Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I bring an amendment here before this body to address an issue that we have discussed here in earlier amendments that has to do with the fifth amendment decision by the Supreme Court. American homes and businesses are no longer safe after the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court allowed the government to seize private property for private use, not public use, and without a justifiable public use, totally contradicting our Constitution. The fifth amendment to our Constitution is clear: the government can only seize private property for public use; and when it does, it must pay just compensation. The fifth amendment says: ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' What good are the property rights protected by our Constitution if the government can take your own home away from you whenever it wants? Our free society is based upon property rights; and without the right to private property, our economy would fail, and Americans would be unable to keep or enjoy the fruits of their labor. The use of eminent domain for private property is a perversion of what eminent domain is supposed to be. Eminent domain can be used to build roads and for other similar public-use projects, but the power of eminent domain has been abused by State and local governments to benefit private property development. That is simply wrong. The homeowners should not be forced out of their homes or to sell their other private interests by the strong arm of the Supreme Court. But the Kelo v. City of New London in its recent decision this week does that, Mr. Chairman; and it takes away the homes of a number of individuals, at least 15 of them, and I would point these out. This is the home of Susanne and Matt Dery. They may lose their home of 20 years. And this is the home of Bill Von Winkle, it is his business, it is one of the 15 properties condemned for economic development, Mr. Von Winkle. Here is the subject of the lawsuit, Susette Kelo. She received notice of condemnation of her New London home from the Development Corporation of New London that had been granted the authorization by the city council the day before Thanksgiving in the year 2000. This runs exactly contrary to the protection that we are to have in the fifth amendment; and yet the Supreme Court has disregarded the Constitution and, in fact, amended the Constitution in this rolling constitutional convention that seems to be coming at us nearly every week from the Supreme Court. So my amendment strikes $1.5 million from the overall budget of the Supreme Court, out of the $60 million; and it is roughly the amount, the nominal amount of the homes that will be confiscated in New London. It is a token. It is nominal. It is not the full value of those homes, Mr. Chairman. But what it does is say is this Congress is going to speak up for the people whose property rights have been significantly diminished by this decision, this Kilo decision, and we are going to find a way to defend the property rights of the people of this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we did increase the budget to the Supreme Court this year and significantly. This is a $60 million operating budget. About $2 million of that goes for the wages of the Supreme Court Justices. The balance of that is for operations. This simply goes to their administrative fees. They would be the ones that could prioritize their security versus the overall cost. But if this is a precedent to reduce funding, in fact, it is not reducing funding. It is just reducing the increase in funding, $1.5 million. If this is a precedent, then so be it. It is time we had a precedent. The judges in the Supreme Court swear to uphold the Constitution just like we do, and they are the last people on this continent that should be amending the Constitution. They are charged to uphold the Constitution. This Congress needs to send a message. I would point out, too, that I am far from in the minority on this opinion, and I do not look at the Supreme Court Justices as whether they are appointed by the Republicans or by the Democrats. When they go to court, they do not seem to maintain some of the semblance of their previous party, and I think we all recognize that. But I will say, it was a five-four decision. It was a decision as close as a decision can be, and if one of justices had changed their mind, it would be five- four the other way. And we have a Constitution that is at least partially whole for the fifth amendment. But what we have particularly, I want to point out on this Floor that Justice O'Connor is one who I agree with on this case, and she said, and I quote in her opinion: ``The absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for an apartment building or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise, it is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government's power to condemn.'' I ask for a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I appreciate the chairman's work on this, and the comments that I have heard, and I look forward to that dialogue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to clarify that point of order, again, this is the amendment that takes $1 million out and puts $1 million back in, and it is for the purposes of raising the issue to discuss some of the things that I think we should be doing, particularly in Africa with regard to AIDS. I recall back in this Chamber in January of 2003 when the President gave his State of the Union address. I had been reading the articles about ABC for AIDS prevention in Africa, and particularly and directly in Uganda, the ABC program being abstinence, being faithful, and, with a small ``c'' of using condoms in the event that abstinence and being faithful is not utilized. As the President called for the $15 billion, 5-year AIDS initiative, I saw a standing ovation in here, and that standing ovation was started over in this region, and I want to give credit that