tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN February 2, 2017 1:05pm-6:23pm EST
speaker ryan: i'm not going to comment on this stuff. talk aboutpolicy. reporter: you also mentioned about choice in health care. is will there a particular model you have in mind? most employer-based health programs have one, maybe two choices for insurance. what is the model for that -- speaker ryan: you can go to better.gop and look at. you twoont have a vibrant individual market, vibrant employer market. we want medicaid to work. we want medicaid to work so the states can innovate and so that -- >> watch this online at c-span.org. back live now to the house floor for a couple of votes. previous. votes will be taken in the the first der rm electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 74
on which the yeas and nays are ordered, the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 8. house resslution 74, resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution house joint resolution 36, providing for congressional disapproval under clapter 8 of title 5 united states code of the final rule of the bureau of land management relating to waste prevention, production subject to royalties and resource conservation and providing for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 37, disapproving the rule submitted by the department of defense, think general services administration and the national err naughtics and space administration relating to the federal acquisition regulation. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
policies they called un-american. but 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. it's 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. and this is not just my opinion or the opinion of democrats in congress. this is what we've 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. and 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. mr. raskin: if i could reclaim the time, we're running out. thank you for that excellent contribution. we have four more speakers and i'm going to yield two minutes to each of them, mr. pocan from wisconsin, next. thank you very much, mr. takano. we've had an overwhelming response to the progressive caucus' special order on the executive orders here. mr. pocan: thank you for this 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 facts that these are 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. but what i want to talk about today, tonight, is my district and how this affects. we saw the crowds in new york and california, chicago, boston, other big cities, that have international activities and the activity this is weekend. in madison, wisconsin, we had a direct impact. we have 115 faculty, students, and staff impacted by this decision. there's one joint national canadian-iranian student who is in brazil who has been advised not to come back. i want to read into the record this statement, we're working on a case of someone who is an iraqi national who this is a letter written by someone who served with him in the military. i want to read this quickly. i'm contacting you regarding, we're going to say john, an iraqi national who -- earned a special visa for his work with
the u.s. army in two different periods in baghdad. my personal acquaintance with him, he's a translator on a small team i led. the recent executive order curtailing immigration from iraq and six other countries has haltsed his plan to immigrate with his family. he and his fellow transplators braved the same dangers we faced, walked the same street the only difference is they were unarmed and after missions when we returned to secure g.o.b.'s they had to return to live in their communities unprotected. john was wounded while working with the u.s. army but 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. i yield back. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. pocan. i'm going to call on the gentlewoman from illinois, congresswoman schakowsky.
-- chakowsky: mr. raskin: we want to thank all the members who have come pouring out in response to the progressive caucus special order. ms. schakowsky: thank you. refugees are fleeing for their lives are not the enemy. look at this 3-year-old syrian boy. ilan, 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. and now the president is trying to keep them out of our country. he is condemning more children like ilan to their deaths with their th executive order. in the face of this immoral
action by the administration, i have witnessed the decrency and generosity of people in my district. i was proud to join people of all faiths and rally to support refugees and our muslim neighbors. i was with lawyers who rushed to o'hare to offer assistance to those who suddenly are detained under the executive order. and i've received hundreds of and i received hundreds of letters. one was from a couple who 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 were -- got word that they were actually going to get a family to come. and 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. nd 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 of 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're telling their children right now and where they will sleep tonight. turning back our family -- turning our back on families
and children who are fleeing a ar is not our best strategic of a nation nor is it in our best interest as decent human beings. damopolus, om maria illinois. mr. raskin: i yield to the congressman from california, congressman garamendi. garamendi, forgive me. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i rise here to protest, protest the deaths that are occurring, protest the horrible situation that our president has put upon us. and i'd like to enter into the record a letter i 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 immigration ban and the ban on refugees has put upon the university and the community. it's a terrible situation, but i do want -- the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. raskin: could we allow the gentleman to complete his statement, one more minute? the speaker pro tempore: do you ask unanimous consent to address the house? mr. raskin: we'd ask unanimous consent for one minute to complete. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california ask for unanimous consent? mr. king: mr. speaker, reserving my right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 and i want to stand by my word and acknowledge the gentleman and not object so the gentleman can complete his statement. mr. raskin: thank you. that was very gracious of you,
