecessary hardship.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's ban is not about national security, it is about targeting immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. In 2017, the President issued an executive order that banned foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Then earlier this year, he went even further, expanding the travel ban to six more countries. This is affecting over 300 million people on the African Continent and refugees from Myanmar, where the Muslim minority is facing a genocide--genocide, Madam Speaker. This administration is closing the door on the very people who are struggling to survive. That is not the America that I know. That is not an American value. We need to act to defend our values. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleagues that what is in place right now, what this White House has done, I think by any objective or reasonable measure, is wrong. It reflects badly on who we are as a country. It is not just. It is not fair. It is so wrong. And we all--I don't care what our political persuasion may be, I don't care whether you support the President in his reelection bid or not--I mean, we have to do what is right for our country. This is doing great damage to who we are. It represents the kind of closed- mindedness, and the kind of bigotry that we should all be fighting against. Madam Speaker, I hope my friends will vote for the rule and vote for this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.