it appeared to me to be a lot of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus that stood for that ovation. I stood too, because I had been getting a sense of how bad it was, and this is an international crisis. Millions of people are dying, and we do need to address this. We have a moral obligation to address the AIDS. So I believe also in ABC. I continue to believe in abstinence, being faithful, and condoms as a last resort. I went to Africa, Mr. Chairman, last July, late July and early August, visited Morocco, then Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa. In Morocco, the AIDS is less than 1 percent. When you get to Namibia and South Africa it is around 23 to 25 percent and, in Botswana, the HIV/ AIDS infection rate is 38.8 percent. When you realize that four out of every 10 people you meet on the street are staring into a death sentence, you realize that something has to be done. Economically they have been destroyed. As I went there, I asked the questions of the people who were implementing this multi-billion dollar policy, and it has become not an ABC policy, not a little ``c'' policy, it has been become a big ``C'' policy, a hand-out of condoms policy; when I asked, what you are doing to address the promiscuity, they told me, you do not change the culture. You cannot change the culture. Well, they are establishing a condom culture. If you can change it to a condom culture, you can promote the elimination of promiscuity and abstinence until marriage and monogamy after that. The other question that I asked, and it is a question that Congress needs to ask is, are we saving more lives, or are we costing more lives, or are we putting people into maybe 30 more years of an active sex life, and are they going to use a condom right every time for the next 30 years, or are they going to infect more people. Some of the answers I got back was yes, condoms are the answer. They work 100 percent of the time according to the doctor from the CDC. I do not accept that. One of their other solutions was to delay the young ladies' sexual debut for perhaps another year, as if that made a statistical difference; and another one of those real good ideas was, and I say that facetiously, expedite the travel of trucks through the borders so that the prostitutes do not have as much opportunity to market themselves to the truck drivers. These were shallow approaches. I think we need to put the drugs in there, the anti-retroviral drugs, we need to get the high-protein food there, and we need to keep people alive. I held some of those babies. We need to have a whole policy, one that is planned, an approach to save the maximum number of lives. One that puts the responsibility back on the individuals and changes the culture in that part of the world. That is the best thing we can do. I am asking that by next year we take a look at that, we get a report, and that is my initiative for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time and for bringing this amendment to the floor. This is a discussion and debate that this country needs to have, and it takes me back to about 6 weeks ago when the incident in Denver where the alleged shooter, Raul Gomez-Garcia, shot Officer Donny Young in the back of the head and killed him and wounded another officer. We suspected that he would abscond to the sanctuary of Mexico and he did, and the plea bargain has already taken place. I am not certain if he is back in the United States under that plea bargain; but this policy, this sanctuary policy that exists in Mexico is a policy that requires us to plea bargain down the crimes in this country and tells the shooters, you can shoot and run to Mexico. I will pose a hypothetical situation, but it is one that could happen. Just suppose Osama bin Laden was picked up by Mexican police in Mexico City. There is no way that Mexico extradites Osama bin Laden to the United States until we plea bargain that down to something less than life imprison, no capital punishment, no life in prison. Can my colleagues imagine sitting on the parole board for Osama bin Laden and having to release him into the streets of the United States of America because of a sanctuary policy that exists in the state of Mexico? That is the leverage that is out there now, and we are paying for these countries in foreign operations money to alter the crime and punishment policy in the United States. That must stop. It can stop with the Deal amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. To bring this towards a close, as I listen to this debate, I think it is clear to us that this is an inappropriate investment on the part of taxpayers' dollars for us to compel the taxpayers to pay for sexual impotency drugs. I take issue with some of the statements made, for example, no evidence of abuse for medically appropriate situations exist. Certainly it does. I recognize that the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) in the bill addresses some of the abuse, and that is the abuse of these prescriptions going into the hands of sexual predators, rapists, and child molesters. Now, this amendment would not be necessary to do that, but there is other abuse that goes beyond that. There is record of abuse that existed. No one paid any attention, until I raised this issue last November and December, and the traction has not been there for a policy change. That is why I need to bring this amendment here in the only fashion that I can with the leverage I have in this Congress. We will spend, over the next 10 years, over $2 billion, our CBO score runs it up over $2 billion, and $105 million in this next year. This is, as the gentleman from Virginia said, the only opportunity that we have to stop this funding under Medicare and also to stop the balance of this funding under Medicaid before such time as it becomes a huge entitlement. There are only two reasons for sex, there has only been, and one of them is for procreation. We do not subsidize any kind of fertility drugs under any kind of Medicare or Medicaid, because we decided that that is inappropriate. So we do not either subsidize procreational sex. Recreation is another thing. We do not subsidize the recreation of others either. So under either one of those categories, this is wrong. I urge the adoption of this amendment against Federal funding for Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to prohibit any funds from being spent by the Department of Education in violation of current federal law. According to existing federal law, any state providing illegal aliens in-state tuition discounts must provide these discounts to all students, regardless of state of residence. Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly states that: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.'' My amendment simply seeks to enforce existing law. Not only is providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens against the law, it would also place a huge financial burden on our society. The costs to states of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens throughout the U.S. help illustrate the high cost of these measures. Approximately 126,000 illegal aliens under 21 were enrolled in college in the year 2000. At non-resident tuition rates, they would pay between $503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for in-state tuition discounts, they would pay only $155 million to $201 million--leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $349 million to $454 million. Given the fiscal constraints our nation is currently under, no good reason exists to spend additional money to give tuition discounts to illegal aliens. As public universities across the country increasingly limit enrollment increasing the intake of illegal aliens into these schools will mean fewer opportunities and less aid for United States citizens and legal immigrants. This will also result in greater expense to the state taxpayers. Out-of-state tuition is typically two to three-and-a- half times higher than in-state tuition. The revenue lost as a result of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens would have to be paid for by someone. Finally, giving special treatment to illegal aliens is fundamentally unjust to legal immigrants who have invested a great deal to comply with our immigration laws or obtain legal citizenship. We should not reward those who have broken our immigration laws with the same benefits as those who have made an effort to respect the law. This measure is a fundamentally unjust and expensive attempt to integrate illegal aliens into our state and federally funded higher education systems. Please join me in supporting this amendment to enforce existing law and avoid rewarding law-breakers.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to state my appreciation for the work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), committee chairman, on this overall bill and his work and cooperation at all levels and the flexibility that he has demonstrated in the interests across this broad country. I bring before this Congress an amendment that addresses an issue that Americans understand, and it is an issue that I think Congress needs to understand maybe more thoroughly than they do at this point. And that is that government has a role in promoting the general welfare in the United States, but we have gone past that role; and now with our Medicaid and Medicare funding, we are opposed to be purchasing sexual impotence drugs with taxpayers' dollars all across this country. We have been doing so since 1998 with regard to Medicaid, and now CMS is poised to do so also with Medicare. That will be implemented in January, simply 6 months from now, and if we are not able to put a stop to this bureaucratic decision, then we will be down the slippery slope of millions of people who believe the entitlement is taxpayer-funded recreational sex drugs. So my amendment simply prohibits any use of any of the resources or funds provided in this act from being used for the administration or funding of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. It is that simple. It is something that I think we have a consensus on. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, terrorist events have brought this point to light, dramatically illustrating how the security of the United States is dependent upon its strength in the area of foreign language competency. If the United States is truly committed to continuing as the leader in the global economic community, as well as in the on-going fight against terrorism dictated by the global war on terrorism, some very serious commitments will have to be made in support of language study. Our history, and particularly our recent history, has repeatedly illustrated the consequences of not having adequate foreign language expertise available in times of crisis. In 1988 the satellite communications language training activities (SCOLA) became the first broad-scale provider of authentic foreign television and today provides this resource from 75 countries. From the beginning the Federal Government has recognized the importance of authentic foreign programming as a tool to help teach foreign languages. By watching and listening, students are able to actually experience the foreign culture and develop their language skills in the native real-life environment. This programming is also a vital intelligence resource since it provides significant insight into the internal happenings of the various countries. Throughout its long-time relationship with the Defense Language Institute (DLI), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), State Department, military and other government sectors, SCOLA has been particularly responsive to requests for programming from specific areas of the world, with a major portion of its current programming schedule developed as a direct result of specific requests. In addition SCOLA offered this resource from regions of the world that never really