Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment emanates from claims that were filed subsequent to a press conference held by then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in 1995, who said that the USDA was discriminating against black farmers. I believe that happened. Their estimate at the USDA at that time was that there were approximately 3,000 black farmers who would file claims under what resulted in a consent decree in the late nineties. The 3,000 estimate became 22,551 claims of discrimination. But according to the census, there are 18,000 black farmers. According to the testimony of the president of the Black Farmers Association before the Judiciary Committee, there are 18,000 black farmers. Well, the 18,000 black farmers estimating 3,000 claims of discrimination became 22,551 claims. That was Pigford I. And $1.05 billion was paid out then to settle all of the claims that were there. There was an argument made that others didn't get filed. But it always was a number greater than the actual number of black farmers. And you can't have more black farmers discriminated against than there actually are. They tried to open up Pigford II. This Congress didn't act on it in an affirmative way between the House and the Senate until late last fall in a lame duck session. President Barack Obama introduced legislation as a junior Senator from Illinois in 1989 and 2007, and was instrumental in pushing this through in a lame duck session that appropriated $1.15 billion to pay out claims. Now we have not 3,000 claims. We still have 18,000 black farmers. Now we have 94,000 claims and report after report of fraudulent claims and marketing this as perpetuation of a fraud across this country. And my amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to administer or to fund the balance of these Pigford II claims, which this Congress must investigate the fraud that's here. By the way, Shirley Sherrod, who was fired by the Secretary of Agriculture, was the largest recipient and the largest civil rights claim in the history of America, with $13 million for her claim. Three days later, Tom Vilsack hired her to work for the USDA. Later, he fired her. Later, he hired her back. Then she sued Andrew Breitbart. All of these things are information that we need to find out. This Congress cannot be paying out another $1.15 billion in good money going after bad claims. We have reports and videotape. One is a class counsel who had his own videotape and says that he has 3,000 clients who have filed discrimination claims, and least 10 percent of them are fraudulent claims. A class counsel, who was included in this second agreement, which by the way, the court has not finally approved. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to pay these claims, the funding that would be used to administer these claims, and it gives this Congress an opportunity to look into what has been done to the taxpayer here in America. And so I urge adoption of my amendment. I believe that I have explained what it amounts to, although it has been very intensively in the news over the last year or so. I would urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment that comes and there's an Iowa focus on this that affects the whole country. We have had a practice that began experimentally in Iowa by Planned Parenthood of issuing telemed abortions by distributing RU-486, the abortion pill, what is also known as mifepristone, distributing it through a means of setting up a television monitor and it circumventing the requirement in Iowa that they be seen by a doctor. A doctor sits remotely on the other side of the Skype screen, so to speak, and interviews the potential mother, who if once she answers the questions that the doctor asks and they record it under film that they've protected themselves perhaps from liability, he clicks the mouse on the one end and it opens a drawer underneath the screen on the other end and out rolls the abortion pill, RU-486. I am very concerned about the robo distribution of abortion pills in Iowa or anywhere else. Some of us signed a letter, 70 of us, to Kathleen Sebelius and asked if they had distributed grants for telemedicine to any of the abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood. Their response came back in the affirmative, that they had issued several grants to Planned Parenthood; and these funds, as near as we can determine, are being used to provide telemedicine for the robo abortions, robo Skype abortions as I've described. This amendment provides that none of the funds made available in this $15 million telemedicine line item that's in this appropriations bill shall be used for the purpose of purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, procuring, or otherwise administering mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486. I would just urge the body to pay attention to what this means for the country and understand that no one in America paying taxes should be compelled to pay for abortions if they are doing that. Skype-robo abortions are abhorrent. They're irresponsible. We have 14 deaths of moms that have come from this; 2,207 adverse events; 339 blood transfusions; and 612 hospitalizations. This is a dangerous drug, and to distribute it through robo-Skype abortions--I'm opposed to it philosophically for a lot of reasons, but practical minds who might disagree on the abortion issue should understand that this government should not be paying for it. This amendment prohibits the use of these funds in the $15 million line item from being used to provide telemedicine abortions.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I believe I did, but I would restate that there's a line item in the bill that provides $15 million to go to grants for telemedicine.

Mr. KING of Iowa. The amendment that I have put out here says: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose.'' And so I've specified why I'm concerned and why I address this language to the broader bill, but because there are grant funds available for telemedicine in the bill, that's why I'm concerned that this application that I've used could well go, and has gone according to Kathleen Sebelius, to those grants. If the gentleman doesn't agree, I would think he neither would disagree with the amendment because, therefore, it wouldn't have an effect by the gentleman's interpretation. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take up the amendment on page 12.

