Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his presentation here tonight and the many times and many hours that he has spent on the floor. I also would say for the record that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Louie Gohmert, who had the temptation to legislate as a judge and understood constitutionally how to go about that, resigned his seat as a judge and ran for the United States Congress because he is, at heart, a legislator with a deep respect and appreciation for the rule of law, the statutory construction, and the Constitution itself. Congressman Gohmert did come to Iowa and rode the judge bus. We traveled around from town to town and gave speech after speech. There were some folks to greet us there that weren't very happy with our presence. I don't think their mothers were very proud of them, Mr. Speaker, but I think Louie's mother can be very proud of him. I look across the Midwest, in the heart of the heartland, and you can't think about the heart of the heartland without thinking of Kansas. I know the gentleman that represents the vast reaches of the western at least two-thirds of Kansas, if not more, has arrived here tonight, and he has demonstrated his faith and his commitment to family in a lot of ways. I have been able to see that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. KING of Iowa. I would like to reiterate this point that as you debated this in Kansas, I am one of the authors of the Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Ours says differently than I think all the other States. All the other States say marriage is between one man and one woman. I insisted that the language say between one male and one female because I didn't want to be in a debate about what a man was and what a woman was. I didn't know that, within the last couple of months, we would be having that debate nationally, but I think our debate is more specific--however, overruled by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. I didn't get around to mentioning that we voted three of those justices off the bench, swept them off. There were only three up for retention ballot in 2010. We voted them all off of the bench. I still ask this question, which is, as precise as our language is, I could not divine any right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, not in the 14th Amendment, not in the Iowa Constitution that is mirrored to the 14th Amendment; but the Supreme Court found it anyway. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that, if your amendment becomes incorporated into our Constitution that a more liberal court, or this Court itself, might find a way to rationalize their way around no matter how we write it?

Mr. KING of Iowa. They understand that in Kansas, they understand that in Iowa, and I suspect they understand that in Florida. As I look over, I see the gentleman from Florida--I am looking at two doctors here--the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). I thank the gentleman from Kansas for coming down tonight, as well as the gentlemen from Florida and Texas, and the other folks that might show up. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I appreciate very much his commitment to many causes, especially this cause. I recognize the gentleman from California that has arrived, and I point out that we are down to 3 minutes. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) to hear what he might have to say about this topic.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a list of solid constitutionalists here this evening that are not only committed to their oath to support and defend the Constitution, but, also, each committed to their own marriage throughout these years that, if we added them up, it is well over a century of us together. Marilyn and I are 43 years. I am steeped in the Constitution and the rule of law. I have great respect for the Supreme Court of United States, but I have greater respect for the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States. If the law doesn't mean what it says and if the Constitution can have divined within it certain rights that are imagined only by this court and not imagined by the people that ratified the very language that they are ruling upon, then what have we come to? I believe that this decision, this Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, right behind the decision of King v. Burwell--that, if the court continues down this path, Mr. Speaker, they will render our Constitution an artifact of history and this country will not respect a court that doesn't respect the language and the text of the Constitution. We are here to reject and criticize the decision of the Supreme Court that imposes same-sex marriage on all of America and requires each of the States to recognize with reciprocity those marriages. That is a decision this Congress couldn't make for the American people, and it is a decision that should be left up to the States. Mr. Speaker, I will submit that I am one who is prepared to support the simple elimination of civil marriage because this government has gotten into it so far that holy matrimony will not be protected from the further litigation in this Court unless we separate it from civil marriage itself. The next litigation that comes will be that that sues our priests and our pastors to command them to conduct same-sex marriages at their altars, and that is where the First Amendment freedom of religion comes into conflict with the distorted view of the 14th Amendment which is part of this Obergefell, and that, Mr. Speaker, will be a constitutional crisis. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 375, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding, and I also thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I would point out three things: trade promotion authority needs to pass, TAA needs to pass, and the customs bill needs to pass. Those are the toggle switches that are set up. The negotiations with Chairman Ryan could not have been better. I laid two issues out in front: one was my concern that the President would negotiate global warming and climate change; the other one was the strong things that go beyond rumors of the negotiation of immigration provisions into the future trade agreements that would be negotiated under a trade promotion authority. We addressed those issues. The language in the customs bill is language that is tight. I have confidence in it. It says it shall not obligate the United States to grant access or expand access to visas issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15). Mr. Speaker, this satisfies my concerns, and I know that enforcement is a concern. But we are committed to standing together should that day come that we need to do that, and we are hopeful that and expect that the President, who we also anticipate will follow his commitment to sign this bill, will also abide by the provisions in it.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman. We expect the President to abide by the provisions in it. We will follow through on our part of this bargain, if not. And this Congress has an opportunity to veto. So what a wonderful thing it is to go into a trade promotion authority circumstance and know that for the next 6 to 9 years the U.S. Trade Representative will not be negotiating global warming, will not be negotiating immigration. We preserve that for the United States Congress, as the Constitution directs. So that level of confidence lets us then focus on the trade agreements that are good for the economic growth of the United States of America. That is what is in front of us here today, and I am very grateful we have gotten to this point. I urge adoption of the customs bill.