[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1738-1746]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with my colleague 
Pramila Jayapal from Seattle, Washington. We wanted to talk about what 
has been happening over the last week with the executive orders on 
immigration and asylum that have taken place, and we want to try to 
take a broad perspective on this; to put it in some historical, legal 
and constitutional context; and then also to talk very specifically 
about the executive orders and what has been taking place with them in 
different parts of the country; and about the multiple Federal judicial 
rulings imposing injunctions on enforcement of those orders.
  But I wanted to begin, actually, by stepping back from the heat of 
the current crisis and looking, instead, at the idea of America.
  Well, what is the idea of America? America was created, as the great 
Tom Paine said, as a haven of refuge for people fleeing political and 
religious repression from all around the world.
  Remember the radicalism of the American Revolution and our 
Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We were the first 
Nation on Earth conceived in revolutionary insurgency against monarchy, 
dictatorship, autocracy, theocracy, and the merger of church and State.
  The American colonists were rebelling against, not just the king and 
all of the whimsical depredations and abuses of the crown, but also 
against centuries of religious warfare in Europe between the 
Protestants and the Catholics, holy inquisition, holy crusades, 
witchcraft trials, endless wars between the Catholics and the 
Protestants.
  Our forefathers and foremothers wanted to break from that history and 
put into our Constitution the separation of church and State--as 
Jefferson called it, the wall of separation between church and State, 
the establishment clause, the idea of free exercise of religion, 
freedom of speech, the right to petition for redress of grievances, the 
right of people to assemble, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience 
in the United States.
  But it would be a land that would be open to people who were fleeing 
authoritarianism, who were trying to get away from repressive regimes, 
and kings, and monarchs, and princes, and tyrants, and dictators, and 
despots everywhere. That was the idea behind America.
  Well, then in this Presidential campaign, then candidate Donald Trump 
said that he wanted to impose a Muslim ban, a ban on Muslims coming to 
America, which would cause our forefathers and foremothers to turn over 
in their graves to hear that somebody running for President of the 
United States wanted to impose a ban on the immigration of people based 
on their religious faith, in a country that was designed on the 
principle of free exercise of religion, designed on the principle of no 
establishment of religion, designed on the principle of no religious 
tests for public office or political participation that suddenly we 
would say we are not going to accept people--in the 21st century--based 
on their religious heritage.
  And of course, anybody can make up their religion anyway. Anybody can 
say what they are. So it is as futile and as silly as it is anathema 
and apathetical to our basic constitutional ideals.
  Well, that Muslim ban has, in its bizarre way, become law now in the 
United States of America. The President issued an executive order as 
one of

[[Page 1739]]

his first actions on people coming to our country from Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, those seven countries. And we 
have got to interrogate what exactly the logic of this is.
  The President and his chief strategists of the alt-right, named Steve 
Bannon, have defended this order on the grounds of national security. 
The idea is that somehow we are defending the national security and the 
defense by banning people from those countries.
  All right, we all support national security. If that would advance 
our national security, it is something we should look at.
  Well, what is the evidence that that is going to benefit our national 
security? Our country now is no stranger to terror and to terrorism. 
All of us remember that shocking, fateful day, 9/11, back in 2001, when 
America changed forever.
  Those 19 hijackers came from three countries. And which three 
countries on this list of seven did they come from? None of them. Those 
hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming majority of them 
came from Saudi Arabia, then Egypt then United Arab Emirates.
  None of those three countries is on this list of seven. Why not? 
Well, a couple of different theories are out there. One is that 
President Trump has business interests in those countries. He is doing 
business with corporations in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, and in the United 
Arab Emirates. So that is one leading theory that is out there. The 
other is that these are rich and powerful countries. So despite the 
fact that they were the lead exporters from this prism of terrorist 
hijackers to the United States, they get a pass.
  And instead, we pick on Yemen, and Somalia, and Iraq--our presumed 
ally--that another Republican President sunk hundreds of billions of 
dollars into waging a war based on the mythology that there were 
weapons of mass destruction in that country, but now they are on our 
side. Yet, we have imposed a ban of people coming in as refugees from 
Iraq. But Saudi Arabia gets a pass; Egypt gets a pass; United Arab 
Emirates gets a pass because they are on the rich side.
  So what exactly do these seven countries have in common if it doesn't 
have anything to do with our national security? Because if you look at 
the other terrorist events that have taken place in our country, for 
example, the Boston Marathon bombers, those young men who were 
implicated in that crime against the people of the city of Boston and 
the people of the United States came from Russia originally.
  Is there a ban on Russia being imposed here? Quite the contrary. 
Earlier today, President Trump relaxed sanctions on Russia, made it 
easier for American businesses to export information technology to 
Russian companies, according to news reports.
  I haven't seen the exact order yet, but there is an executive order 
that is lessening sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that two of the 
most infamous terrorists against the United States originally came from 
there. So what do those seven countries have in common?
  Well, they are all Muslim countries. They are poor Muslim countries. 
They are poor Muslim countries that Donald Trump doesn't do business 
with. And so maybe that is it. Maybe the idea is, we are going to wage 
a worldwide war on the poorest, most vulnerable Muslim countries, even 
if they don't pose any special threat to us, because that will conform 
to Steve Bannon's ideological world view of a major contest between the 
Christian west and radical Islamic terror.
  I think that would be it. But President Trump, of course, puts his 
business interests even above the racism and White nationalism of Steve 
Bannon, because the business interests have to come first in all cases.
  So that is the best that we can make of what has been imposed on the 
country, an Orwellian policy imposed with Kafkaesque incompetence all 
over the United States of America. So the airports are in an uproar, 
families have been dislocated, children agonized over the situation, 
panic spreading across America. And part of me wants to think, well, 
this is just the misfortunes of a beginning President. Maybe this is 
part of a design by Steve Bannon who has proclaimed himself a Leninist 
who wants to tear the system down, tear the government down; to start 
over again.
  Maybe that is what is going on. Who knows? But all of this brings us 
back to the emoluments clause. Now the emoluments clause, Article I, 
section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution was inserted by our great 
Founders because they feared foreign monetary dominance of the United 
States Government.
  They knew that kings and princes, dictators and despots, traitors and 
saboteurs all over the place would try to use their money to compromise 
the integrity of Republican government, Republican democracy.
  Remember, we were trying something new here, what our great 
Republican President Abraham Lincoln would later come to call the 
``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.''
  That was the experiment that we launched then, and they knew that 
there was a basic problem, which is, the room will not hold all. We 
can't have a New England town meeting every time we need to make a 
decision, so we have got to elect people to go be our Governors.
  But when you elect them, now you have got an agent. And the problem 
all of you lawyers know out there--in principal agent law--is how do 
you make sure the agent actually serves the client rather than the 
interests of the agent himself or herself?
  And the Founders understood that, and they were afraid that the 
people who we elected might go to Washington and be corrupted by 
foreign money, by all of the diplomats and spies running around 
offering gifts, and gold, and snuffboxes, and diamonds, and so on. And 
so what they said was that no official in our government, no official 
could accept any gifts, or emolument, any payment of any kind at all 
from a foreign government, a king, a prince, or a foreign government. 
No foreign payments.
  And that is something that has been observed scrupulously for more 
than two centuries by our Presidents. Nobody has even come close to the 
line of violating that.
  When Benjamin Franklin was Ambassador to France, he received a 
snuffbox from the people of France. He came back, and he brought it to 
Congress and asked Congress to approve, because it is up to this body 
to decide whether or not a foreign payment is acceptable or not.
  And Congress said: Mr. Franklin, because of your extraordinary 
reputation for integrity, for decency, and for honesty, we understand 
you have not been compromised by that snuffbox, and it is just a 
snuffbox, and you can keep it.
  But today, what we have got now is a President who has hundreds of 
millions of dollars of interest all over the world--in Russia, in the 
Philippines--millions of dollars of loans from the Government of China, 
the Trump Hotel, which is renting out banquet rooms, dining halls, 
floors, hotel rooms, to foreign governments and embassies from all over 
the world who come here to try to influence our government.
  And what do we hear about the emoluments clause? Has the President 
come to ask us whether or not we approve of these arrangements? 
Nothing. Nothing has happened. Is it affecting policy? Every single 
day.
  And I come back--before I turn it over to my colleague--to what we 
are talking about, which is these executive orders which have this very 
bizarre quality, my fellow Americans.

