tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN January 31, 2017 5:59pm-7:11pm EST
but number four -- this is the heyward article -- obama banned immigration from iraq and carter banned immigration from iran. act checking website politifact, twists itself into knots to avoid giving a true rating to the absolutely true fact that jimmy carter banned iranian immigration in 1980 unless applicants could prove they were enemies of the could he mainy thee ockrass -- khomeini theocracy. they stated that carter, quote, acted against irani nationals, not against an entire religion. president trump's executive order is precisely the same. it doesn't name a religion. it names seven countries.
i have had personal experience with politifact and i used the word earlier today hack, political hack in an interview, and that's what i think of politifact. they shouldn't be called politifact. they should be called politihack. i was speaking on the house floor, i think it was last year, and i made a statement the on data received by of te on the percentage american citizens and the noncitizens, non -american citizens that were in federal prison for possession
of a controlled substance. . and the reason i singled out possession is because president obama has talked about, he's tried to make it appear that people in federal prison have gotten such a bad rap because they really -- they just -- simple possession, you know, they didn't deserve to be imprisoned so long. i mean, there's this whole intimation that, gee, people in federal prison for possession of controlled substances, they should have been let out a long time ago, that's why we needed to have our laws changed. well, since the president had mentioned people in federal prison for possession, i the larly pointed out that huge majority of people in
federal prison for simple possession were not american citizens. and going from my memory, but apparently politifact want to do, as they normally do, and cover for the democrats, and try to do a half job on a -- hack job on a republican because they're not political fact, they're political hack. so my communications president gets an email from politihack that uses the name politifact, and wanted to know the source of my information. because they were going to rate my statement. and she provided the facts. as provided by this administration to the senate. and clearly what i had said was exactly true. i had quoted specifically from
the data from the obama administration and it was 100% accurate. so then they come back, they thought they would catch me in not having proper information, they come back to my communications person and say, well, we've goten information from the bureau -- gotten information from the bureau of prisons that showed if you look at all offenses that involve controlled substances, the percentage of noncitizens is not nearly that high. so why would he use just possession? and the point was, because president obama had used simple possession to try to make it look like people in federal prison were not there for very serious crimes. and there was certainly a smaller number of people in federal prison for possession than for dealing drugs, other
charges. so, in the end, after all the ck and forth, they basically perpetuated a fraud upon the american people. politifact. bunch of politihacks. by not being willing to say that , statement was 100% true because they, in some contorted manner, didn't want to point out that my statement was exactly true. they referred basically to -- oh, that the number wasn't near that high of people involved in controlled substances. and i didn't mention everybody in controlled substances. anyway, that's just a parenthetical in the article for me, because i know personally
politifact d a political joke -- politifact is a political joke. if what they were doing was not so serious and harming the american people by misrepresenting the true facts of what's going on. i hope that at some point, being -- still remaining an entrepreneurial country for a little longer, at least we've t nearly four years to go, that we can be assured of as an entrepreneurial country, at least in that time perhaps we'll have an entrepreneurial group that will rise up and start scoring politifact to show just how unfair they are. and on occasion, when they're actually fair, show that as well. so the american public can actually score the illegitimate scorers. but going back to this article,
it says, as for barack obama, he did indeed ban immigration from iraq for much longer than trump's order bans it from the seven listed nations. and none of the people melting down today uttered a peep of protest. richard granell summed up it -- summed it up perfectly in a tweet. quote, obama took six months to review screening for one country. trump will take three months for seven countries. this article goes on, number five, trump's refugee caps are comparable to obama's pre-2016 practices. david french, who was touted as a spoiler candidate to keep donald trump out of the white house, during the presidential campaign, in other words, not a big trump fan, wrote a lengthy
and clear-headed analysis of the executive order for national review. he noted that after the andtorium ends in 120 days, that's one section, it ends in 120 days, the other section is 90 days, another part says they'll have 30 days to produce a report, but it goes on to say, trump caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. which is roughly the same as president obama's admissions in 2011 and 2012 and not far below the 70,000 per year cap in place from 2013 to 2015. obama had fairly low caps on refugees during the worst years of the syrian civil war. he didn't throw open the doors to mass refugee admissions until his final year in office.