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for yielding and for leading on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I just would remark that wine has informed the meat debate several times here today, and I am glad of that. I rise in support of this legislation to repeal these components of country of origin labeling. I have long held the position that this is a North American market. We don't treat our best trading partners as well as we should, Mr. Speaker, and that includes Mexico, and it especially includes Canada. I often have to go through the list of things we have done that turn out to be something that looks like trade protection at least to them. We have done it with steel. We have done it with softwood timber. We have done it when we have BSE circumstances with beef, which did originate in Canada, spilled over to the United States, and they opened up their foreign trade before we did. This is one of these examples of what happens when you go a little overboard in an effort to try to establish some trade protectionism. This was driven by the people, especially in the Northwest, that thought that they would get an advantage on their cattle industry in that part of the country. Now, we are looking at these sanctions which, by my numbers, likely go to somewhere in the area of $3.15 billion in sanctions between Canada and Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of our consumers don't even look at the label to see where that comes from. Consumers still have a choice. There is nothing that would prohibit in the aftermath of this legislation. The consumer is saying: I would like to know if this pig was born in Canada and fed in the United States. To give you an example of how this is, there is a lot of U.S. capital that is invested also, especially in farrowing operations in Canada. When the exchange rate was even more advantageous than it is today, a lot of U.S. dollars went into Canada to establish farrowing operations to raise pigs up there because they could isolate in order to do disease prevention and because it was a good investment; then those isowean pigs came down to the United States. The numbers that I had was 6 million pigs coming down; 4 million of them came to Iowa. A third of the pork raised in the United States is from my State, and they are at a disadvantage because of this country of origin labeling. It penalizes, Mr. Speaker, the very people we are trying to help. I urge the adoption of this bill.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment, in short form, that says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used with respect to the case State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America. I point out to the body, Mr. Chairman, that that is the case that was filed by then-Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott, now Governor of Texas, to protect the interest of Texans. It has been signed on to now by 25 States, I believe. And this is in reference to the President's November 20 DAPA policy, his executive amnesty policy. We have watched as this Congress has three times voted to reject the President's initiative, and the debate has been centered on constitutional grounds. The position of this Congress has three times been that the President of the United States is the leader of the executive branch of this government, and the legislative powers are all vested here in the United States Congress, in a House and in a Senate. That is article 1 of the Constitution. That is what the President taught through his 10 years as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and that is what he also uttered at least 22 times as President of the United States--that he didn't have the authority to establish in advance an executive amnesty that would waive the application of the law for some 5 million people. Not only does this Congress agree with the President's 22 statements that he has since changed his position on--by the way, the President has a 33-page Office of Legal Counsel opinion that is written, I think, very loosely--and I read every word of that--but the President's convictions, I believe, were reflected prior to this political decision. And so my amendment prohibits any of the funds from being used to further defend this unconstitutional executive amnesty position. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that not only has Congress voted three times but also the President's 22 statements, as I said, and then it is backed up by Federal Judge Hanen, who ruled on the side of the Constitution and the rule of law and the separation of powers. And on the administration's appeal, a three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit also ruled and indicated that the State of Texas and the other coplaintiffs were likely to prevail, and granted standing to the State of Texas. And now we have an administration that appears to be willing to continue this debate further and go with an appeal to the Circuit Court again. They actually have the opportunity to go directly to the Supreme Court. So, Mr. Chairman, I go through this long list of things that have happened because a lot of money has been spent and wasted in an attempt to, let's say--the gracious way to say it would be to stretch the Constitution beyond any bounds that it had been stretched before. This amendment simply directs that none of the funds made available shall be used to continue that endeavor. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I would have to go back and look at the record in the Senate to give you an accurate count. I can tell you that it is an accurate count for the House. It may not be a full three times in the Senate.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his insight, Mr. Chairman, I would state that the Constitution is very clear. It was very clear to the President of the United States for 10 years while he taught it, and it was very clear when he made his statements 22 times. So this is the Congress reasserting itself. Our Founding Fathers expected we would do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that the President of the United States has signed a document. It is a November 20 document that says that he is going to impose executive amnesty. This House disagrees. Many in the Senate also disagree. They have been chasing down an expensive rabbit trail to advance an operation of imposing amnesty in the United States of America, in contravention of our laws. This Congress is reserved the right by the Constitution to write immigration law, and our Founding Fathers imagined we would jealously guard that power. That is what this amendment is about. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just make the point that this Congress passed an amnesty act in 1986, and Ronald Reagan signed that. It was an act of Congress that brought amnesty in 1986. I think it was a mistake, but I believe it was constitutional.