                              {time}  1700

  They apply to poor Muslim countries where Donald Trump has no 
business interests. These executive orders don't apply to Saudi Arabia, 
they don't apply to Egypt, they don't apply to the United Arab 
Emirates, they don't apply to any of the countries where Trump 
Industries has business. That is precisely why the Founders put in the 
emoluments clause. I know it is a bit of a mouthful, but every American 
has got to learn to say it. All it means is

[[Page 1740]]

payments. This is the foreign bribery clause in our Constitution.
  These terrible immigration orders, which have created chaos and 
pandemonium across the land, are a perfect demonstration of why we need 
to enforce the emoluments clause and why this President needs to divest 
himself immediately of all these foreign concerns, or this Congress 
must hear the appeals that are coming from our side of the aisle and 
must listen to the fact that these payments that are being received on 
a daily basis by the President are a threat to the American 
constitutional order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Jayapal), my good friend and colleague from Seattle, Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), my friend and colleague, and I thank my other colleagues also 
who are here today to shine a light on the abuses that happened last 
week and last weekend with the executive order that was passed and 
signed into law by this President.
  Mr. Speaker, this order is in direct contrast with the values that 
this country was built on: foremost, to be a refuge. That is how so 
many people in the history of this country have come here. Instead, our 
President has chosen to close the doors on people who are fleeing 
violence in their home countries, and it is based on their religion.
  This ban is discrimination in its purest form. It does not make us 
safer. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that doing what we did has 
actually put fodder into the hands of those who really do wish to do us 
harm by being able to say that America hates Muslims, that America 
hates Islam, and that America hates immigrants and refugees, none of 
which is true to the history and the founding of this country.
  The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the International Rescue Committee 
has said that it is more challenging for refugees to get into the 
United States than anyone else. They are the most heavily vetted group 
there is. As you can see here, there are 20 steps involved in the 
process, and those who do get approved have been through the most 
rigorous background checks, fingerprinting, and questioning.
  Instead of making us safer, this ban is simply throwing people into 
chaos. Many of us over this last weekend went to our airports across 
the country--Dulles; New York; Seattle, Washington, my hometown. We 
were called to the airport because there was chaos that erupted across 
the country, chaos that erupted at the airports, because people who had 
legal documents to come to the United States were coming in and being 
told that the executive order meant that they no longer could actually 
stay here in this country.
  Mr. President, what happened then for me, when I went to the Sea-Tac 
Airport at 1 in the afternoon on Saturday, I found a Somali family who 
had been waiting, a U.S. citizen woman who had been waiting to be 
reunited with her husband. She believed that finally she was going to 
get to hold him in her arms. Instead, Mr. Speaker, what happened is 
that he was put on a plane and sent back to Heathrow, but perhaps 
somewhere else. We were not given any information about what was going 
to happen to that gentleman.
  We found out that there were two additional individuals who were 
already put on a plane ready to be deported. We, along with the ACLU, 
the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and our governor, were able to 
file for a temporary restraining order. We were able to take that 
restraining order on our phone to the plane and say: Stop this plane.
  That literally, Mr. Speaker, is how we were able to get those two 
people off of the plane. We were able to then get them legal counsel 
after much intervention.
  Mr. Speaker, it should not be this way. This is a country that was 
built by immigrants. It is a country that has welcomed people from 
across the world to come here as a refuge, as a sanctuary. My State of 
Washington is one of the top States in the country for refugee 
resettlement. The reality is we are destroying the very principles of 
compassion, of humanity, of being a refuge, of building this country 
with immigrants and refugees.
  Literally thousands of people came to the airport to say: We welcome 
refugees; we welcome immigrants.
  This is not the America that we know and love. We are better than 
this.
  This is not the first time I have had to fight against these illegal 
deportations. After 9/11, we had similar situations, not as bad as 
this, but we had the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, 
NSEERS. It required that men from 25 Muslim and Arab countries were 
going to be fingerprinted and registered. This was under the Bush 
administration. At the time, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: You 
are either with the terrorists or you are with us.
  That is a false choice, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that security and 
liberty do not oppose each other. They go hand in hand, and we cannot 
sacrifice one for the sake of the other.
  Mr. Speaker, we were able to fight that, and we finally did end that 
special registration program, but now here we are again. We know the 
shame of history when we have not been on the right side of it. We know 
that in 1942, 125,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were put into 
internment camps, and it took us a very long time to come back and 
apologize. Mr. Speaker, when we did, we said we will never do that 
again. Yet, here we are for the first time again instituting a 
religious test as to who can get into this country.
  Let us be clear that it is a Muslim ban. It does not mean that every 
single Muslim country necessarily has been targeted yet. But what it 
does mean is that Muslims are being scrutinized in a different way 
simply for being Muslim.
  A constituent of mine called my office this week to tell me another 
very disturbing story, and she told me that I could tell it here on the 
floor. She was passing through immigration into Houston on her way back 
home from Seattle. Dr. Angelina Godoy was traveling back from Central 
America where she was doing research. She is a U.S. citizen. She said 
she was so alarmed by what happened to her that she wanted to call and 
get it on the record.
  Angelina is a human rights professor and she has traveled through 
immigration many times. This was the first time she said she had 
experienced anything like this. Her immigration officer asked her about 
her political views. When she said that she was deeply concerned about 
the President's actions, he asked her why she wasn't concerned with all 
the refugees that were flooding into our borders. And he used that word 
``flooding.'' When she said she didn't think that they were flooding 
in, he told her that she can't tell him that based on the fake news she 
is seeing on television.
  Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly disturbing. Are we going to now check 
the views of every U.S. citizen who is coming into the our borders to 
see whether they agree with these executive orders or not?
  Well, I am here to tell you that it may be the thought that fear and 
patriotism together is the way to suppress dissent. We will not be 
suppressed with fighting for the very values that make us great.
  In cities around the country, what gives me hope is that people stood 
up to stand up against this hatred. The Muslim ban is unconstitutional, 
and we are standing here today to demand that it be repealed.
  You can see here the chart that I referred to earlier. There are 20 
steps that you must go through in order to be screened. Syrian refugees 
are probably the most screened individuals in our country today. And 
there are 5 million Syrian refugees who are pouring out of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a time to turn our backs on them. This is a 
time to make sure that we are taking care of the women, the children, 
the families, the majority of refugees to this country who are women 
and children and families. The majority who have family members here 
that they are waiting to be reunited with, that is who we are talking 
about, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin)

