I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I similarly thank him for many nights coming to this floor and defending values that are not only uniquely American, but which are unmistakably conservative. I appreciate him for being the…
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I similarly thank him for many nights coming to this floor and defending values that are not only uniquely American, but which are unmistakably conservative. I appreciate him for being the fire keeper on this floor for those values and those principles for constituents in his district and in mine and all throughout this great country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my fellow northwest Floridians, brave airmen who serve at Eglin Air Force Base and Duke Field and skilled
aviators who train out at NAS Pensacola and Whiting Field and some of the planet Earth's most hardened and successful warriors in the 7th Special Forces Group and those who also deploy out of Hurlburt Field in northwest Florida. They are the best among us and they often inspire the best within us as a consequence of their patriotic service.
So when I encounter them at townhall meetings or in church or at grocery stores, I often ask: How do you do it? How do you leave your family, your home, your community, risk your life, your health to go to places that many Americans couldn't point to on a map and to fight against an enemy who is evil and vicious and determined and increasingly equipped?
And almost to a man and woman, they tell me: We fight them over there so that we don't have to feel the consequences over here in America.
It is that spirit that I join in supporting and honoring in my full- throated and unequivocal support of President Trump's most recent executive order so that we are not devaluing the service of my constituents by risking the lives and the health and security of Americans here in this great country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish so much that President Trump's executive order were unnecessary. I wish that we lived in a world that was more stable and secure, where America could welcome with open arms anyone from anywhere for whatever reason at whatever cost. But the reality is that American taxpayers can't pay for everything, and American families cannot shoulder the risks of insecurity for the consequences of terrible foreign policy decisions that have been made over the last 8 years.
Maybe if the former President hadn't withdrawn from the Middle East, these regions would be more secure. Maybe if our policies hadn't so destabilized north Africa that we had failed state after failed state functioning as a caldron of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, this order would not have been necessary. But, alas, it is necessary.
I think it is important to distinguish between the realities of this executive order and the hysteria that has been created by the media. Some would believe, if they were to look only at media reports, that this was a ban on all Muslims who would seek to come to this country.
Let me affirm: our war, our conflict is not with the Muslim faith. As a matter of fact, this consequence, this conflict we are engaged in is all about the future of that faith and religion, and I am hopeful as a Christian that we are able to forge a lasting peace among all people on Earth. The reality is that there are more than 50 countries that are majority Muslim, and most of those countries will see no impact as a consequence of this most recent executive order. But there are seven countries--I guess it is perhaps a bit generous to call them countries, Mr. Speaker, because they are failed states that function to do very little other than to breed more terror and discontent and anti- Americanism. But from those seven countries, the President has taken the position that we ought to take a closer look, we ought to have a belt-and-suspenders approach to the security of American families. Of the more than 325,000 people who have recently come to the United States from foreign countries since the President's most recent executive order, about 100 have been kept for additional screening, more thorough review, and a more thoughtful approach.
So as I stand here with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, know that I am in full support of President Trump's most recent order. When I go back to northwest Florida and I look into the eyes of the warfighters, the airmen, the sailors, and the patriots, I will know that in this House there were those who were willing to stand with them, honor their service and sacrifice, and do everything possible to put America first and to keep Americans safe.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I believe his question highlights an increasing problem that we have had for the last 8 years that I hope we will cure, and that is the politicization of the important work that the executive branch ought to be doing on behalf of the American people.
The Justice Department should not be Republican or Democrat. It should stand up for the rights of all Americans, the laws that are enacted by this Congress, and the orders that are issued by the President. We shouldn't have circumstances where we have to wonder whether or not the people who are tasked to uphold the law, as the gentleman from Texas did as a jurist and did in a very colored legal career--we shouldn't have to worry about that. But, in fact, for the last 8 years, that has been the problem. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the Senate should act with due haste in confirming Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General, so we go back to a system that is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of popular opinion or politics or one particular ideology.
More specifically to the gentleman from Texas' question, I believe that what undermines the Justice Department is this partisan tilt, are these lenses through which many of President Obama's appointees evaluate the great questions that impact the security of Americans.
The gentleman from Texas correctly points out that what President Trump has done is hardly unprecedented. In 1979, President Carter, hardly one that is held out among conservatives as a great standard- bearer on foreign affairs and a strong America, was one who recognized that there were unique challenges in a unique period of time from those who may be coming to the United States from Iran, and he took action.
Similarly, in 2011, President Obama was concerned that, during an act of conflict with Iraq, there may be circumstances where people would come from Iraq to do harm to Americans on American soil, and so he took action. I guess the difference with President Trump is that he is willing to take action immediately, and that we are not going to have a Presidency with a bunch of handwringing and bedwetting over the questions that impact the safety of Americans and the dignity of this country and its borders.
President Obama was unwilling to heed the counsel of those in his own administration who indicated that there were insufficient vetting procedures in place previously. And so it strikes me as only reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that a new President coming in, having heard that there were inadequate screening procedures, not from a Trump appointee but from an appointee of President Obama, that we would take a finite period of time, 90 days, and we would analyze what would be the appropriate protocols, screening procedures, and vetting algorithms that we would use to ensure that America's interests were placed first.
I am glad we have a President who puts this country first; I am glad we have a President who does not view himself as a citizen of the world more than he views himself as a citizen of this country; and I am glad that he takes that responsibility seriously.
And to answer the gentleman's question, I would say that we ought to have a Justice Department that is led by those who will follow the rule of law, who will defend the rights of Americans, and who will stand up for the security of this country.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding for a question.
Not long ago, we heard members of the Congressional Black Caucus take to this floor and make the argument that it was hypocritical and improper that in President Trump's order and in the follow-on execution of that order by the Department of Homeland Security that there would be some preference given to religious minorities in these predominantly Muslim countries, particularly Christians, who are often persecuted, harmed, or killed. In many circumstances in which the President has allowed for through exceptions to his order, there will be people from these seven countries allowed into the United States as a consequence of the persecution that they feel and that they endure as a consequence of their Christian faith.
And so my question to the gentleman from Texas is whether or not he shares the Congressional Black Caucus' view that it is improper to treat Christians who are being discriminated against in these predominantly Muslim countries differently and to give them the opportunity to immigrate to the United States of America and realize freedom in the absence of this terrible persecution that they feel?