depending on how trump's review of syrian refugee policy turns out, he's doing a little more than returning admissions to normal levels after a four-month pause for security reviews. number six, the executive order is legal. those invoking the constitution to attack trump's order are simply embarrassing themselves. the president has clear statutory authority to take these actions. as noted, his predecessors did so without much controversy. most of the legal arguments against trump's order summarized by "u.s.a. today" are entirely spacious. such as attacking him for, quote, banning an entire religion, unquote. which the order manifestly does not do. critics of the order have a political opinion that it will in effect, quote, ban muslims, unquote, but that's not what it says.
designating specific nations as trouble spots and ordering a pause is entirely within the president's authority and there is ample precedent to prove it. it should be possible to argue with the reasoning behind the order or argue that it will have negative unintended consequences without advancing hollow legal arguments. of course this is america, 2017. so a wave of lawsuits will soon be slushing through the courts. number seven, this executive order is a security measure, not an arbitrary expression of supposed xenophobia. conaway stressed the need to enhance immigration security from trouble spots in her fox news sunday interview. french also addressed the subject in his post.
as follows. when we know our enemy is seeking to strike america, and its allies, through the refugee population, when we know they've succeeded in europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees, wed a -- refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent, but arguably necessary. it is important that we provide sufficient aid and protection to keep refugees safe and healthy in place, but it is not necessary to bring syrians to the united states to fulfill our vital moral obligations. the article goes on, but -- it's well written, points well made. and we would humbly submit, madam speaker, that when we had
the statistics last year that showed that for the cost of bringing one syrian refugee to e united states for one year we could help take care of 12 in a refugees in place safe zone over near their home, that 'm very encouraged even though president obama mply would not ever agree or strive to have a safe zone in areas near the refugees' homes so we could take care of 12 times more than we could possibly bring to our country for the same cost.
and he's working on that. and he's gotten some agreements. and it looks like that may be a possibility. we give air cover, help create safe zones in areas there in the middle east so the refugees can live without being killed and horribly, brutally murdered, abused. that makes more sense. and it appears that the president has worked with or talked with the saudi authorities and perhaps will be able to get something like that worked out. quiteere were people just emotional over the fact that saudi arabia was not mentioned, egypt was not mentioned. well, actually the order did not mention any nations by name. the trump executive order simply
referred to what president obama signed off on, which included seven countries. and these are seven countries where it shouldn't even be arguable among people of common sense that we do not have, have not received, cannot get adequate information from which to determine whether people wanting to come into the united states are actually refugees or if they are part of al qaeda, al-nusra, isis, and they want to come kill americans and end our freedoms and our way of life. that's why such an executive order was entirely appropriate. and although i supported a different candidate for esident for over a year, i
applaud president trump in caring so deeply about the american public, that he would take the honorable and appropriate steps to protect last ans that the administration would not take. great article in town hall from matt ves pmbing a and it's entirelied -- vespa, and it's entitled, friendly reminder. that certainly should be noted yet again. nd another great article here, says, obamaed a's -- obama's administration made the muslim ban possible and the media won't tell you. good article there. and i think this article from john heyward from january 27, on breitbart, may give us insight
as to why there is so much cair by cair and associates, because there were implications of people involved in the holyland foundation trial, one just merely needs to go look at the pleadings. here in congress, since eric holder and loretta lynch went through their entire terms as attorneys general, and continued to refuse to provide the documents, the discovery documents in the holyland foundation trial that were provided in pretrial to the onvicted terrorists, supporters, it's pretty incomprehensible for some of us.
and on one occasion where attorney jenner holder pointed out, well, -- when attorney general holder pointed out, well, there may be some classified issues involved, and i pointed out to him that apparently it went right over his head and he current discern, the justice hat department gave the documents i'm requesting to people that were then convicted of supporting terrorism. if justice could give them to the terrorists without concern without being classified, surely, they could give them to members of congress. and although some of us may argue in such ways that it terrifies some people, we're not terrorists and we are authorized to receive classified
information. and we should have been authorized in congress to receive the same documents that the justice department provided to the terrorists' supporters who were convicted. but this article from hayward january 27, points out that according to reuters, a debate is under way in the trump administration in adding the muslim brotherhood of foreign terrorist organizations. this is a measure often called for by critics of the muslim brotherhood as center for ecurity who once again recommended a terrorist designation. a source in the trump transition team said the effort to designate the muslim brotherhood is led by michael flynn.