[[Page 1741]]

and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) for their tremendous 
leadership. They have hit the ground running here in Congress in 
defense of our Nation's immigrants and refugees and for all who just 
seek to live the American Dream. So thank you very much for your 
leadership and for calling us together tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, in his first week as President, Donald Trump issued an 
executive order essentially banning immigrants and refugees from the 
United States on the basis of religion. This action effectively shuts 
our gates to some of the most vulnerable people in the world fleeing 
danger and death.
  This ban flies in the face of our fundamental values as Americans. It 
is, yes, morally reprehensible and will only serve to make the United 
States less safe. This executive order is also a direct threat to our 
national security. Banning Muslim immigrants and refugees only fuels 
ISIS propaganda by promoting the false idea that the United States is 
at war with Islam. This halfway ban is felt in our communities across 
the Nation.
  In my district, one Iranian student at the University of California, 
Berkeley was not allowed to board the plane to return to the United 
States. She is now forced to withdraw from the semester. This is a 
disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is and has been and will always be a Nation 
of immigrants. This ban and this President and his executive orders do 
not reflect our values. This is not who we are.
  As the President's divisive ban was implemented, we witnessed 
thousands of Americans bring what I call ``street heat.'' Men, women, 
and children across the country stood up to the President and declared 
with one voice: Not on our watch.
  These protests, the voice of the American people, give me hope. If we 
stand together and resist, we will prevail.
  While the President continues his attack on immigrants, refugees, and 
Muslims, I vow to stand up for our communities with my colleagues with 
a clear message saying once again: This is not who we are. This Muslim 
ban is hateful, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright wrong.
  Finally, let me just say that February is Black History Month. As an 
African American woman, I am reminded of the bans and exclusions of 
African Americans and my ancestors and the legacy of slavery where my 
ancestors were brought here in chains, built this country, and 
continued to fight for freedom and justice. As an African American, 
there is no way I can tolerate any ban on anyone seeking refuge in this 
great country.
  Finally, and in conclusion, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I just want to say that I am going to fight tooth and nail 
to prevent funding for these misguided anti-immigrant and anti-refugee 
policies.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday night, I was at Los Angeles 
International Airport. I went out to show unity and stand with those 
that stand against this ban. I think it is wrong. I think it is 
unconstitutional and unAmerican. But what I saw there was startling.
  I want to tell you the story of Fatema. Fatema is a legal permanent 
resident. She got a notice in the mail that she was about to be sworn 
in to become a U.S. citizen on February 13. She was traveling with her 
1-year-old son who is an American citizen. She was the victim and was 
being detained. Reports from lawyers on the ground were that she was 
being pressured to sign away her right to be a legal permanent resident 
right after they had sent somebody back, a student, who had a visa to 
be here.