congressman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: i'll just finish this up very quickly. i think we need to look where this problem emanates. it emanates from the president's advisor, mr. bannon. he's been at this for some time talking about the nature of america being a white nationalist nation. and so if we look beyond the horror that this ban places, we need to look where it emanates. mr. bannon, this clearly comes from him, and we need to focus our attention on what he has done to this nation's values. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. raskin: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. raskin: distinguished congressman king is going to go. and we have people left over who will stay for one minute after.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom michigan seek recognition? r. raskin: mr. raskin: i'm sorry. am i being recognized. mr. king: mr. speaker. i do now object. i've been waiting for a half-hour. r. speaker, i do now object. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i regret i wasn't able to work with all of the speakers here tonight that wanted to pack within that hour and i understand they prepared themselves to give their speech tonight and there will be opportunities in each succeeding day. i want to recognize their right
to speak on the rules and be as lenient as of course. i am of course defending my own rights at the same time. i would acknowledge that we did have a discussion before the judiciary committee today and i want this congress to have the ideas.f exchanging i long believe that if i can't and the can research other position is to adopt the fellow's position. i am not inclined to do that. as i listened to these positions for more than a an hour here on the floor and things come to me and i hear these words recurring over and over again. i didn't get a full account on it but i know i heard seven, eight, 10 or maybe more times saying the president's executive order was a muslim ban. w, looking
ban. now, looking through that executive order, and i haven't read it thoroughly word by word but those vetting that executive order, to use that term, tell me the word muslim is not used in that executive order. i am going to assert that is the case, president trump did not use the word executive order -- excuse me -- did not use the word muslim in his executive order and the executive order is not a muslim ban but is a ban on travel from seven countries that are muslim majority. but if it was intention to block muslims coming into america he would start from indonesia rather than iraq and syria and the war-torn countries. i will assert it's not a muslim ban except the word muslim ban is in the talking points of the democrats. and they will repeat it over and over and over again as if somehow they could amend the executive order to have the words muslim ban in there so they can have a grievance to the executive order. i saw this unfold on friday when the president issued his executive order. it was a big day, i admit. and he's had a lot of executive orders and they have been raining down pretty fast in this country and i am glad of
that. but we should objectively deal with the directive that's there. it is a temporary travel ban that focuses on the seven countries that president barack obama identified as the most dangerous countries, i call them terrorist-spawning countries, and it's a prudent thing on the part of the president to temporarily suspend travel from those countries. i would have added a few more countries in the suspension of the travel to the united states. it's his intention, i think clearly stated within his executive order until we evaluate the security circumstances coming from these countries and determine how we could have a better policy, especially to do extreme vetting on the travel, people that are coming from not only these seven countries but other countries that do send terrorists to us. and i won't start down that list, but we know it's extensive and i will say some of the countries that are not this list are saudi arabia,
pakistan, afghanistan and other countries across -- that would be listed as aaron countries including indonesia -- as arab countries including indonesia. but the lowest concentration of terrorist production per islamic society i know in the world. the risk this shows to americans. and it's not only the ban on travel that is not maws limb ban, not a muslim ban. if i had to say that enough times to negate the times that's been asserted here on the floor, i suppose i could. but we're going to hear it in the news every day because that seems to what pays off politically. and the argument it was a religious test. this executive order is not a religious test. it doesn't reference religion. in fact, when i've asked questions of the officials of the obama administration, i said to them, why is it that christians don't seem to be -- allowed in the united states as refugees under the obama administration?
we saw one group that was 1,500 and some strong that had one christian in there. and so i traveled to geneva, switzerland, and sat down with the lead of the united nations council on refugees, and there, i believe her name is kelly clement, i asked, do you determine when you're vetting refugees what their religion is? and she says, yes, we do. and so i said -- she said they had 115,000 refugees that they had run through their process that they had vetted. and of those 115,000 i said how many are christians and she said, 15,000. and then so the rest of them, roughly the 100,000, almost all of them would be muslim. but they fill out a form. they attest to their religion. they're in the database. we can identify christians. they're the ones that are persecuted. they are the ones that are being targeted because of tony blair religion.
