Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 253 I was detained while attempting to reach the House Floor to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding to me, and I rise to support the Violence Against Women Act. I did so when it was reauthorized in 2005, I believe it was, and we're here today in this debate on the rule, not so much the bill. I come to the floor to raise a point that constantly in the debate in the Judiciary Committee there was an effort to divert the subject matter over to other things, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration, a lot of focus on immigration. And one of the things that's happened to the bill since it left the committee was to change the language, through this manager's amendment, that's essentially deemed passed by the Rules Committee that changes the value of evidence of abuse of, say, a female immigrant who can get a U visa if she has determined as having been victimized, especially sexually victimized. That was a clear and convincing evidence standard. This rule that's written in by the Rules Committee changes it to the preponderance of the evidence. I support the decision of the Judiciary Committee. It also changes the investigative component of this from USCIS, which are trained investigators. They'll only see the evidence that's offered to them by Federal prosecutors. So I am going to oppose the rule and support the bill.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise to also offer my most appreciative words for the life and the gift to all of us that was the life of Chuck Colson. A lot of us got to know Chuck Colson as he came before our conference on occasion, the Republican Study Committee on occasion and professed his conversion. And when one listened to Chuck Colson talk about how his conversion took place, how he hit rock bottom, as the gentleman from Alabama just said, how he accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, and accepted a new direction in life that had lasted for 40 years, a man that was at the pinnacle of power in the world found himself in prison for about 8 months in Alabama. And out of that prison, he came back and hit bottom and was launched not at the pinnacle of this world power, but he was at the center of the voice of the real power in the universe. And his inner voice, the spirit within Chuck Colson, spoke to all of us. Upon learning of his death, I sent out a tweet in those days, and it read like this: Chuck Colson, from Watergate to evangelical Christian to Prison Fellowship to heaven in 80 years. Rest in peace, Chuck. How now shall we live? How now shall we live, Chuck Colson, who lived by the model that he had. It was a blessing to all of us that he went through the difficulty that he did. If he hadn't been formed and shaped in that way, I don't know that we would have seen the Chuck Colson that we knew that we're saying good-bye to here tonight whose life we honor so much. His activities in Prison Fellowship set a standard that had not been seen in this country or in the world. And the recidivism rate of prisoners that didn't take part in the Prison Fellowship was extremely high. I haven't committed that number to my memory; but it seems to me that those who went through the Prison Fellowship, those who accepted Jesus as their savior--and I have met with them in the prisons in Iowa that were part of the Prison Fellowship effort--the recidivism rate--by memory, not by research--was only 8 percent. It was a tremendous thing to mentor so many prisoners in and out of prison and the families of prisoners. He went to the place where he had known despair and gave hope in the very heart of the place where Chuck Colson had known despair. And I think that the testing of Chuck Colson turned him into a man that was a gift to this country and a gift to the entire world. I remember a prayer that I offered for years and years throughout the farm crisis, the years of the eighties, the difficulties in the nineties. And it was: Lord, please be finished testing me and start to use me. I don't know if Chuck Colson ever offered that prayer, but I think he would agree with me that there was a time that he was tested; there was a time that he went through that test in the pinnacle of power and through that test in prison, and there's no question that the Lord used Chuck Colson, tested him for 40 years, used him for 40 years. Chuck Colson was a gift to America and a gift to the world. I saw a little quote in an article written about him that I thought was useful and informative: The light just emanated from Chuck Colson. You knew that he understood. He wrote eloquently about the depth of his faith and the meaning in our lives in this life and in the next and the power of redemption. And this quote was written about him. I will note the author because it's useful. The author is Michael Gerson, who wrote an article about him on April 22. He said, Chuck spent the last 40 years of his life dazzled by his own implausible redemption. He knew it was a gift. It was implausible that a person as humble as Chuck Colson could be the recipient of this gift of grace, yet that gift shined from him like a lamp on a lamp stand, not under a bushel basket. It was a light that shined across this whole country, and it shone into this United States Congress over and over again. He was a core for the values of our faith. He was a core for the values of our morality. He brought our thoughts together on the meaning of our service, our service here in this Congress and our service to the world. And I think he gave hope to many in despair, many of those that served their time in prison or had been given hope and inspiration, grace and salvation because of their exposure to Chuck Colson, the inspiration that he was. His life dazzles by his own redemption. We are dazzled by the life of Chuck Colson.