the source was personally in agreement with flynn. in congress, a bill to add the muslim brotherhood to the official terrorist list was introduced by senator cruz and nd representative diaz-balart. ex tillerson denounced them as an agent during his confirges statementst not made adding them to the foreign terrorist list. members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities argued the brotherhood has quote evolved peacefully in some countries, reuters claims. they express the concern that going hard on the muslim
brotherhood could complicate with relations with turkey. it could be unquestionably, allies as uch u.s. egypt, united arab emirates and saudi arabia, although there have been signs that the saudis are softening as they search for aleyes. e conceded that the muslim brotherhood's ideology has influenced hamas but since it is a large organization spread over several nations, it could be legally difficult to apply the terrorist designation. britain has expressed its suspicions about the influence while stopping short of a formal terrorist organization. that is important to note. it's a good article, but i can't
help but wonder if the council islamic r american be tions, cair, may not getting concerned about the potential for designating their friends in the muslim brotherhood and there may be a mutual relationship there and may be people part of both groups. but no doubt, cair is getting quite concerned about heightened talk about making the muslim brotherhood or naming them, not making them, because they alreadyr but naming them the terrorist organization they are. it's just that they don't use terrorist tactics when they are making great progress without terrorism. but knowing that eventually that
after getting as far as they can with peaceful method, then they will be resulting to terrorism to bring the united states and other western civilizations and countries into the international caliphate wherein we're ruled by a caliph. it's interesting times. and here tonight and perhaps in an hour and a half or so, our new president will nominate or name the nominee to fill the right honorable antonin scalia's is on the supreme court he still greatly missed. he was a great man. he was a great jurist, a great patriot. and he was great for america. and our freedoms.
so we look forward to hearing that. and at this point, i would like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, mr. sanford. mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman from texas and i thank you on a nightly basis you come down to the well and help inform people. jeversorn, founding fathers talked about how important it was to have an informed elect rate and i appreciate the way you give people clarity and information that they can make their own decisions with. that process of informing is important about the body politic. and i want to say how much i appreciate you do so to me and the people i represent. i appreciate -- and borrowing a few moments of your time and i want to talk about a bill that i introduced today entitled the
real i.d. privacy protection act. it's a bipartisan bill and supported by representative meadows and representative pingree from maine. and they do so because it is a commonsense bill that gets to the deficiencies that some can find in real i.d. it eliminates the requirement that your personal documentation and documents be held in archives in essence warehouses for 10 years. that it not require your stuff be out in government data bases for 10 years. and secondly, eliminates the requirement that d.m.v. data bases will be co-linked and creates uniformity with regard to the way in which extensions
are granted. so the bottom line is, your driver's license can go to the marine corps this or in charleston or a whole host of facilities around the country and use your driver's license to get on the plane in the united states of america. why is this important? individual privacy matters and equal treatment under the law matters and important because the 10th amendment really matters, that states have a role in the way the founding fathers intended the if i had government to fit with the state government and local government. let's examine each one of those couple things, one, if you look at south carolina driver's licenses, they are secure. we have bar codes, we have a whole host of different things that creates security. in the wake of 9/11, what the
federal government decided at that time, homeland security and others, was that it was not sufficient, what in essence, they wanted a defacto national i.d. card and for the federal government to federalize what had been a state function with states issuing drivers' licenses. texas has drivers' licenses, florida. each state may have a different way of doing so, but it was a state prerogative. and in the wake of that federal requirement, i was wearing a governor hat. i joined with governor from montana and saying, wait, this doesn't make sense that states have a vital role here. this role doesn't have to be nationalized. we pushed back and we were successful with many others in that effort and yet what is
happening is that many of those deadline requirmentse are re-emerging and approaching and what are we going to do about it. are we going to push back again or let the federal government come in and steamroll what has been a state function? i think it's important we act and introduced this bill. one, privacy matters. quite simply, if government doesn't need your stuff, they don't get your stuff. i think that's the simple premise. if government really doesn't need your stuff, it shouldn't get your stuff. what do i mean by that? what i mean is, if the requirement as is now the case, if the federal government take your personal information and they archive it for the next 10 years, do you really feel that you are more secure? i would argue that's not at all the case.