-- because of their religion. the caldian christians but not christians but the yazidis. they are targeted the most. we should establish an international safe zone for them in their neighborhood. and when the word comes out that these countries have accepted a list of refugees they s lebanon or jordan, are countries that haven't accepted any significant number like saudi arabia. and why shouldn't the neighbors accept refugees, mr. speaker? they're the ones that have the most security at stake. they are the ones trying to establish most stability in that part of the world. live e want people to close to home so when security circumstances and economic circumstances settle down that they can come back to their homes that they have lived since antiquity? of course we do. and we see data last year that
says $64,000 is about the typical cost of resettling one refugee in the united states. $64,000. but that same amount of money will take care of a dozen people over in their neighborhood rather than one person here in america. why shouldn't we get a 12-1 return on the taxpayers' investment and help people in the region where they live so they can go back to their homeland again and grow their families and grow their population and their industry and re-establish their roots rather than let isis push the christians out of the middle east and push the per versions of islam out -- perversions of islam out that they hate the most? if we take people out there and resettle them in large numbers, we're giving them the region at they would like to have ethically cleansed of the people they want out. they need to stay close to home and especially the young men need to take up arms and defend
their own country. i went over to the middle east and i walked in that river of epic migration, that river of humanity that's flowing into europe and been flowing into europe for two years nearly solid, and as i walked in that river of humanity i asked them a lot of questions and i was able to communicate with them. sometimes an interpreter. sometimes hand signals. sometimes a word here or there of english or something else. and here's what i would ask them, where are you going? this is in serbia. in my mind as i watched them board the trains in serbia a thousand at a time day and night, i might add, and i would say, where are you going? germany. do you have family there? no. do you have friends there? do you have a job there? no. what will you do? i don't know. how will you live? germany will take care of me. that's the answer i got over and over again. 81% of that human river were, let's say military-age males that -- they left their family.
they leave their family in syria and iraq to go into europe. what responsible father does that when he should be home defending his country and defending his family? they are not going because they are war refugees for the most part. that wave is over. they're going primarily because they're economic refugees. economic refugees because we hang the carrot out in front of them and we say, come to the united states, we'll bring you over here and we'll make sure that we take care of all of your needs. you don't have to worry about anything. we're just competing with countries like germany and austria and sweden and the netherlands because they offer -- they offer a standard of living in a place like germany, it's the law in germany that there's a baseline standard of living that every human being receives, work or not. and so when angela merkel says, come to germany, we will take care of you, and she has said, and i remember a 10:49 tape of her in a town hall meeting
speaking to a blond german lady say, why are you doing this? they're killing us, they're raping us, they're taking german jobs? and chancellor merkel's answer was, we cannot be ruled by fear. and your voice is a voice of fear. so she devaled or den graded the voice of the -- denigrated the voice of the grief-stricken woman and she said, we can't stop them. we must take care of them and the violence that they're perpetrating against germans is not going to be as great that which we have perpetrated against others in our most recent history. . that's the statement, mr. speaker. that says the constitution in germany says they have to accept refugees. we put that in there post-world war ii because they had created so many, we required that they take them. in their law they've written it's a baseline standard of living. and the other part was nazi guilt. so chancellor merkel opened
that all up because of those roughly four reasons that i have given you. and 1.6 or so million poured into germany and the last two new year's eves have seen rape after rape after rape, many of , em not even investigated right there next to the cathedral of the dome in calogne. that's the last two years. you don't hardly find that in the news unless you know where to look. i do look and i talk to people over there. this is not a muslim ban. this is not a religious test. you can read the executive order and determine that. the difference is, my constituents will check to see if i'm telling them the truth. others' constituents apparently don't hold them accountable. and the got no reference to whatever color people are, whatever race they are, whatever ethnicity, whatever the national origin, i guess in a way because it says if you're coming from these nations.