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it's always my privilege and honor to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Today, I come before you with a humble heart and an appreciation for a young American whom I believe this Congress needs to honor. I will be reading into the Record a poem in honor of an American hero, Staff Sergeant Travis Mills, Bravo Troop 4, 73rd Cav, 82nd Airborne, United States Army, North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor this remarkable young man, Staff Sergeant Travis Mills. On April 10, 2012, while out on patrol with his troops in Mialand province, Afghanistan, Staff Sergeant Mills almost lost his life during an IED explosion. He is known for leading his men in combat. Where they go, he goes. After the explosion, while being airlifted on the bird, an extraordinary moment was noted by the medic onboard. While bravely wounded, he did not shed even a tear, and he asked how his men were doing, who were also wounded. He then smiled at them, gave them a wink to reassure them--this is a man who lost four limbs, Mr. Speaker. It was impressive, to say the least. Staff Sergeant Travis Mills lost three of those limbs initially and later a fourth limb. In two short weeks, already his progress and courage was an inspiration, to say the least. And now he embarks upon his recovery. It's clear that nothing is going to slow his recovery down. I will now read a poem, penned by Albert Caswell, titled: ``They'll Not Take That From You.'' And what can these, our brief lives so make? All out upon our life's wait? All within these, our short lives await . . . So then which steps must we all so take? All in our times worth, not to forsake . . . All in which we so create . . . For the path is straight my friend . . . And our journey is but a long and hard one, so then! For its all in our hearts depends . . . If its up in Heaven we wish to wake . . . Travis, no they'll not take that from you! They may take your strong arms and legs . . . They may even make you cry out in pain, as do they! Until, it's for death you beg! But there are a few most magnificent things, Travis, so they . . . That, they'll not so take from you . . . All because of what you so gave! The word of hero, now comes before, and after, your fine name this day! And Heaven for you Travis one day, awaits! As from you, this they'll not so take! They'll not take that from you! For it's that most splendid word, of ``Honor'' . . . That which so courses all through your magnificent veins! For you were one of those most gallant ones of all . . . Who, like all of those other fine souls before you, who so stood tall! Who so selflessly marched off to war, to hear that clarion call! Leaving behind all that they so loved . . . All of your most precious loves, who you held so very high above . . . All for The Greater Good! With tears all in your most magnificent eyes, as you so left and so said your last goodbyes . . . With your heart of gold comprised, marching off to war so ready to die . . . Travis, no they'll not take that from you! With all your most splendid valor, and grace . . . With all of your most magnificent courage so all in place, as you so heroically stared all in death's face! As with smell of death upon you so wafted, and yet with each new step somehow you still kept pace! As such heartache upon your fine soul was placed . . . As all for your Brothers In Arms You So Led The Way! As so boldly you so stood all there in uniform . . . As why now you so hold such a special place! All in our hearts so very warm . . . All in this our human race. No . . . No . . . They will not take that from you! For Travis, yours will always be a heart of such honor and faith! One of such most splendid grace! As we so look upon your magnificent face . . . And so see what you so gave . . . As there we all so find such a fine soul as comprised . . . Who above all others we must now so place . . . With but your most heroic will, as Travis you climbed mountains and so climbed hills . . . As your own blood was so spilled, and still you did not lose pace! And now your new battle has just begun! As your fine heart, now so shines all like that morning sun! As you rebuild with each new step, all one by one! No Fine One, You're Airborne and They'll not take that from you! For it was you, who so chose to answer freedom's most noble call . . . As our Lord God your great valor saw . . . They'll Not Take That From You! For in these, our most troubled times, all in these our most shortest of all lives . . . Only, but one thing so lives on . . . so shines's! As not so gone, as out into eternity so survives! As is what we so do upon this earth! Do we in the darkness so reside? Or is it with our goodness, that we so make even the Angels too cry? For if all in our most noble deeds, that we so succeed to fight evil's needs . . . Then, it's Heaven we shall all so see. For these are such things, that which only our magnificence can so bring! And that no one else can so take from you Travis . . . sing! No Travis, They Will Never So Take That From You! And now the time has so come! To mount up Cav, my son! To go Airborne to recovery, to get up and run! To win one more battle, like all of those other ones you've won! Because, Travis you are Army Strong! You Are America's Heart and Son! They may have taken your strong arms and legs! But, your fine heart and soul they