i would argue that it's much better to have a system when you take your birth certificate, marriage license, divorce and citizenship papers, take it all, let folks at the government level decide whether you are who you are or not who you are and give that stuff back to you and don't need to house it. that's all this bill does. if you held it for the next 10 years, it is at considerable cost. the unfunded mandate to states is $17 billion. what we are saying is make the determination and take your stuff and look at it but then give it back rather than requiring states to archive it for the next 10 years. it also matters again because of individual human privacy. whether it's a divorce decree, a marriage license, whether citizenship papers, whatever it
is, we have been in hearings over the last couple of weeks where it was proven that the russians were quite involved in hacking of american data bases. why do we want to open that up to chinese or russian hackers if it isn't required or necessary. two, this bill gets at the notion that states matter. the 10th amendment matters. patton was attributed with saying, if you tell a soldier to take a hill, tell him to take the hill, don't tell him how to take the hill. the same is true with respect to the states. allow texas to go about taking the hill, if you will and south carolina to come up with its way as long as we take the hill which is the necessary requirement. it is also important from the standpoint of security one thing we have learned over time is that centralization of data does
not make data more secure. and we have a host of breaches at the federal level that proves this point. one of the things that is interesting about pearl harbor is that all the votes were in one spot and one-stop-shopping for the japanese. and what we have seen in terms of military strategy, people spread assets out and don't congregate in one spot so an attacker would be able to take down a multitude of assets with one particular raid. i think the same is true in the information age as it relates to data bases. this bill is about equal treatment under the law. i think what many states, south carolina would be among them, are concerned about is, is this too subjective, if you are a red or blue state, does that have some degree of determination if you get an extension or don't get an extension and 18 states and territories have been granted extensions, seven states
have been granted very limited extensions and all this bill is say, let make this process is transparent and states can say how was it that you could choose, but i didn't. i think that level of uniformity would make sure that nobody suspects this system of being arbitrary or ca appreciateous by nature. at's in simple form what the bill does. we have had a long debate on security versus freedom and what we don't want to do is give up certain, in essence, sole conditions, if you will for freedom, including this notion of federalism in our efforts to be secure. . a $7 billion unfunded liability does matter to the taxpayers of different states. and finally, it's about equal treatment under the law. again, the bill is called the real i.d. privacy protection
act. and i would ask members to join it -- us on that bill and i would ask folks out there listening to talk to their house member about that bill. because i think it's one that makes a whole lot of sense. with that i would yield back to the gentleman from texas and i would say again how much i appreciate you letting me borrow just a little bit of your time and i'd say, most of all, thank you for the way you come down to the well on such a regular basis to inform the american public. mr. gohmert: i thank the gentleman from south carolina bill, butrely for the this gentleman's bills, just like the reasoned argument made here in this chamber, well reasoned, well thought out. having sat and listened to so many lawyers during my years on the bench, both trial bench and appellate bench, i would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from my friend from south carolina in any courtroom where
i was sitting. but well reasoned. a lot of good research in trying to solve problems. i look forward to a lot of us reading that bill and finding out -- because there's no doubt involved just as good a reason as you were used in your argument here today. i also heard from another colleague of ours, don young, honorable don young from alaska. and i'm actually optimistic about so many things with this president in oval office now. and one of them is that our friend, don young, in alaska, may finally get some help. president carter had identified an area that really didn't have any wildlife to speak of.