had a significant presence in the United States before. SCOLA is a unique satellite-based language training activity that provides television programming in a variety of languages from around the world. Language students and seasoned linguists have found this augmentation of their normal language training to be very helpful. SCOLA also has an Internet-based streaming video capability that greatly increases the availability of this training medium to military and civilian linguists, virtually anywhere they can obtain an Internet connection. In addition, SCOLA is developing a digital archive that will allow users anywhere to review and sort language training information on demand. The development of these capabilities will make SCOLA training assistance much more widely available, but requires additional investment. The committee is concerned that even after three years of encouragement from the Congress, and in an operational environment where the value of language training is of great importance to the nation, the Department of Defense has not fully funded the innovative language training concepts that can help sustain and significantly improve the skills of military and civilian linguists in the Department. Mr. Chairman, the Senate FY 2006 Defense Authorization, S. 1042, recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Operations Maintenance--Army, for the Defense Language Institute, for funding of SCOLA related training activities. In light of current events, the significance of SCOLA's widespread availability to the U.S. military and other government users cannot be overstated. It is my hope that with the House and Senate appropriators will ensure that vital funding for SCOLA is included in the final H.R. 2863--Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his support of this amendment and the work that he has done on human rights. This is an amendment that is constructive and sends the right message. It encourages resources coming from the right people to support some people who do need some support. I urge its adoption.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In initial discussion with regard to this amendment, I would like to associate myself with regard to the remarks made by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) about the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. It is an outstanding privilege to be on the floor of this Congress with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and to work to improve on a bill that he has courageously stepped forward with to address the issue of United Nations reform. I have an amendment here before this Congress that addresses one component of our United Nations contribution, and it is the component that goes to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees. This is something that was established for about 650,000 refugees years ago when the nation of Israel was formed, and today there are 2.5 million refugees trapped in a bind between the Arab world that does not want to accept them and pushes them toward Israel. We have contributed to that significantly over the years. In fact, the United States contribution has grown to approximately one-quarter of the world's contribution to fund the UNRWA budget. We need to put a limit on that. We need to hold the Arab world accountable to fund their neighbors and some of their residents. So with the United States contributing approximately a quarter of that overall budget, the highest contributor from the Arab world is Saudi Arabia, contributing less than one-seventieth that contributed by the United States. This amendment caps the amount we would contribute to UNRWA at 22 percent of the overall contribution and limits the United States contribution to an amount no greater than the greatest amount contributed by the Arab nations. And included in that list of Arab nations for full disclosure purposes is Iran as well, a neighbor, but not technically an Arab nation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I point out that this Moran amendment has been a moving target, Mr. Chairman. This thing has been moving around the last couple of days, and I have been trying to get ahold of the final draft of the final Moran amendment so I can finally look at the language that is finally going to be presented to this Congress that would set final policy on our export policy with regard to one single caliber of firearms, and not even the whole entire caliber of that particular firearm, but just a very small segment of it. And now this final language that I have in this moving target says that it would ban the utilization of Federal dollars for the regulation for ``the export of a nonautomatic or semiautomatic rifle,'' not rifles, ``capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50-caliber,'' or the like, ``to any nongovernmental entity,'' which I commend the gentleman from Virginia for removing the broader language and narrowing it down to a nongovernmental entity. This is an improvement in this particular amendment. But this amendment says ``nonautomatic or semiautomatic rifle.'' It does not address fully automatic 50-caliber machine guns, but it does target rifles, rifles that I call buffalo guns that go back to the 1800s in this country. The Sharp's 50-caliber is one of the original 50-caliber long-range rifles. It was used to implement buffalo hunting back in those years, and its being a 50-caliber is not the reason why it is among the most accurate long-range rifles, but because they chose that caliber back then for long-range accuracy, and they developed the cartridge for that kind of target shooting. And, in fact, there has been an entire organization that has grown up around target shooting that has to do with the 50-caliber, that venerable buffalo gun, and I believe they are called the 50-caliber Target Shooting Club, and I know that they have been organized for over 20 years. So this amendment would target rifles when there is not a record of their being used