can not so touch, can they! And that's what you run with this very day . . . Bravo my son, you are Airborne in every way! As once again, you are out on point leading the way! For Travis, SSG Mills you have so many lives to touch! So many hearts to fill as such! And so many years from now, Heaven is yours one day so don't rush! And your family and this world, so needs men like you as such! Travis, They'll Not Take That From You! I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Madam Chair. In listening to the presentation by the gentlelady from Tennessee and the rebuttal by the gentleman from California, I'd make the point that it isn't only the Supreme Court that makes a decision on constitutionality. We all take an oath to uphold the Constitution here in this Congress, in the executive branch, and also in the Federal court system. And when you go through the process of a constitutional determination, we do allow the Supreme Court, as a public and a people, to make that decision. We do so under Marbury, which is something over a couple of centuries old. But in the final analysis of the balance of powers, in the end, it's the people that decide what's constitutional, not the Supreme Court. And I say that because we have the authority here in this Congress to control funding, as the gentlelady from Tennessee has in her amendment that comes out. And there's a reason for that. We have many debates on constitutionality here in this Congress on this floor. It's our obligation to do that. It's our constitutional obligation to do so. And this discussion about ObamaCare and its unconstitutionality has gone well beyond the Chambers here. Many of us raised these issues 2 years and a month or so ago about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. We now see that at least 26 States have brought suit. It is before the Supreme Court to be decided. Tens of billions of dollars of good money has already been thrown after a bad policy and an unconstitutional policy, and now we're on the cusp of getting word from the Supreme Court. But whether or not the Supreme Court finds the ObamaCare unconstitutional--I believe they will, at least under the individual mandate. I do not think they will sever it. I think they will throw it all out. But in either case, this Congress will continue to weigh in on constitutionality, on viability, on affordability, and on the policy itself. And the things that we do as a majority of this House of Representatives are entirely within the province of the Constitution to cut off all funding, if we choose to do that. This Congress could cut off all funding to implement or enforce ObamaCare. This amendment just cuts off the funding to enforce ObamaCare. There's much of that unfolding today. This is a strong message to send. And I'm not suggesting we send it to the Court. I want the Court to have an independent decision on the language in ObamaCare itself. But this is a message to the American people that this Congress also has a voice. We have a voice on constitutionality. We have a voice on policy. We have a voice on affordability. And it's unaffordable; it's unconstitutional, and it's bad policy. It's an unconstitutional taking of American liberty. And this amendment at least suspends good money going after bad policy. I strongly endorse the gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just make a brief point that the executive branch has made a decision not to defend DOMA, which is the law of the land. So that's a discretion that apparently we would concede to the executive branch of government not to defend DOMA, but not accepting the antithesis of it, which I believe is the Blackburn amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Schweikert amendment. As I listened to his presentation, it rolls me back to the year 2000 when I watched the fiasco take place in Florida and the recount that took place there. At the time, I was the chairman of the Iowa Senate State Government Committee. It was my job to see to it that we made sure that Iowa wasn't a Florida in a recount like that. In that process, I went through 37 days where almost every waking minute I was looking into voter election fraud. It really brought my attention to it, to the point where every day I carried an acorn around in my pocket just to remind me that free and fair and legitimate elections are what we need to have. It's the very bedrock for this constitutional Republic. The Constitution is the foundation, but legitimate elections and the perception of legitimate elections are the very bedrock upon which the foundation of our country sits upon. So through that period of time, we've watched since that there has been more and more election fraud, promoted by ACORN, that brought this to the public sight, but something that I've been on now in my 12th year. As I brought legislation in the State forward to legitimatize the elections that were in question, I asked that we made sure that our voter registration lists are free of duplicates, deceased, and felons, and that we require a picture ID. The gentleman from Arizona has put together a list of the things that you need a picture ID for, and it's rather astonishing when you look through that list. Since he yielded back the balance of his time, I'm going to just pick some things off of this sheet, Madam Chair. That is this: You can't get a package from a post office, a post office general delivery box, without showing a picture ID in cities. I can in my hometown. You can't purchase a handgun without a picture ID. You can't purchase tobacco or liquor without a picture ID. I can't get a beer in Chicago without