yes, it was part of the arctic national wildlife area, but it was an area that really didn't have wildlife to speak of. as i understand it, there are some car boo that may walk -- caribou that may walk across there from time to time but they can't stay because there's not enough to sustain them. t president carter, as anti-carbon energy as he was, realized that's an area that we can agree ought to be drilled for the production of oil and gas. and it has been fought over and over. who stand toss gain? well, actually -- stands to gain? well, actually the american public. but cinch so much oil has now been found -- but since so much oil has now been found in west texas and the dakotas, we're not as needful of that as we were.
but the people that were really -- that will really benefit are the people of alaska. and then additional beneficiaries will be the people of the united states and will be the people who want to get out from under the iron fist of russia rising, and will be able to help them with that by not only becoming energy independent, but after energy independent, exporting oil and gas to other nations so they don't feel the pinch that nations like china and russia are putting on them. with that, thanking my friend, mr. young from alaska, my friend, former governor of south carolina, mr. sanford, madam speaker, i would now yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr.
garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: good evening, mr. speaker. and others who are listening and watching. i believe today is monday, the 30th of january. the been 10 days since the inauguration of our new president. and oh, my goodness. has it been an extraordinary 10
days. i just hardly know where to begin. normally i come up here and we talk about how we can grow the american economy, how we can provide jobs, how we can see a return of our manufacturing industries. but i'm compelled today to pick up comments on the last 10 days. i was at a dinner out in california on friday evening. and a wide, wide variety of people from multiple interest groups there were, some labor unions, some farmers, senior citizens, health care folks, teach aers -- teachers. and there was an overwhelming sense of concern, deep, deep concern about the direction this
country is going. some of these friends of mine were republicans and others were democrats. some liberal, some conservative. but to a person they came up to me and said, oh, my god, what's happening in washington? where's this going? what's he doing? what does it mean to us? some of them said, will they really, will they really actually terminate the affordable care act? is obamacare really going to end? what about my insurance policy? will i lose it? i'm on medical. what will happen to me? and teachers saying, how does this fit with the effort to improve our schools? and some that had been in the military looked at some of what
was going on and said, but veterans care, this hiring freeze effects the department of veterans affairs. what does it mean to me? what's happening in washington? some others were concerned about , well, there's going to be this transportation bill. infrastructure bill. but how are they going to fund it? is it really going to happen? i've been to many, many events in my years in public office. but i've never been to an event in which there was this overwhelming concern about what's going to happen in washington. i've seen changes occur. jimmy carter to ronald reagan. there was concern. but not the kind of angst, deep, emotional concern about where thisky is going -- this country is going. i've seen george bush, george
h.w. bush, to bill clinton. and i'm sure there are many republicans concerned about where bill clinton would go and then clinton to george w. bush. and then to obama. but nothing like this. and the not just last friday night -- it's not just last friday night. today in front of my office in davis, california, 200 people showed up. to say, you've got to do something. you've got to make it clear that -- shutting these down our borders, you can't let them do that. the university of california, there are 5,000 foreign students and teachers on that campus. than 200 from the countries that are affected by the immigration and by the ban
on people coming in from those seven countries. what does it mean, they asked me. and what about the affordable care act? all across this nation people are demonstrating. it's now 20 minutes to 7:00 here in washington, d.c., and i suppose at 8:00 tonight the president's supposed to give a nationwide address on his next supreme court nominee and i am quite certain that tomorrow morning there will be another eruption of concern by americans as to what does it mean if the supreme court throws out the roll of the federal government -- role of the federal government in protecting voter rights? you what does it mean if -- what does it mean if the federal government isn't there to assure hat a woman's body is her own? all across this nation people are going -- oh, what is happening? executive order after executive
order. starting with the repeal of the affordable care act and instructions to every agency of the federal government to stop it. see that it doesn't work. and here in congress a budget resolution that would eliminate -- which calls for the elimination of the financial support for the affordable care act. which, if you remove the money, what happens to the tax subsidies that people are able to use to be able to afford health care? -- health care, insurance? the additional money that goes to the states for their medicaid programs. and oh, a what about the seniors -- and oh, what about the seniors? if that budget resolution actually goes through, the money that is in the affordable care act to provide the seniors the opportunity to have their drug
benefit cost reduced, affecting millions of american seniors, the money's gone. would the drug benefit be gone also? most assuredly it would. unless income you -- of course you want to just increase the deficit. and about that free annual visit , that's available to seniors, that has clearly extended the life of thousands or tens of thousands of seniors, because they find out they have high blood pressure, they can take a cheap pill, get that blood pressure down and not have a stroke. or maybe die beat. the onset of diabetes. that free annual benefit, checkup, will it still be available if the budget resolution -- and if mr. trump's attack on the affordable care act actually happens? people are worried. people are frightened. and they should be.