and i will agree, we've got iraqis that have helped us and saved american lives and we have afghans that have helped us and saved american lives. but on balance, this is -- this has been blown completely out of proportion. as i listen, here's another statement that was made. let's see. about the refugees. it says, a quote from the gentleman that spoke here, an executive order banning muslims. again, it is an executive order, it bans travel from seven muslim countries, primarily muslim countries, but it doesn't -- it bans christians as well as muslims from coming from those countries. and that's the christians i think we should have been allowed in because they were the ones that were targeted. then, by the way, egypt's not on this list. but the christians were targeted there. they blew up the church where the coptic pope resides. i've visited him there. they killed 50 or so christians
in that -- and they've blown up churches all over the place. that's by the way muslims attacking christians, just for the record. but when the gentlelady spoke ere of the 3-year-old that washed up on the beach, that's the one that troubles me a lot. i saw that image. i watched that picture. and it went right into my heart like it did most everybody else in this country. that's been several weeks ago that america was mobilized by that little boy lying face-down on the shores of the mediterranean after the boat had cap sized and many of them -- capsized and many of them have drowned. including his father. but it came out a couple of days ago that that family had been living in turkey for three years. and that the father of that little boy's sister had been sending money to them so that they could slip into europe, because the father needed a new set of teeth. they were motivated so the father could get dental work, perhaps and most likely in germany. it wasn't because they were running from the war.
they had stabilized themselves in turkey for three years. they were going to germany for the dental work of the father. and that's a matter now of public record that's been exposed by carey prickett that did the research. it isn't always what we see. it isn't always what it seems. the people that speak into the megaphone and the earports aren't always telling us the truth. we find out sometimes it's anything but the truth. what is the truth is that there have been -- has been a tragic war in the middle east and it continues and the civilian population has been decimated in syria and there are refugees that have gone in all directions. and a lot of it is because we have created, we allowed for a power vacuum, a power vacuum in syria. that brought putin into that power vacuum. and he was able to assert himself. and so far at least protect assad and in doing so, then we see the operations of the invasion that's been -- come
out of baghdad. and gone up towards mosul and taken the east side of the river in mosul. the west side is still held by isis. and i think that's a short-sided strategy, to have shi'a militia, iranian-supported shi'a militia, going in to take mosul, when mosul is populated by kurds in the suburbs and sunni muslims in the inner city. how are the shi'as going to govern a city that doesn't in any substantial way include their population? so i'm troubled by shortsighted decisions that is don't seem to take into account the tribal connections that we know have been so much a part of the strife that -- and the sectarian strife that has been a part of iraq and in syria and also in iran and in the middle east. i want people to be self-determining. i want people to be able to determine their own government, rule their own countries, and
this is going to take a prudent knowledge of those tribes, and it's going to take input from them. and we need to build alliances in the middle east with the moderate muslim countries that will join with us in bringing out stable governments that respect the autonomy of the populations that live within the various regions. that's the best solution that can come about. and it doesn't put a lot of americans boots on the ground. so i just -- i hope we can step back, mr. speaker, and take a deep breath, and recognize it's not a muslim ban, it's not a religious test. but i want this statement to go into the record with clarity, and that is that the president of the united states not only has the constitutional authority to bring about this suspension of travel from these seven countries, because of security reasons, he has specifically authorized -- he is specifically authorized to do so by the united states code, by federal law. he's operating within the law, he's operating within the
constitution, and he's operating within the realms of prudence, at least on a temporary basis. i'm hopeful that the input we have is an input that will help bring about the dialogue in this country, the debate we have here on the floor hopefully causes people to think about this, go back and read the executive order, look for the word muslim or muslim ban, look for any kind of religious test. there is none. but i think we ought to know, and i mentioned and didn't go deeply enough into this, i mentioned that when the executive branch of government, the uscis in particular, and i.c.e. included, when i ask them, when you have these applicants for refugees that you say that you are vetting, then do you know what religion they are? they say no. do we ask them? no. we don't ask, but the information is there in the united nations. and they had vetted 15,000 christians, one got through in a list of 1,500.