a picture ID, or open a bank account or get on a passenger plane or get a ticket to Amtrak or rent a car or return merchandise or a refund or sell scrap metal in a junk yard or purchase police uniforms in California. I've never tried that one. You can't be treated in any doctors' offices or admitted to a hospital without being in an emergency without a picture ID, or rent an apartment or get a bank loan or a cell phone or a teaching license or enter a major university, enroll as a student or get a library card at any libraries or enter military ports, check into a major hotel chain, rent a truck from a U-Haul or, as the gentleman from Arizona said, you can't visit Eric Holder without a picture ID. It's pretty astonishing. This morning, in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the Director of the FBI, Director Mueller, I asked him if he had heard of the incident of the early twenties young Caucasian male that walked into the polling place in Virginia and asked for Attorney General Eric Holder's ballot. He just gave the name and identified the address, and they tried to hand him the ballot. He said, I need to go get my ID. They said, You don't need an ID; here is the ballot. It didn't occur to the poll worker that this early twenties Caucasian male was not a 61- year-old black man whom everybody ought to know his face by now, the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General of the United States apparently wasn't alarmed that he easily could have been disenfranchised of his vote if that individual had just gone and picked up the ballot and gone and voted. He was not alarmed. And the Director of the FBI said under oath, this morning, he hadn't heard of this case, this incident that, by the way, twice was brought before the Judiciary Committee and the video was run. It's a matter of record with the Judiciary Committee within the last month, Madam Chair. There are things that you can't do. As I said, you can't get a beer in Chicago without a picture ID and you can't vote in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela without a picture ID. It's about time, in the United States of America, we allow the States to clean up our election laws and kept the Department of Justice out of the business of interfering with the justice that is delivered by the States in the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chair, I would make the point if it's less than 1 percent of the population, it certainly is. It's far less than 1 percent of the population. We can find that many volunteers that will fill this out voluntarily. Send it to me. I'll fill it out voluntarily. But when you tell me you're going to come in and fine me for it, that's intrusive. And these questions are personal enough that people should be able to say, I don't want to share that information with my Federal Government. I don't want that to go into a database that might possibly get transferred across into other people's information. I think it's important to have the information, but it's important that people have freedom and liberty and we do not have an intrusive Federal Government that would impose a fine on people if they didn't let the information come out about whether they had a flush toilet and whether they can concentrate on whether they had it and whether they used it. That seems to be part of the center of this. We can at least reduce some of these questions down there.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of the Poe amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing it. Just to clarify some of the history, this is the questionnaire that apparently has replaced the need for what was the census long form. The census, of course, is directed by the Constitution every 10 years. And that's why we're going through redistricting now and all the primaries take place across the country. But from 1940 until the year 2000, we also had the long form that was part of the census question. Some people got the long form; some got the short form. And this questionnaire came along and replaced the long form. So the perception was that it actually was a census question--the replacement for the long form--but it really is not. Of course, it's the American Community Survey. I agree with the gentleman from Texas. If a government is going to be so intrusive, they're going to issue a 24-page packet of questions that's got 48 questions in it, some of them very, very intrusive. Just names, age, gender, race, income, physical and emotional health--that must have been the one where you have to answer the question on whether you're having trouble concentrating or making decisions-- your family status, details of your residence--that might be the one about whether you have a flush toilet or not--and intimate personal habits--whether you actually use it or not. I'm having trouble concentrating on whether I actually have one. But I'm thinking that when one gets one of these in the mail and you're looking at someplace between--I know it's not been enforced, but they don't know that when they get the questionnaire--so someplace between a $100 fine and up to a $5,000 fine, by the information I have, that's pretty draconian just to get information from American people that volunteer on a basis by the tens of millions and contribute billions of dollars in charity. We can find enough Americans to fill out this survey and give the government the information that they need.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. I believe 250,000 is the number I have.