                              {time}  1715

  I was there, along with one of my colleagues, Judy Chu, fighting, 
trying to get to the detainee to make sure that she had access to an 
attorney. I asked to go to CBC, the Customs and Border Protection. 
Conveniently, they were shut down. They had closed the office.
  So I asked somebody: Can you walk me down to the arrivals so I could 
talk to somebody?
  They wouldn't do it. I got a telephone number. I called. None of my 
questions were answered. They wouldn't answer a single question: Were 
any of my constituents being detained? Could I get a lawyer to 
somebody?
  They wouldn't even say yes or no. All I was told was I had to call 
this Washington, D.C., number--a 202 number. Now, it was Saturday 
night. It was 7 p.m. on the Pacific Coast.
  I called. I left a message, asking for a return call. I didn't get 
one. I demanded, with my colleague, that we get a briefing privately, 
behind closed doors, outside the press. We didn't get one.
  As a matter of fact, when I called back, I asked: Who is your 
manager? Who are you answering to?
  She said: The President.
  Oh. You have talked to Donald Trump?
  It was really disturbing. And then she hung up on me--and I am a 
Member of the United States Congress. I couldn't get any answers to try 
to protect the very constituents that we fight for, the constituents 
whom we represent. It was very disturbing.
  These immigration orders are unsettling, but they are also a 
disservice to the Customs and Border Protection when you don't give a 
heads-up, when you don't have a warning on how things are going to be 
carried out. This led to mass confusion not just at LAX, but at 
airports across the country.
  I hear often that this affected just a small number of travelers, but 
it affected a lot more than that. We saw the masses of people coming 
out. We saw lawyers who had to go down there and give their time. A 
shout-out to the ACLU and to the attorneys at public counsel and to so 
many other attorneys who went down there and gave their evenings, their 
time, and who have been standing up and fighting for people in court to 
get people to come back.
  Just today, at Los Angeles International Airport, there was a press 
conference held to welcome back the one person who was allowed to come 
back--an Iranian citizen who was deported and sent back, who was 
forcibly removed on Friday night even though he had a legal right to be 
here. Hopefully we are going to hear more of these stories, but it 
shouldn't be that way. People should not show up at the airport and get 
on a flight in a country in which they have a right to be just to have 
to turn around and be sent back after being detained for hours on end. 
This isn't right.
  As a Member of Congress, I will work to ensure that the Federal 
Government obeys the Constitution, respects our history as a nation of 
immigrants, and does not unlawfully target anyone because of one's 
national origin or faith.
  Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Congresswoman from New 
York, Yvette Clarke.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank the gentleman from Maryland and the 
gentlewoman from Washington State for hosting this very important 
Special Order hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my outrage over Donald Trump's 
unconscionable, ill-conceived, horribly executed and implemented 
executive order that limits Muslim immigration and travel into the 
United States.
  This order is an appalling affront to American interests. It is 
contrary to our ideals and values as a nation, and it flies in the face 
of our history and the core conviction of freedom from religious 
persecution that this Nation was built upon. It provides the fuel to 
our enemies and makes a mockery of our democracy and Constitution. Most 
importantly, it tears families apart by prohibiting people with valid 
travel documents from entering the country.
  I saw this firsthand on Saturday when I visited JFK International 
Airport to witness the needless chaos and confusion that this order has 
created. One person who lives in my district who has been affected by 
this order is Dr. Kamal Fadlalla. Dr. Fadlalla is a Sudanese hospital 
resident in Brooklyn, New York. He is trained to save

[[Page 1742]]

lives, not to take them. Yet, due to Donald Trump's egregious executive 
order, Dr. Fadlalla has been prevented from returning back to the 
United States to help heal our sick and save lives.
  There is no justification for this shameful order, and it is no 
wonder that the Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, risked her job 
and reputation rather than act as Donald Trump's enforcer. I commend 
Ms. Yates for her personal integrity and fidelity to our Constitution. 
Ironically enough, during her confirmation hearing, it was Donald 
Trump's own nominee for Attorney General who suggested that Ms. Yates 
maintain the integrity of the Department of Justice at all times and 
that she must refuse to enforce orders that were unconstitutional. This 
week, Ms. Yates made good on her answer to Senator Sessions and upheld 
her oath to faithfully uphold our Constitution.
  For these reasons, I will proudly introduce a resolution that 
commends Ms. Yates for her act of moral courage and for her adherence 
to the dictates of the United States Constitution. I call on all of my 
colleagues to sign on to this resolution and for House leadership to 
schedule a vote to commend Ms. Yates. Most importantly, though, I call 
on Donald Trump to rescind this egregious order that harms our economy, 
that contravenes our values, and that endangers our national security.
  I thank the gentleman and gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. RASKIN. I thank the Congresswoman for her comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Congressman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank Congressman Raskin, and I thank Congresswoman 
Jayapal.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the House of Representatives has 
tremendously benefited by these two awesome freshmen who have come in 
here like gangbusters. I am sure that my classmate and friend of many 