for crime. There are allegations, but not a record that I can find. And I look at some of these quotes: ``Could be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.'' Are we going to outlaw every caliber and every weapon that could be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft? If that is the case, then we take every deer rifle out of the rack and out of every cabinet of every home in America because they can be used the same way. We can name caliber after caliber that could destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. In fact, sometimes we are a little concerned about that happening. The fact that the Governor of California advocates an assault on the 50-caliber target rifle, the buffalo gun, does not convince me in the least, but this would not do anything to prevent a 49-caliber or a 51- caliber or going a little bigger or a little smaller. It would encourage that. But what it would do, Mr. Chairman, is it would make the 50-Caliber Shooting Club exclusively a USA club, and it would continue to develop the 50-caliber shooting in the United States, but our foreign friends that are involved in the same thing that we are here, legitimate hunting, legitimate target shooting and development of a venerable weapon, would be prevented from doing so for an illogical reason, if there is a reason at all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman very much for his work on this issue and on many others on this appropriations bill. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is the right poster this time. This is a poster that illustrates a number of the States that have participated in sending their law enforcement officers to the Regional Training Center in Sioux City, Iowa. In fact, now it is the National Training Center in Sioux City, Iowa, that has trained hundreds and hundreds of police officers. Drug trafficking and its many associated crimes such as robbery, burglary and murder contribute to the decay of our social fabric. This problem is not only found locally or regionally, but also nationally. Unfortunately, small-town and rural America are no longer shielded from the impact of illegal drugs. Methamphetamine producers and traffickers are some of the most dangerous drug offenders in our communities. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his recognition of the importance of the Regional Training Center in Sioux City and its inclusion as a line in the House report. The Regional Training Center utilizes a regional and national approach to bring communities and criminal justice agencies together to receive training to control the growing national problem of methamphetamine, poly-drugs and their associated crimes. The Regional Training Center seeks a comprehensive approach to control and reduce meth trafficking, production and usage along with other drugs. It provides training that serves small rural communities as well as large metropolitan areas, including the 38 States here in this poster. As of last March, the center has instructed a total of 19,308 law enforcement professionals from 1,338 different agencies and actually some foreign countries as well. It establishes a central clearinghouse for organization, coordination, curriculum development and resource and intelligence sharing that will benefit everyone impacted by the meth problem. It draws on the input and cooperation of local law enforcement, the business community, educational institutions, health centers and community groups to create a network of cooperation and an atmosphere of mutual support that will exist well into the future. It provides up-to-date information and training on the growing trend of terrorists using the sale of illegal drugs to fund their activities. Meth can be manufactured a lot of ways. We have talked about that in this appropriations process. I want to also emphasize that they have opened up a canine training center to train drug dogs here at the Regional Training Center, now just really renamed the National Training Center. They have struggled to put together the funding. This is something that was initiated by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) some years ago. Today they can hang on for a little while, but they need an appropriation. They need an appropriation that hopefully will either be implemented in the Senate or else come out of the conference report. I would ask him with confidence if the gentleman would be willing to work with me on that particular initiative.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I, too, recognize and appreciate the passion that comes from our chairman, and to sustain that level over a couple of days is an impressive thing to see. We have watched this United Nations for a lot longer than that. This amendment was on this floor 2 years ago, and, as I recall, there were 184 votes in support of this, even though we were asked to not bring it. The issue is in front of Americans. They understand this. They understand the United Nations needs to have a strong, strong message from Congress to reform. This is simply something that recognizes a flaw. We recognize a flaw in the fundamental structure of the United Nations. The flaw is that the people in this country believe that they are paying for a democratic organization that represents the voice of the people of the world, but the votes that come in the U.N. General Assembly are the votes that come from the mouthpieces of dictators, counteracting and counterbalancing the mouthpieces of a free people. We need to have fundamental reform in the United Nations, we need to have a structure that represents the voice of the free people in the world, we need to have a Free World Caucus formed within the United Nations, and the United States has got to stop funding the kind of organizations that oppose our interests. That is what we are doing here, in disproportionate share. That is what the Hayworth amendment seeks to correct, and that is why I am supporting of the Hayworth amendment.