they should be. because this goes to the very ability of americans to carry on protections that are necessary to protect americans from fraud. the house of representatives today voted to pass a rule that would lead to the elimination of protections that americans have in their financial services. oh, we're going to protect america by building a wall. what's it going to cost? $15 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion. that most people who look at the immigration issue rationally would say, it's not going to solve the problem. and by sides that, the problem is dramatically -- besides that,
the problem is dramatically reduced as a result of the mexican economy growing and jobs being available there, as a result of the enormous buildup that's already occurred with the board par petroleum and the -- border patrol and the immigration service. we've seen a dramatic reduction. and i was told today by some people that work in this field in california that the people that are coming into the united states illegally are mothers and children from certainly america from the eking refuge horrible gang and violence in central america. they're not sneaking over the border, they're presenting themselves at the border as jeff i -- as refugees. we'll come back to the refugee ssue in a few moments. how proud he looks signing yet
another executive order. this one on a wall. we're going to build a wall. 1,400 miles of wall. between the united states and exico. so with the look of pride he wants to spend anywhere from $15 $35 billion. n to so, tell me what you could do with $15 billion. that's the minimum cost for the wall. most people say it is closer to $30 billion. what could you do? i suppose you could build part of a wall or start to build a
wall and certainly not going to finish it. but let's say you have $15 billion and that's your downpayment on a wall. the most everybody says it wouldn't work. you build a 50-foot who wall and someone will get a 51-foot ladder. alifornia state university has 460,000 students at the california state university. or $15 billion, you could fund the entire california state iversity system, provide tuition-free education for three students and 00 pay all the faculty and the
janitors and all the others. that's for $15 billion. with the $30 billion wall, then it's six years. and so a junior in high school, free, billion could go tuition-free. all expenses paid. every professor, every janitor, fully paid for six years, $460,000 students and thousands upon thousands professors, january tors, et cetera. or you could replace every pipe times , michigan 270 over. you want to solve the problem in flint, michigan, the lead pipe oblem, 270 times for $15
billion or more than 540 times. or maybe you are concerned about alzheimer's. and what american family is not concerned? if we were to spend that $15 billion on research, we would undoubtedly be able to develop a treatment, and this is what the scientists, doctors and researchers say. we did increase the funding from around $500 million to under a billion last year, but if you were able to ramp it up and develop that treatment for alzheimer's, you could delay the onset of alzheimer's in your family or mine, by five years. and what does that mean? $220 billion a
savings to the american taxpayers, because that is money that will be spent from medicare and medicaid. or maybe you are just interested in national defense. you like submarines? the new virginia-class submarine. well, let's see, we could build five of them. maybe you like aircraft car years, for $15 billion, you could build an aircraft carrier and a submarine. so, president trump, what is your choice? you don't like these choice and nobody believes will do each good dealing with illegal immigration. i like this next one. full-ride year
scholarships for undergraduate programs at the university of california, that's about the total undergraduate population at the university of california, davis, which i have the honor of representing. but, we are going to build a wall. we are going to build a wall. for what purpose? 435 of us here and 100 and one president have a task of making choices about what america is all about. choices about how we spend your tax money. you want your tax money spent on a wall? excuse me. mexico is going to pay for it. you think so? the president has started a trade war with mexico. has created a serious delementic crisis with -- ploteic crisis
over trying to force mexico to pay for his wall. that was really smart. but, hey, he is the president and thinks he can do what he wants to do. the mexican president said no. no. not going to be paid for by mexico. who is going to pay for it. i say we have choices. i would much rather spend our money on education, national defense, alzheimer's and on things that actually help americans in so many different ways. that's just one of the issues that are in play. immigration, oh, we put out a new executive order on immigration and seven countries around the world cannot have their citizens any longer come to america for some period of