years from New York, Ms. Yvette Clarke, will agree with me that we are 
always trying to welcome these folks who have come straight off the 
campaign trail, because you really know how people are feeling when 
they come straight off the campaign trail--fresh. I am sure the 
Congressman from Rhode Island, David Cicilline, agrees.
  The people of this country are fundamentally fair folks. Our 
countrymen and -women believe that everybody ought to be treated with 
dignity and respect. Yes, we believe that we have to have an economy 
that works for everybody. Absolutely true. We also believe that people 
should be treated based on their behavior, based on who they are, based 
on what they bring, not based on their race, their sex, their gender, 
their religion. In fact, this idea is enshrined in the Constitution.
  The first clause of the First Amendment reads: ``Congress shall make 
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.'' Later on in the Constitution, it reads that 
Congress shall not impose any religious test for participating--
serving--in public office.
  In America, you don't have to have one religious belief or another. 
In America, you can be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or of no 
faith whatsoever. You can be Baptist; you can be Methodist; you can be 
whatever you want to be. That is up to you, and it is a private matter. 
Americans basically understand that this is right because the Framers 
of the Constitution, people like Thomas Jefferson and others, looked 
over at some of the Colonies and even looked at some of the conflicts 
in Europe and said that we don't need to be mixed up--fighting--with 
each other over religion.
  Now, the Framers got a lot of things wrong. They got women's rights 
wrong; they got race wrong; they got Native American rights wrong. 
There were many things that they needed to correct in this Nation.
  As the great Thurgood Marshall said, we were defective from the 
start, and we needed to have civil wars and civil rights movements and 
other movements to make this country the country that it is today.
  Yet one thing we did decently in the beginning is with regard to 
religious freedom--until now. Donald Trump is introducing a religious 
test for whether or not people can be a part of this American story.
  Donald Trump claims: Oh, I don't have a Muslim ban.
  Wait a minute, President Trump. Wasn't it you who, on December 7, 
2015, said that you were calling for a ban on all Muslims who enter 
into the United States? Wasn't it you who said it multiple times 
throughout your campaign? Didn't you say you wanted to have a Muslim 
database for all of the Muslims who were in the country? Didn't you say 
you wanted to shutter mosques? You said these things, and now, all of a 
sudden, you are shy about saying that you are running a Muslim ban.
  These people who say, oh, it is not a Muslim ban surprise me because 
I am, like, I thought you all were proud of it. I thought you were 
bragging about it. I thought it was how you rode your way into office--
by appealing to people's fears and trying to whip up hostility among 
different Americans of different faiths and traditions. Yet now, all of 
a sudden, you are shy about saying what you are doing, which is a 
Muslim ban. Yes, it is a Muslim ban. Just because it doesn't ban every 
Muslim everywhere does not mean that the people who are banned are not 
banned because they are Muslim. That is exactly why they are banned. 
That is why they are banned.
  He was asked on a TV program: Would you give preferential treatment 
to people of another faith?
  He said: Yes, I would give preferential treatment to another faith.
  He said it. It is on the record. So don't come telling me how there 
is no Muslim ban. There is one, and these people who bragged so much 
about it--I mean Trump and Bannon and all of the rest of them--should 
not act like there is not a Muslim ban now. There is a Muslim ban. It 
is a religious test for entry into this country. It is 
unconstitutional; it is immoral; and it is wrong.
  I just want to say to all of my fellow Americans right now, if they 
can ban Muslims, they can ban Jews; if they can ban Jews, they can ban 
Seventh-day Adventists; if they can ban Seventh-day Adventists, they 
can ban Mormons; and if they can ban Mormons, they can ban Catholics. 
It is wrong, and we should stand up and say that it is wrong and 
immediately demand that it be repealed right away. I think this is 
absolutely critical that we do so.
  I want to share a story for a moment longer, if the gentleman doesn't 
mind, because I know we have some really excellent speakers coming 
right behind me, and I want to yield to them as quickly as I can. I 
want to share a story about one of the families that has been affected 
in my own home State of Minnesota.
  One person who was prevented from flying to United States this week 
is a little girl from Somalia whose mother came to Minneapolis as a 
refugee in 2013. This child was stuck in Uganda without her family 
because she hadn't been born by the time her mother was granted refugee 
status. When her mother, Samira, was given permission to come to the 
United States 4 years ago, she was told to leave her daughter behind 
with friends of the family in Uganda and apply for reunification in the 
United States. This little girl was supposed to fly to Minnesota and 
rejoin her family on Monday. Instead, her flight was canceled because 
of the Muslim ban.
  President Trump is not making our country safer. President Trump is 
reinforcing the narrative of people who don't like our country.
  What does ISIS ultimately say? That America is at war with Islam.
  I am here to tell everybody on the planet that America is absolutely 
not at war with Islam or with any other religion. The American people 
are of a peaceful nation. The people who live in the United States want 
to live in harmony with all of the other people of the world; but this 
particular person who happens to occupy the Presidency doesn't reflect 
the values that we represent. He doesn't reflect who we are. The thing 
that he is doing is actually reinforcing the narrative of the people

