[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1697]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               MUSLIM BAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Garrett) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, in 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously 
stated that politics stop at the water's edge. What that meant was that 
partisan fighting and attacks should cease when they compromise 
America's role in missions abroad and, indeed, when they compromise the 
safety and security of Americans abroad as well.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sat in the Homeland Security Committee and 
heard over two dozen references from my esteemed colleagues across the 
aisle to a Muslim ban. When President Obama expanded its own screening 
for refugees for majority Muslim nations, he said it was because of 
``the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters,'' and nary a peep 
was heard.
  Our colleagues across the aisle said this Muslim ban will endanger 
Americans and serve as a recruiting tool to ISIS. Mr. Speaker, I agree, 
except there is no Muslim ban.
  Talk of a Muslim ban makes Americans less safe at home, true; it 
makes Americans less safe abroad, true; and if politics stop at the 
water's edge and there is no Muslim ban, then why use partisan politics 
to perpetrate falsehoods that do just those very things.
  Let's look at the facts:
  Of the 2.3 billion Muslims on the planet Earth, 11 percent live in 
the countries named in Mr. Trump's executive order. Nine-tenths of 1 
percent live in Syria, a single nation pulled out for heightened 
scrutiny.
  The duration of the heightened scrutiny held to the Syrian refugee 
population is one-half that of the same action taken by Mr. Trump's 
predecessor, President Obama, as it related to Iraqis in 2011 when nary 
a peep was heard because politics are supposed to stop at the water's 
edge.
  We hear questions: Does the President have a constitutional right to 
do this? I say, no, he has a constitutional duty to do this.
  We look at Article II and see the clear and present danger clause. We 
hear the language of the Obama administration speaking of growing 
terrorist threats from abroad. We see in Article II and in the oath 
that the President takes that it is his duty to protect Americans from 
all threats, all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  So what we know is that the executive order affects a scant 7 of well 
over 50 majority-Muslim nations. There is no religious test because it 
also affects millions of Christians living in these nations. It affects 
about 11 percent of the global Muslim population. There are exceptions 
granted.
  We know that ISIS is using the refugee system to infiltrate Western 
nations. We know that first- or second-generation radical Islamists 
have killed over 70 Americans since Boston and wounded over 300 on U.S. 
soil.

                              {time}  1015

  We know that, just over a month ago, a dozen innocent individuals at 
a Christmas market in Berlin were murdered and 50 more were injured by 
a refugee. We know that the fallacious concept of a Muslim ban inflames 
and enrages our enemies and serves as a recruiting tool.
  So the question then becomes: Why do some Members of this esteemed 
body continue to perpetuate what is willful ignorance at best and a 
falsehood at worst? Why say there is a Muslim ban when there is not?
  Mr. Speaker, if politics stop at the water's edge, then Members won't 
play loose with the facts to score political points. Members won't 
advance a false narrative that endangers Americans. Members will 
support this President, as they did the last President, as he seeks to 
discharge his duty to defend the United States, its citizens, and our 
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                          ____________________