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that. I think we get better information from volunteers than we do people that are coerced. They may well not fill out this survey accurately if they think they're doing so under penalty of law. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I rise in support of the Huelskamp amendment. I listened to the gentleman from Colorado say at least three times, a government takeover of marriage. Yes, the faith and the church and the churches have been the ones who have established marriage over the centuries and over the millennia. But when it comes to civil marriage, the government writes the rules. If the government is writing the rules, it's not a takeover of marriage. The definition of marriage from the beginning of time has been a man and woman joined together, hopefully in holy matrimony, for the purposes of encouraging a family unit and raising children and pouring our values down through that crucible of marriage into the next generation because that's the most successful and effective way that we can advance civilization. Government has an interest in promoting marriage for the purposes of holding together the continuity of our culture and our civilization. It is not a nefarious thing. It's not the government taking over marriage. It is the voice of the American culture and the American people seeking to advance into the following generations the best values that we have. And those that say it is discrimination to determine what marriage is, I would argue instead, Mr. Chairman, that government provides a license. The States provide licenses for marriage. A license is a definition to do that which is otherwise illegal. A license to hunt, a license to carry a gun, a license to fish, for example.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I want to finish my statement, but if I have time, I will yield to the gentleman from Colorado. States issue marriage licenses because they want to promote and encourage an activity and a behavior, not because they want to punish another behavior. It is because there is something that they have determined has value, and so they give a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal, and that's what a definition of a license is. With regard to the President and the executive branch, the Constitution and the oath that's implied in the Constitution, the oath that the President takes that is implied that he adheres to in the Constitution says he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. And so the law of the United States is DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. The President's obligation, and his appointees and all of those in the executive branch of government, is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The appointments of the President and the executive branch are bound by his oath, and they take their own oath to uphold this Constitution. And when the President of the United States decides he is going to flip on his position, or maybe let it evolve into a condition, and then direct, and I believe it is direct, the Department of Justice to first refuse to support and have the Solicitor General no longer support Federal law passed by a majority of this Congress, the House and Senate and signed by President Clinton and then turn around, and now we're concerned that they are going to use taxpayer resources to defy a legitimate law that is the will of the people and on the books in the Federal Register. That's what the amendment does that Mr. Huelskamp has offered. It says it's bad enough that you don't keep your oath to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, and we want to say to you, Don't at least turn a 180 on us and go against the will of the American people and use taxpayer dollars to work against the will of the American people, against your oath of office and against the statute. So out of courtesy, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, civilization is in jeopardy. It's in jeopardy when you have seven supreme court justices in the State of Iowa who declare that they have found rights in the Constitution that were up to this point ``unimagined.'' If you have justices that find unimagined rights in the Constitution, they are completely unqualified to legislate from the bench or determine what's constitutional and what's unconstitutional; and three of the seven were up for a retention ballot a year ago last November, and they were all three voted off the bench, the first time in the history of the State, partly because people disagreed with the policy they sought to impose by legislating from the bench, mostly because the people in the State understood that you cannot have judges that will find rights in the Constitution that were up to this point unimagined. Judges that can imagine rights in the Constitution will take your rights away. A President that will change his position, that will not uphold his oath of office to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, that will direct the Department of Justice to work against and the Solicitor General to work against Federal law will turn this thing 180 and use the Federal resources against the will of the people of the United States, and that's the Huelskamp amendment, and I support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 158, I was detained while attempting to reach the House floor to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 96, I was not able to vote because I was called away for the funeral of a close friend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, I was not able to vote because I was called away for the funeral of a close friend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''