[[Page 1743]]

who would mean to do all of us harm no matter what religion we may be.
  I just want to sit down now and say: For the sake of this young woman 
and for the sake of Samira's daughter, who is languishing in Uganda 
right now and who wants to be reunited with her family, may we please 
get rid of this ban and get rid of this unlawful executive order?

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for 
organizing tonight's Special Order hour on this very important topic.
  I join my colleagues in expressing my strong opposition to the 
President's Muslim ban, a religious test. It is the first time we have 
seen this in modern times.
  We have been at war since 9/11 against terrorism, and our most urgent 
responsibility is to keep America safe, but President Trump's Muslim 
ban makes it harder to do this. The Muslim ban makes it harder to work 
with our allies. The Muslim ban makes it harder to recruit intelligence 
assets. The Muslim ban makes it harder to enlist allies in our fight 
against ISIS.
  We should help people who are fleeing ISIS rather than slam the door 
in their faces. Instead, President Trump's Muslim ban likens these 
individuals to terrorists. This isn't a plan, and it won't keep America 
safe.
  We need a real plan, a plan that honors our values and a plan that 
does not discriminate based upon a person's religion. We need a plan 
that keeps our country safe and respects freedom of religion, whether 
people are White, Black, Brown, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, young, or 
old. Immigrants and refugees have made incredible contributions to our 
great country, and it is time for our President to say this.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, like so many places around the 
country, when we watched on television news reports of an executive 
order being issued and people who are lawfully authorized to return 
home to the United States being held in detention and being prevented 
from coming back into America, we were sick to our stomach.
  People in Rhode Island rallied, like people did all across this 
country, to express their outrage, to say this is not America and these 
are not our values. This is inconsistent with our Constitution. While 
we saw this administration working to undo basic constitutional rights 
and civil liberties--including, most importantly, freedom of religion--
people all across America spoke out.
  In addition to recognizing that this didn't comport with our deeply 
held beliefs and faith and confidence in our Constitution, we also knew 
that these were families fleeing unspeakable violence as part of the 
refugee program who are also being denied access into the United 
States. People were fleeing ISIS and then coming to America only to 
have the door slammed in their faces.
  As has been said, the refugee program that we have in place is the 
single most difficult way for someone to be allowed to enter the United 
States. It is a 10- or 12-step process.
  If you go to the website, you can see what you have to go through to 
be authorized to come into the United States as a refugee, and included 
in that is a determination that you do not pose a danger to the 
national security or to the American people. So it is embedded in the 
process already. It is a process that takes anywhere from 18 to 24 
months. It is a process which has been in place and has worked 
successfully. There hasn't been a single Syrian refugee who has been 
charged with having been engaged in any terrorist activity.
  By the way, the world is facing the largest refugee crisis since 
World War II. The U.N. estimates that 4.9 million refugees have 
registered, and there are about 6 million total if you include those 
that aren't registered. Turkey has taken 2.7 million refugees. Lebanon 
has taken 1 million refugees. Jordan has taken 655,000 refugees. Iraq 
has taken 228,000 refugees.
  Do you know how many the United States accepted last year? About 
16,000. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more to do to meet our 
responsibilities with respect to accepting refugees who go through this 
very rigorous process.
  I am here tonight to speak out as loudly as I can against the 
executive order that ends the Syrian refugee program that has worked so 
successfully and that puts in place a Muslim ban that is making us less 
safe.
  This isn't a Democratic or a Republican issue. There have been a 
number of Republicans who have knowledge that this is making us less 
safe. Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain said this may well 
do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.
  There are a number of other national security experts who have said 
this will not make us safer. There are a number of veterans 
organizations that have said the same. Business leaders have said the 
same.
  This will not make us safer, and it has really brought the scorn of 
the world, as people have seen an America that has always stood for 
values of welcoming people and of diversity and being a place that 
people come to--like my great-grandfather did--to build a better life 
to suddenly be slamming its doors and instituting a test based on 
religion. It does violence to our history and to our Constitution.
  I want to just ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is 
not just an ordinary lawyer, but a scholar, a professor of law, whether 
or not he has done an analysis as to the constitutionality of the 
President's Muslim ban.
  There have been, I think, four courts now who have, in fact, entered 
orders invalidating key parts of these orders based on their assessment 
that they don't comport with our Constitution.
  I ask the gentleman to share his assessment as to whether or not my 
view of this--and, I think, the view of these courts--is the correct 
one.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief here because a number 
of our colleagues from around the country are waiting to weigh in.
  Let me just say that this executive order is like a bad issue spotter 
on a constitutional law final exam. It is riddled with so many 
constitutional errors and violations, starting with the ban on 
religious free exercise, equal protection of the laws. The way it has 
been implemented has been draconian and Kafkaesque around the country, 
violating due process and the right to counsel, which has been the 
source of a lot of the successful constitutional litigation that has 
already taken place.
  It hasn't even been out on the street for a week, and I think five or 
six Federal district courts have struck down different aspects of it. 
So it is a Pandora's box, and it is going to be the gift that keeps 
giving to constitutional lawyers across the country.
  Again, we are urging the President just to withdraw it at this point.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging President 
Trump to rescind both of these unconstitutional executive orders.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin) as well as the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) 
for hosting this important Special Order hour. Congressman Raskin and 
Congresswoman Jayapal are two of the newest members of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I want to express my gratitude 
for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, President Trump issued an executive order 
that violated America's basic commitment to projecting hope and 
tolerance around the world. With a stroke of his pen, he turned his 
back on a humanitarian crisis and shut the door on desperate families 
fleeing unspeakable violence. It has taken just 2 weeks for this 
administration to undermine our moral authority and weaken our role in 
promoting peace and stability in a volatile world.
  In airports across the country, in streets of coastal cities and 
midwestern towns, in States that voted for

[[Page 1744]]

Secretary Clinton and in States that voted for President Trump, the 
American people are expressing their outrage at the Muslim ban. 
Patriotic men and women are standing up for the compassionate, 
exceptional country we strive to be.
  Religious leaders are standing up to say: This is not who we are.
  Veterans are standing up to say: This is not what we fought for.
  There was a time when Republican leadership stood with them. These 
two tweets to my right are a memorial to a time when Vice President 
Pence and Speaker Ryan were prepared to publicly oppose policies they 
called un-American. Now, when faced with the reality of this policy, 
Speaker Ryan is choosing to support the ban. Our Vice President deleted 
his tweet. We had to search around to find the original tweet, and it 
is right over there.
  The American people deserve better.
  Let's be clear. The President's executive order makes America less 
safe. The only threat to America posed by Syrian refugees is to our 
conscience. Instead of protecting the homeland from terror, the 
President has gift-wrapped powerful propaganda for our enemies.
  This is not just my opinion or the opinion of Democrats in Congress. 
This is what we have heard from dozens of national security experts 
from both parties. They are warning us that this executive order is a 
stain on our reputation and a setback for counterterrorism efforts 
around the world. Yet congressional Republicans remain silent.
  Mr. Speaker, our democracy has endured and prospered for more than 
two centuries because of our system of checks and balances. Congress 
has a responsibility to act when the executive branch advances reckless 
and ill-conceived policies. We are failing to fulfill that duty by 
refusing to repeal the Muslim ban, by refusing to investigate the 
President's many conflicts of interest. And by refusing to stand up for 
America's most basic principles, my friends across the aisle are 
putting our global leadership and the integrity of our government at 
risk.
  If ever there was a time to choose your country over your party, this 
is it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, we have four more speakers. We have had an 
overwhelming response to the Progressive Caucus' Special Order on the 
executive orders here.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for the 
Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour.
  I was on the floor earlier today talking about my concerns very 
specifically around this, as it relates to the countries that were 
selected and the fact that these were not countries that were selected 
for any reason other than the fact that they are Muslim countries and 
that Mr. Trump has decided that they should be included.
  What I want to talk about tonight is my district and how this affects 
it. We saw the crowds in New York, California, Chicago, Boston, and 
other big cities that have international airports and the activities 
this weekend; but in Madison, Wisconsin, we have had a very direct 
impact. We have 115 faculty, students, and staff, right now, impacted 
by this decision. In fact, there is one joint national Canadian-Iranian 
student who is in Brazil who has been advised not to come back.
  What I want to do is read into the Record this statement. We are 
working on a case of someone who is an Iraqi national, and this is a 
letter written by someone who served with him in the military. I want 
to read this very quickly:

       I am contacting you regarding John, an Iraqi national who 
     earned a special immigration visa for his work with the U.S. 
     Army over two different 3-year periods in Baghdad and another 
     region of Iraq.
       My personal acquaintance with him, where he is a translator 
     in a small 12-man military training team I led. The recent 
     executive order curtailing immigration from Iraq, along with 
     six other countries, has halted his plan to emigrate with his 
     family.
       He and his fellow translators provided an invaluable 
     service to the team. They braved the same dangers we all 
     faced. They rode in the same vehicles, walked the same 
     streets, met with the same people. The only difference is is 
     they were unarmed and, after missions when we returned to 
     secure FOBs, they had to return to live in their communities 
     unprotected.
       John was wounded while working with the U.S. Army, and he 
     provided honorable service to the country for years.