can't come to es america. what are those countries? among those seven is a country called iraq. excuse me. mr. trump, isn't iraq our ally in fighting isis? i think so. it's their troops plus 6,000 of our troops that are now engaged in a bitter fight to reclaim mosul to get isis out of mosul. and so you are going to put a limitation on iraqi citizens and refugees coming to the united states? i'm sorry. i don't understand what sense that makes, mr. president. do you? do you understand what just did? here's a four-star general in
iraq who is responsible for their special forces that are leading the fight in mosul right now. this man's family came to the united states for safety because of the problems that existed there in iraq. he cannot visit his family. and unless there is some sort of a waiver that has suddenly been developed for four-star iraqi generals, he can't go to the central command in tampa, florida, to work on a strategy for the rest of the fight. oh my god. what's going on here? what is happening? what sense does any of this make? foreign policy experts, national security experts, experts on isis, on radical islam all say
the same thing. the ban on people traveling from those seven, majority-muslim states, will have a negative effect on our ability to deal with isis. that's what they say. not in my view. that's the view of security experts all across the spectrum, from the most conservative to the most aggressive and liberal and they say this makes no sense whatsoever, mr. president. we sometimes use the word half-baked. this isn't even beginning the process baked. this was put together by someone who didn't know what they were doing. if they had consulted with policy experts, outside of that little kabal in the white house, someone would have said, time
out, time out, let's think this through. why iraq? what is going to be the second step here? we are going to set the ban, but what does it mean? what does it mean to muslim countries around the world that suddenly america is seen as shutting the door or shall we sail slamming the door on muslims? what does it mean here in the united states? it means that we are not safer. it means that our country is not protected, and, in fact, the action taken is counterproductive. that's what it means. who did this? who is the architect of this policy? was it the state department? apparently, not. was it the justice department? we know from the midnight firing
or i guess it was 6:00 firing yesterday of the acting attorney general, that it wasn't the justice department. they had the opportunity to review and look at the legality of the ban. they didn't involve themselves. and apparently the military didn't involve themselves. so who was it that dreamed up this ban on men, women, children, refugees coming from seven countries? none of the residents and refugees from those countries in the last 40 years has been responsible for one terrorist death in the united states. but those countries from which we know the terrorists came from rom 9/11 was not included. saudi arabia. not included in the ban. how is that? if we're worried about this
problem of refugees or citizens from those countries coming into the united states to carry out terrorist attacks. the ot saudi arabia or congo or nigeria? who wrote it? who's responsible? well, two names have emerged. one, a mr. miller and another mr. banion. mr. banion who is the architect of the emergens of the atlanta right. we aren't talking about the conservative right, but talking about the far right white nationalist movement in this nation. mr. bannon, who became mr. trump's campaign chairman, who is now the key person in the
white house, not just on national policy but on security policy. he is said to have said in 2013 that he is a leninist and his goal is to blow up the system. he said he doesn't remember having said that. well, i'll take him at his word. but i do know what he did with this ban is to make our nation less safe. that we know. and just to double down on this issue of this superconservative fellow and his co-hort, mr. miller, just to make clear where we are headed, there has been a re-organization of the national security council. these are men and women over the years that have been responsible for making certain that our american spolsi, maximizes our security, that deals with
international issues of great concern. what to do about china in the south china sea, what to do about north korea, how do we handle missile defense and deal with russia in the ukraine. national security council. so what happened yesterday? well, the president, which he has a right to do, re-organized the national security council. and two gentlemen or two people that have traditionally been on the national security council hole seem to know a little bit about the national security were previously in what is called the principals. these are the handful of people that meet with the president, the key national security leaders. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is one of them and director of national intelligence organization.
