On the recordJuly 22, 2020
I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, you have heard a lot of incendiary language regarding the travel restrictions. The most incendiary language is always calling it ``incendiary,'' ``a white nationalist agenda,'' ``racist,'' ``hateful,'' et cetera. Was it xenophobic, was it racist, was it hateful when the Obama administration implemented travel bans to the same seven nations? Was it? No. Nor is it here either. Madam Speaker, that kind of language is meant to incite public ridicule and distract from the real issue here. As the Supreme Court noted, the text in this bill says nothing about religion. And as they went on to say: ``The policy covers just 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations''--read, Obama administration--``as posing national security risks.'' That is not a Muslim ban. This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this Nation. Additionally, I heard from multiple friends across the aisle a straw man argument, a true straw man argument here, that this ban was religious in nature. But if that were the case, they would have stopped it after inserting religion with other proscriptions. But instead, they built up a huge bureaucratic apparatus to limit the authority of the President of the United States. So it is a straw man argument.…