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the circumstances around the trade promotion authority and later on, perhaps, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but it also addresses any of our trade negotiations that might take place that would be funded under this bill. The rationale is that there has been much concern about the negotiations with regard to trade promotion authority in particular, enabling the discussion about immigration visas as being part of the trade negotiations. It is a longstanding pattern and practice of this Congress to assert our constitutional authority over immigration visas. When our U.S. Trade Representative or other negotiators bring in negotiations that have to do with visas, it complicates our trade negotiations and puts us in a place where, when we see a trade agreement come before us, perhaps it is under a trade promotion authority that would be negotiated and this House votes on it, then it may well have within it visa agreements that have been negotiated with the multiple countries and taking out of the hands of Congress the ability to directly establish, although there is an indirect inference, but directly establish our immigration policy. A lot of the opposition to the trade negotiations that have been taking place in the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been about concerns of news reports that have come from places likes Australia that have pointed out that there are negotiations going on that have to do with visas. There was a circumstance several years ago, under a previous administration, where they had negotiated immigration provisions in a trade agreement, and even though it was a nonamendable trade agreement, we went before the Judiciary Committee and had a full hearing. I offered two amendments that passed, and ultimately, there were changes made in that agreement. There is a long history on this with me. It has been an important issue to maintain the separation of immigration policy and the Congress from the executive branch negotiations in trade. That is what this amendment does. It says no immigrant visas will be negotiated in trade agreements. That means all of them. Again, the Constitution enumerates this power to the Congress, not the executive branch. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate this point, that this Congress and a lot of the American people lack confidence in the negotiations of our President. A lot of this angst has flowed forth from the Iranian negotiations and their march towards a nuclear capability that has undermined his credibility and made it significantly more difficult for a Congress that is in favor of trade, especially on my side of the aisle. I am a natural-born free trader. I have always believed that I can compete with anybody in the world, and I think America and American companies can compete with anyone in the world. I think that we need to have a level playing field. What is happening is that lack of confidence in the President's negotiations and the willingness to, I believe, give away some of the positions that would better enhance our national security with regard to Iran, in particular, has made it far more difficult for those like me, who are pro-free trade, pro-smart trade, and because of that and the discussions about immigration visas being part of the negotiations and the indications from other countries that that is taking place, the secrecy around these negotiations is another component of it. When we have to go into a secure room and give up our iPhone and leave our notes there in order to be able to see what the administration will present us as far as these negotiations are concerned, it is hard to have confidence that we are getting all of the straight story. This is a way to put some containment around the negotiations. If the administration says there are no visas being negotiated, there should be no reason to oppose this amendment. That is really the bottom line. If the administration opposes my amendment, that is a strong indication that they are not giving us the full story, but we are getting more of the full story from places like Australia. I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining, please?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time here and reiterate that this amendment addresses a lack of trust that these trade negotiations are focused on the things that trades are supposed to be discussed about. I have a strong suspicion that they have included immigration visas in their trade agreements. This amendment is drafted consistent with the position of this Congress that immigration should not be part of trade negotiations. If the administration says that it is not part of trade negotiations, they should say, Fine, I am happy to support the King amendment; and they will be happy to prove it in that fashion. Meanwhile, a lot of us are not going to a secure room to see if there is anything in there, and we won't know what is presented to the this Congress until it is too late to resist. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the funding that might be used in contravention of section 642(a) that is designated in the amendment. 642(a) is the section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as I know it, that prohibits the political subdivisions in America from establishing sanctuary policies we often refer to as sanctuary cities. These are the political subdivisions that establish a policy that prohibit their law enforcement officers and their other agents from cooperating with Federal immigration officials. It seems illogical to me to think that any local government would want to prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting in, cooperating with, and transferring information to the Federal law enforcement officers who are enforcing immigration law. That section, it reads, in part, but with the thought being contained here: ``Notwithstanding,'' the language says, ``the political subdivisions may not prohibit, or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the INS''--at the time, that is ICE today--``information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.'' Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a law enforcement family. I looked at the men around me as a little boy, and I just thought that all adult men put on a uniform of some kind or another. I was steeped in respect for the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--and the rule of law. When there was an issue that came forward, whether it was a bank robbery or some tragedy that took place, all levels of law enforcement cooperated with all other levels of law enforcement. No one that was a member of the city police said: I am not going to be serving papers here because that is the county's job. No county deputy decided that he wouldn't pull somebody over for speeding because that was the city speed limit on a city street. No highway patrol officer decided that he wouldn't enforce local law. No one that came in from the Division of Criminal Investigation or the FBI decided that it was their bailiwick, that it was exclusively their law to enforce and that no one should help them with that. Law enforcement, to be effective, has to be a cooperation from all levels; and, of course, the public has to respect the rule of law; and they have to respect those who are there to protect and serve and to also enforce that law. For me, I cannot understand how or why a city would establish these policies, but they are doing so. In the process of that, they are undermining the rule of law and eroding the respect for the rule of law and leaving their citizens vulnerable, when we could be helping them with Federal officers who need to get this information. This is an amendment that has been offered in multiple years. It has passed this House multiple times. The number that I saw last year with the identical language passed the House by a vote of 214-94. We have been consistent in defending the rule of law. This amendment says that no funds shall go to these political subdivisions from this bill, if they establish sanctuary city policies, to put it in short summation. I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.