i think that was probably a mistake. i think there was a religious test for refugees under obama. and i think it was a preference to muslims and it was discriminating against christians. i hope that we can have a stable policy that brings people relief, but i think the prudent one is, give them a place to live in the middle east and protect them and create an international safe zone so that they can live in peace where they've lived since antiquity. mr. speaker, i've addressed the topic of what i heard as i sat on the floor tonight. i really came to the floor here to speak a in favor of judge eil gorsuch. i -- i would yield a minute to the gentleman and welcome him to the united states congress. >> thank you very much. thank you for your thoughtful comments tonight. i think you made some good points. i think you've effectively made the point that this is not strictly speaking a muslim ban. it's not a ban on all muslims
entering the country. a lot of, you know, in the popular vernacular, the public has taken up basically what was the current president's language that he used during the campaign. rassrass people a are using -- mr. raskin: people are using it for a kind of shorthand. i want to ask you about the ban. it's not the case that there's no religious reference in the executive order, because it doesn't say that the religious -- does say that the religious minorities from those countries are given preference and that would be the christians in those countries. one thing i think that does need to be corrected is thousands of christians were admitted from the muslim world under the obama administration. and there was no discrimination. in fact, i think it was almost as many christians admitted as muslims. but here's my real question for you. the 9/11 hijackers, which was the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on our shores, thousands of americans were killed, the country plunged into chaos. came from three countries.
saudi arabia, egypt and the united -- united arab emirates. all three of those countries, where trump industries do business, were exempted from the ban on the seven countries. why? what is the policy justification for not including that? none of the countries that are included in the ban produced any of the terrorist attacks that we saw in orlando, in san bernardino county, or any of the other ones. how were those chosen and the source countries for the 9/11 attack exempted? mr. king: reclaiming my time. addressing both of those topics. the gentleman's data that says that more christians than muslims have been brought in as jeffrey -- refugees, i've heard that as an obama administration information that has come out. that doesn't match up with the data that i have seen when i travel to places like geneva and looked that the or looked at data that came out before that release. the data up to that release indicated entirely the opposite. which i have identified.
and the data that came out in the last weeks of the obama administration asserted that they had a significant number of christians that were part of that. i appreciate the gentleman's point with the executive order. that it references religious minorities. i appreciate that it does. because i think they are the ones that are targeted. but the gentleman's point about the origin of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is an accurate point and the largest number of them came from saudi arabia. i would just assert that, because donald trump has done business in three of those countries, i would be surprised if he didn't do business in a place like dubai, where they have developed a wonderland out of the desert, and his business in each of those countries, how many other countries has he done business in? i don't think we can correlate that. but -- mr. raskin: why are they exempt -- mr. king: what we can correlate is that these seven countries are the countries identified by the obama administration. and so -- mr. raskin: identified as what? mr. king: maintaining my time.
we can conjecture on this back and forth. but the facts are that it's the obama administration that identified these seven countries and it's the trump administration that brought them forward with the travel ban on them. and i believe it's a coincidence that these other countries are places among many countries that donald trump has done business in. and so what i'd do is i know that i only have about seven minutes left to take up judge gorsuch. but i would yield to the gentleman for a minute, simply out of the combdy that we discussed earlier today. mr. raskin: very gracious of you and i appreciate the spirit in which we engage in this die lofplgt the something we do need to get to the bottom of. to my knowledge trump industries is not doing business in the poor muslim countries that were targeted like somalia and libya and so on. but perhaps i can be corrected. in any event, the fact that he's done business in saudi arabia, in egypt, united arab emirates, in the wealthiest -- wealthier muslim countries, it may be logical as a matter of business practice, but i don't think that can become the basis
for american foreign policy. i think that's the reason why this policy has created such outrage in america and around the world. because it doesn't seem to have any national security logic to it. it's not about terrorism. unless you can convince me that those -- mr. king: reclaiming my time. it is conjecture that any of trump's business had anything to do with this decision. pure conjecture. if the argument is that donald trump didn't do business in somalia, i wouldn't blame him one bit. if anybody watched "black hawk down" they with know a good reason. it's essentially a terrorist state, in somalia. i thank the gentleman for his comments and i'm going to turn then to judge neil gorsuch and see if i can make that point yet this evening. and it's this. we had this vacancy in the supreme court. it's a vacancy that's brought about by the tragic death of justice antonin scalia. a man whom many of us have admired for a long time.