  This is who is the target of President Trump's executive order 
banning Muslims. This is wrong, and we need it to stop.
  President Trump, rescind your order.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. 
Jayapal) and I thank all of the Members who have come pouring out in 
response for this Progressive Caucus Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, refugees that are fleeing for their 
lives are not the enemy. Look at this 3-year-old Syrian boy, Aylan 
Kurdi, who washed up on a beach in Turkey. He and his older brother and 
his mother drowned. They were among, literally, thousands of people who 
drowned escaping the violence that was certain in their home country of 
Syria.
  Now the President is trying to keep them out of our country. He is 
condemning more children like Aylan to their death with this executive 
order. And in face of this immoral action by the administration, I have 
witnessed the decency and generosity of people in my district. I was 
proud to join people of all faiths in rallies to support our refugees 
and our Muslim neighbors.
  I was with lawyers who rushed to O'Hare Airport to offer assistance 
to those who suddenly are detained under the executive order.
  I have received hundreds of letters. One was from a couple who had 
joined with 13 friends to welcome and provide assistance to a family 
that wanted to resettle from Syria. They had collected money. They had 
collected furniture. They had worked for over a year in order to make 
this happen, and they finally got word that they were actually going to 
get a family to come.
  Then, on January 30, they got official word that the family would not 
be allowed to enter. And now they don't know what happened to that 
family.
  Let me just read the end of that letter. He said:

       Now we don't know what happened to the family. Because they 
     are Syrian, they are indefinitely banned from the United 
     States. Meanwhile, we have a warm apartment and $12,000 
     waiting for them. We have rooms full of furniture stockpiled, 
     and no way to get to them.
       As a group of Chicagoans, as a second-generation American 
     myself, we came together to aid a family in dire need and to 
     affirm the quintessential American values of openness and 
     inclusiveness.
       I can't stop thinking about that couple, what they are 
     telling their children right now, and where they will sleep 
     tonight.
       Turning our back on families and children who are fleeing a 
     war is not our best strategic interest as a nation, nor is it 
     in our best interest as decent human beings.

  Thank you from Maria Demopolis, Chicago, Illinois.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise here to protest the deaths that 
are occurring, protest the horrible situation that our President has 
put upon us.
  I include in the Record a letter that I have received from the 
University of California at Davis, and the Mayor of the City of Davis, 
California, who have so clearly laid out the impact that the 
immigration ban and the ban on refugees has put upon the university and 
the community.

  [From Ralph J. Hexter, Interim Chancellor, University of California 
              Davis, and Robb Davis, Mayor, city of Davis]

       We have over 5000 international students and scholars at UC 
     Davis, many of whom are actively questioning what future 
     actions by this administration might mean for them. This is 
     an incredibly disorienting time for all our international 
     guests.
       Here are some specific cases that illustrate challenges 
     that students and scholars all over the country are facing at 
     this time. These are specific to our community. (Note: as you 
     know, F-1 status is for students at

[[Page 1745]]

     any degree level authorized to study in the US at accredited 
     universities. J-1 can refer either to students or scholars in 
     the US Visitor Exchange Program)
       1. A former J-1 scholar from Iran is in the US arranging 
     the move of his wife and son, while awaiting green card 
     processing. He was to have left the US for final interviews 
     and processing but is now uncertain. He has an appointment in 
     UC Davis' Plant Sciences Department.
       2. An Iranian PhD student who was to have started at UC 
     Davis this spring (he was accepted), recently obtained his 
     visa, was to arrive in March, 2017, to start classes April 4. 
     His ability to start then is now in doubt. In addition, his 
     proposed roommate, who is already here from Iran, was 
     counting on him to share expenses. This person now finds 
     himself in a difficult situation.
       3. An Iranian F-2 (spouse of F-1) is concerned about her 
     ability to change to F-1 status to become a student. She has 
     been accepted at UC Davis.
       4. An Iranian student applying for a Master's program in 
     Engineering at UC Davis is asking about whether she should 
     continue her application process.
       5. The spouse of an F-1 student (F-2 status) is currently 
     stuck outside the US and unable to be reunited with her 
     family.
       6. An Iranian F-1 PhD student, who started in Fall 2016 
     quarter had invited his father to visit. This student has a 
     sister with two children in the US and she and they are 
     American citizens. The father/grandfather had a visa 
     interview scheduled in Yerevan, Armenia for February 8th so 
     he could come on a tourist visa to visit the student son and 
     daughter and grandchildren. His visa interview has now been 
     canceled. Attached are the pictures of the two grandchildren 
     he will not be able to see. He has not been able to see his 
     daughter for five years.
       7. Scholar advisors at UC Davis are being asked by scholars 
     of these countries if it is safe to travel within the USA. 
     The fact that scholars must ask this shows the fear that 
     exists.
       8. Departmental staff is questioning whether to admit 
     students or invite scholars from these countries for summer 
     and fall arrivals. There is much confusion.
       9. A high profile scholar from one of the countries (his 
     profile might put him at risk) was set to come to UC Davis to 
     do research on responses to humanitarian abuses in his 
     country. Because of the order, UC Davis was not permitted to 
     provide him with documentation necessary to obtain a visa. 
     These stories were gathered in the past 5 hours WITHIN the 
     City of Davis and the University. We are a small city of 
     65,000.
       The fact that Iranians are the main nationality represented 
     comes as no surprise. UC Davis and the City of Davis are home 
     to many Iranians and have been for a generation at least. The 
     fact that the Trump Administration can point to NO attacks by 
     Iranians on US soil or against US interests makes their 
     exclusion seem particularly arbitrary and cruel to us.
                                  ____


             Mayor Davis' Letter to Garamendi on Muslim Ban

                      (By Vanguard Administrator)