two of them. so, the president said, i don't need you in my little inner circle, go away. you can be part of the larger thing and when i want you, i'll call you. the person responsible for the collection of our national intelligence, pushed him aside. but who came in to take the place of the two people? the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of the national intelligence? guess guess who, mr. bannon. is he a national security expert me? spent a few years in the military. decades ago. but now he's sitting as one of the principals in our national security council. and what is his mindset? read his history. i wouldn't recommend you go to
breitbart. i wouldn't spend a whole lot of time on that. but there's a history here. there's a history. and it's a dangerous history. this man is now sitting as the principal voice, because he has the president's ear, in the national security council. the fellow, together with mr. miller, that's responsible for , ban of -- on immigrants travelers and refugees interest from seven countries -- refugees from seven countries. that's become a major international diplomatic crisis. and isis already, it's right here in the newspaper, isis already using that ban to recruit. to recruit in the middle east, to recruit in africa, and to encourage homegrown violence and terrorism here in the united states. well done, mr. miller. well done, mr. bannon.
and very bad for our country. so, we're in the midst of executive orders. one after another. often two a day. and my final concern is one that comes up 25 days from now. five days ago trump went over to the pentagon, signed yet another executive order, came out of the meeting and said, we're going to have a new war plan. we're going to wipe isis from the face of the earth and the pentagon will deliver to me in 30 days a war plan. to wipe isis off the face of the earth. ction, action, action. go with care. be slow to war. be slow to war. we'll see what that plan is.
my guess is it will cost millions upon millions if not billions of dollars. it will put our troops, boots, back on the ground in iraq and syria. and we'll start the cycle one more time. we'll see. we'll see what the pentagon comes up with in a war plan. we've not been told the specific instructions that the commander in chief has given to the pentagon. but i will tell you this, member of the house armed services committee -- i will tell you this member of the house armed services committee is very concerned. keep in mind that our effort ainst isis and al qaeda is based on a 2001 authorization to use military force in afghanistan against al qaeda and related entities.
it's been stretched. and one of the things that i'm coming outrned about of the obama administration is that that administration stretched the 2001, a 16-year-old authorization to use force, a declaration of war against al qaeda, to justify the american military actions in , liberia, yemen, somalia, afghanistan and akistan. we'll see what the war plan is. we will learn soon enough. and i suspect that this congress will be asked to finance it. will be asked to pay for the men
and women that will be sent into harm's way. and the munitions and the airplanes and the other equipment necessary. and i would hope that all of us take a long, long look at this and that we ask this question -- if we do that, then what happens next? we didn't ask that question when we went to war in afghanistan in 2002, 2001 and 2002. we didn't ask that question when e invaded iraq a couple of years later. and i'm not sure we've asked that question as we re-engaged ourselves in the current iraqi war. and syria. but we should always ask, what is the result of our action?
hat is likely to happen? we have choices. we have choices. we have choices to build a wall or educate our children. or care for our seniors. we have choices about war or not. we have choices about how we deal with people around this world. choices about what we do with refugees. people that are fleeing persecution, fleeing death, doing the very, very best they can to care for their families and children in the most desperate of situations. we have a choice. we can slam the door on them and say, tough luck. or we can do what ought to be the american tradition and that's to provide comfort, provide assistance and to show
he good part of america. mr. president, you've given us 10 days of the most disruptive chaos i've ever seen in my many years in public life. you have a choice too, mr. president. you have a choice to take a deep breath, to not try to carry out every one of your campaign promises, most of which i think were ill-founded. you don't have to do it day one, day two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. take a deep breath. you can think together with mr. bannon or mr. miller or perhaps somebody outside of your inner circle. mr. president, you might ask other people, what is the effect of what you are doing? think about the second level of
effect and slow it down. and be aware that there are consequences for every -- consequences. for every action there's going to be another reaction. we're already seeing that. i'm sure you've seen the millions of americans in the streets protesting what you have thus far done. continue on and you'll see more. americans are concerned. hey're frightened. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their emarks to the chair. does the gentleman have a otion? mr. garamendi: i know the courtesy of this house, mr. speaker. and we're not to direct our remarks everywhere. so let me amend my remarks.
mr. speaker, there are within the white house two individuals that i believe are responsible so, mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is not recognized. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned number 10:00 a.m. tomorrow -- until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.