and enjoyed his friendship, his company, his sense of humor, and also especially his dissenting opinions that were written for the law school students whom he always understood would have to read the dissent when they studied the cases. and he wanted to write them in such a way that they would read them, hopefully enjoy them, and remember them. he's been a speaker before the conservative opportunities society, which i've chaired for some time, he's done it a number of times. we really enjoyed his company and we had very engaging debates and discussions. it's a huge hole in the united states supreme court created by the loss of justice scalia. i am grateful that we've taken serious time in filling that hole. and seeing a nominee come forward that has the chance to grow into the shoes of justice scalia. as i went to the white house a couple of nights ago, and to be there, to be -- to witness the ceremony of the nomination of
justice neil gorsuch, i was -- we were all briefed on a lot of things that had to do with his bio. i'm just quickly going to touch some of the high points in his -- in judge gorsuch's bio. his undergrad was columbia university with honors, harvard law school, truman scholar, where he received his jeurys doctorate. then he went to oxford under a marshall scholar and received another docketer toial degree, ph.d. degree in philosophy. then he became a clerk for justice white and then later on for justice kennedy. and if he's confirmed it will be, we think, the first time that there's been a clerk that became a justice on the supreme court serving with the justice whom he clerked for. . he is a man of the west.
a strong work ethic and outdoorsman and raises animals in their barn at home. and his background, not born with a silver spoon, but worked in blue-collar jobs and accelerated his education very well. his first tenure on the bench, he was appointed after -- he was appointed to the -- he clerked for the justice in the d.c. circuit. and then from there, to be clerking for the supreme court justices whom i mentioned, white and then kennedy. his life is appointed by george w. bush on may 10, 2006. after a decade in private practice where he became a partner in a large law firm and became a partner, but he wanted
to be a judge and protect the constitution and the rule of law. and after a year at the department of justice and george w. bush appointed him to the d.c. kirkt and he was confirmed by the united states senate without dissent by a voice vote on july 20, 2006. so he served for more than a decade as a district court judge. his record is stellar. when i asked questions about judge gorsuch, i learned a number of things. and one of them was of the 21 candidates listed by president trump, first president-elect trump and now president trump, he would draw from that list and nominate and seek nomination. each candidate was asked a question as they were interviewed, who would you name for this position if it isn't going to be you. tough question. it's like saying -- i would
interpret that or second best. only reason i would be there if i was the best choice and i would think all of them must have thought when they were interviewed. but there were 21 candidates and take one out of that number. that was judge gorsuch. the other 20, 20, if it's not to you, every one said judge gorsuch. there can't be a stronger endorsement than that, a respect from all of his competing peers and i believe this, that they believed he will do the best and the clearest job of preservinging, protecting and defending our constitution and read the letter of the constitution and interpret it as judge scalia did, to mean what it says and to be understood to mean what it says and was understood at the body of the
constitution, wide receiver the case may be. and that is the most profound. and what's his level of respect, the people who know him and studied him, he has more respect for the respect of the constitution than the decisions that have are made along the way. i think he will recognize those decisions and i asked that question, would he look into them to determine if that helped his rationale and go back to the original understanding? the best way, the best answer i can get from that is yes. the next one is the chevron doctrine. he has written about the chevron doctrine and he thinks that it is unjustly created by the courts and shouldn't give administrators undue legislative authority the benefit of the doubt. i'm looking forward to the confirmation hearings and
hopefully an expeditious hearing of judge gorsuch. i'm very, very happy with his selection that president trump has made and i really appreciate when i saw there that night as i watched judge gorsuch at the middle of his speech and looked back at his wife and there was that significant eye contact that told me that they are a great couple that are a team together and friends of the family tell me she is more conservative than he is. i look forward to his confirmation. the president of the united states has made a terrific choice. and let's keep the pace up in the house. with that, mr. speaker, i would conclude and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition?
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to conclude our earlier special order where my colleagues spoke out in strong opposition to the muslim ban that was just signed by president trump. and i would like to read a short paragraph from a letter that we have now submitted to secretary kelly. it has been signed by over 110 of my colleagues in the house. it requests that we have an immediate emergency meeting and briefing. and i would like to request that the entire letter be read into the record. this executive order is controversial and confusing. the international rescue committee called it harmful and hasty, america has the strongest most successful resettlement program in the world, end quote. over 4,000 academics over 25
is l laureates, saying this disruptive to the lives of these immigrants, their families and the communities of which they form an integral part. it is gin humane and ineffective. and i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: 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