       Representative Garamendi: Thanks for your interest in the 
     challenges the City of Davis and UC Davis are facing in light 
     of President Trump's executive order restricting entry for 
     citizens from 7, predominantly-Muslim nations. UC Davis has 
     87 students or scholars from Iran, Iraq and Libya, with 
     unknown numbers of Iranian faculty, family members and 
     workers with permanent residency living in our City.
       In addition, the following shows the large numbers of 
     students and scholars from other predominantly Muslim 
     countries currently at UC Davis. While these countries are 
     not covered by the current Executive Order, students and 
     scholars from them are very concerned about their future 
     status and ability to travel home or receive visitors from 
     home.
       1. Bangladesh: 14 students, 9 scholars
       2. Egypt: 14 students, 7 scholars
       3. Indonesia: 147 students, 1 scholar
       4. Malaysia: 49 students, 6 scholars
       5. Morocco: 4 students, 1 scholar
       6. Nigeria: 4 students, 2 scholars
       7. Pakistan: 18 students, 14 scholars
       8. Turkey: 31 students, 9 scholars
       Beyond these numbers we have over 5000 students and 
     scholars at UC Davis, many of whom are actively questioning 
     what future actions by this administration might mean for 
     them. This is an incredibly disorienting time for all our 
     international guests.
       Here are some specific cases that illustrate challenges 
     that students and scholars all over the country are facing at 
     this time. These are specific to our community. (Note: as you 
     know, F-1 status is for students at any degree level 
     authorized to study in the US at accredited universities. J-1 
     can refer either to students or scholars in the US Visitor 
     Exchange Program)
       1. A former J-1 scholar from Iran is in the US arranging 
     the move of his wife and son, while awaiting green card 
     processing. He was to have left the US for final interviews 
     and processing but is now uncertain. He has an appointment in 
     UC Davis' Plant Sciences Department.
       2. An Iranian PhD student who was to have started at UC 
     Davis this spring (he was accepted), recently obtained his 
     visa, was to arrive in March, 2017, to start classes April 4. 
     His ability to start then is now in doubt. In addition, his 
     proposed roommate, who is already here from Iran, was 
     counting on him to share expenses. This person, now finds 
     himself in a difficult situation.
       3. An Iranian F-2 (spouse of F-1) is concerned about her 
     ability to change to F-1 status to become a student. She has 
     been accepted at UC Davis.
       4. An Iranian student applying for a Master's program in 
     Engineering at UC Davis is asking about whether she should 
     continue her application process.
       5. The spouse of an F-1 student (F-2 status) is currently 
     stuck outside the US and unable to be reunited with her 
     family.
       6. An Iranian F-1 PhD student, who started in Fall 2016 
     quarter had invited his father to visit. This student has a 
     sister with two children in the US and she and they are 
     American citizens. The father/grandfather had a visa 
     interview scheduled in Yerevan, Armenia for February 8th so 
     he could come on a tourist visa to visit the student son and 
     daughter and grandchildren. His visa interview has now been 
     canceled. Attached are the pictures of the two grandchildren 
     he will not be able to see. He has not been able to see his 
     daughter for five years.
       7. Scholar advisors at UC Davis are being asked by scholars 
     of these countries if it is safe to travel within the USA. 
     The fact that scholars must ask this shows the fear that 
     exists.
       8. Departmental staff is questioning whether to admit 
     students or invite scholars from these countries for summer 
     and fall arrivals. There is much confusion.
       9. A high profile scholar from one of the countries (his 
     profile might put him at risk) was set to come to UC Davis to 
     do research on responses to humanitarian abuses in his 
     country. Because of the order, UC Davis was not permitted to 
     provide him with documentation necessary to obtain a visa.
       These stories were gathered in the past 5 hours WITHIN the 
     City of Davis and the University. We are a small city of 
     65,000.
       The fact that Iranians are the main nationality represented 
     comes as no surprise. UC Davis and the City of Davis are home 
     to many Iranians and have been for a generation at least. The 
     fact that the Trump Administration can point to NO attacks by 
     Iranians on US soil or against US interests makes their 
     exclusion seem particularly arbitrary and cruel to us.
       Finally, I wanted to share with you a joint statement from 
     Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter and me to our campus and 
     community. Thanks for helping us get the word out on the 
     challenges that we are facing in light of the Executive 
     Order.


     A message to the community on the immigration executive order:

       Our city and university host over 5,000 international 
     students, faculty members and scholars, as well as their 
     families. Many of them come from nations with majority Muslim 
     populations. These are our neighbors, friends and colleagues. 
     They have faces and stories we know well. They contribute in 
     myriad ways to our community and our university. They are 
     part of us. We are deeply concerned by the impact of the 
     recent executive order that restricts the ability of 
     students, faculty, staff and other members of our community 
     from certain countries to return to the United States if they 
     are currently traveling or plan to travel abroad. The threat 
     of the order and the order itself are already having impacts 
     on people in our town and university, on their academic, 
     professional and personal lives.
       We understand it is the federal government's role to 
     maintain the security of the nation's borders. However, this 
     executive order's impact on our friends and colleagues is 
     inconsistent with the values of our community. It has created 
     uncertainty and fear that hurts the University of California, 
     Davis, and the city of Davis.
       We have long been deeply enriched by students, faculty, 
     scholars and health care professionals from around the 
     world--including the affected countries--coming to study, 
     teach, research and make our lives richer and better. Any 
     effort to make these valuable members of our community feel 
     unwelcome is antithetical to our mission of expanding 
     learning and generating new knowledge. Nothing, however, will 
     cause us to retreat from the shared principles of community 
     we have developed together, and to all of our friends from 
     here and abroad, you have our commitment to welcome you.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph J. Hexter,
       Interim Chancellor.
     Robb Davis,
       Mayor, city of Davis.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. It is a terrible situation, but I do want to----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Banks of Indiana). The time of the 
gentleman from Maryland has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Could we allow the gentleman to complete his statement 
just with 1 minute?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may ask unanimous consent to 
address the House for 1 minute.

[[Page 1746]]


  Mr. RASKIN. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 minute to complete----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California ask 
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I would 
just like to note that we knew where the clock was going on this, but I 
made a speech today in the Judiciary Committee, and I want to stand by 
my word and acknowledge the gentleman and not object so the gentleman 
can complete his statement.
  Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentleman. That is very gracious of the 
Congressman.

                          ____________________