Mr. KING of Iowa. No, sir. Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes in and strikes out a million dollars and inserts that million dollars back in again and directs that, in our dialogue here in the Congressional Record, for the purpose of taking out the lookout points, the spotter locations that have been formed by the drug smugglers on the U.S. side of the border between primarily Arizona and Mexico. A number of times I have been down to the border to review these lookout posts, these spotter locations, and on certain occasions I have climbed to the top of those small mountains where they overlook the transportation links that we have the intersections, and the drug smugglers have actually taken paramilitary positions on top of these mountains overlooking U.S. transportation for the purposes of being able to warn their drug and people smugglers when the Border Patrol and other law enforcement are coming along the way. I have gone to the top of these mountains with Border Patrol and with the Shadow Wolves down there on the border and flown to the top of some of these mountains to take the positions that are taken by the spotters. This is something that this Congress has spoken to before. This amendment has passed in the past, and what it does is it directs the Border Patrol and their security personnel to take those locations out, not to concede these tactical locations inside the United States that go as far up as Tucson and on north towards Phoenix. And, in fact, about 4 years ago, I and a couple of others put together a map of these locations. I stood with some of our law enforcement personnel, and I said, Show me where on the map. They started drawing X's on the map. I took it along the Arizona border, and when we were done, I had over 75 locations of mountaintops that were manned by drug smuggling personnel. They are supplied and resupplied, Mr. Chairman. This Congress can't tolerate those kinds of locations here in the United States, and I urge the adoption of my amendment, which simply directs the law enforcement personnel to use that million dollars to take out the spotters on the lookouts on the mountains that control the transportation and let smuggling happen within the United States. I urge adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment on page 12.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that strikes $1 million and puts a million back in. It's an amendment that has been before this Congress before. It's one that supports the Shadow Wolves, and the Shadow Wolves are a part of CBP. They are stationed at Sells, Arizona. They are within, mostly the Tohono O'odham reservation. They are Native Americans that defend our border and interact culturally and regionally in that area. They have been very, very effective. Their numbers have gone up, approaching 20, but their numbers have diminished now down to only five Shadow Wolves left. They have been excellent about tracking smugglers through the desert. They have been very effective in law enforcement, and they have been shifted back and forth out of Border Patrol into Customs and Border Protection in the past, but still their numbers are reduced, and this is $1 million that directs them to go forward and expand the Shadow Wolves again, to sustain them. I think it's a compliment to the Native Americans all across this country, the effectiveness the Shadow Wolves have provided on the border. Again, I have been down to visit them a number of times, watched them in action, participated with them in action. Actually with Shadow Wolves, we did a one-strut landing of a Blackhawk on top of those lookout points that were my previous amendment. And so I urge this Congress to take action today to preserve what's left of the Shadow Wolves, the five that are there, and encourage and direct that there be the employees added to those works. If we let that funding reduce any further, the Shadow Wolves are gone probably forever, and their effectiveness has been something that's been a challenge to the rest of law enforcement along the border. I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. It's in Kiron, Iowa. It's been there since 1975. And we are a second-generation company.

Mr. KING of Iowa. 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, the amendment that I offer is an amendment that directs that, of the funds made available in the bill, there's a $150 million category, roughly, well, one-third of it, or, specifically, $50 million, shall be used to carry out section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which is the governing statute that directs that a fence be built on our southern border. We've watched as the Congress has directed that the Secure Fence Act be passed, that the fence be built, and we've watched the last two administrations be less than enthusiastic about its construction. We heard President Obama standing within about, let's say, 220 yards of the Rio Grande River in El Paso a month or more ago saying that he believed that the fence was basically complete, to quote the President. ``Basically complete,'' by his definition, would mean this: Of the 700 miles directed by this Congress, that's 14.3 miles only of tertiary fencing. That's three fences, which, as far as I know, is the most effective way. We only have 36.3 miles of secondary, or double fencing, Mr. Chairman. Then if you want to really stretch this out and give them a lot of credit for building something, they have about 350 miles of primary fencing. That's less than half the minimum amount of secure fence, which takes, I believe, double fencing. The vehicle fence is 299 miles. They haven't done what was directed by Congress. This amendment sets aside $50 million, which is only going to build about 25 more miles of good fencing, but it sends the right message, and it keeps them from going off and spending all of it on the other categories that are made available within this bill. The bill is fine with the money that's there, but the definition is too broad, and it allows the administration to slide away. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, directs that the $50 million be spent on the fence. I think it's ironic that the President, himself, when standing down in El Paso that five or so weeks ago when he gave the speech, said that the fence is basically complete. He said some people are going to want a moat; some people are going to want a moat with alligators. He ridiculed the effectiveness of the fence. The irony, Mr. Chairman, is that 220 yards away was the Rio Grande River and the canal; and if you count the fences in El Paso where they've given us the effectiveness of the secure fence that is built there, there is a fence, the Rio Grande River, another fence, a patrol road full of Border Patrol, another fence, a fast-moving canal with a concrete bottom and sides, and another fence. So, if you're going to get into the United States in El Paso, you've got to get over four fences and swim two moats to get there; and the President was making fun of it 220 yards away. I think his staff served him poorly that day. They should have flown Air Force One over that. We know that fences work, but they must be maintained--and yes, we need the technology on them. This directs that the resources be used, at least for the $50 million of the money made available, to build an actual fence; and it references section 102, which is the governing section. By the way, before we argue the parliamentary inquiry, I do have other language I will be happy to offer if we are unsuccessful in the parliamentary argument that is bound to ensue. I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. KING of Iowa. As I said to the gentleman, we could go through this over 300 times, and you could ask the same question over 300 times, and it's substantially the same answer. This primary component of this list came from the Government Oversight Committee. We can go get the records from the committee, and we could produce those, but I don't think this Congress is interested in holding up this process while I go contact the chairman and the staff to pull that information.

Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield, doesn't the converse of that also apply, that there's an implication of disrespect for the Government Oversight Committee and the legitimacy of their findings?

Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm not on the committee, if that's the gentleman's question.

Mr. KING of Iowa. The Government Oversight Committee put the majority of this list together. I want to emphasize some also come from media reports. So I don't challenge the legitimacy of the Government Oversight conclusion, and I don't have reason to believe that the analysis of this is illegitimate.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Let me just take your argument, then, down to the conclusion, which will be, if I respond to your question, you'll ask me another and another and another, and it will get down to have they been convicted in a court of law and are you sure that it was a legitimate case and is it under appeal and has it gone to the Supreme Court? We can never reach a conclusion on this. The gentleman knows that. So we have to make a judgment call and that's----

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. I just ask, since the gentleman has raised the issue of the Senator from Wisconsin, if he could name any individual who was unjustly charged by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman, if the time allows.