Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I wanted to conclude with this: The lead on this effort has been Mr. Frank LaMere. He had been a statesman for the Winnebagos for years and also for Native Americans in a broader sense, especially in the upper Midwest. He tragically passed away 2 days ago. His funeral is today. He worked on these projects for a lifetime. It is very fitting that we take action on one of his initiatives here in this Congress today. And I am hopeful that we will be able to take up H.R. 184, which also transfers the land back to the Winnebagos that they should so rightfully have.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I seek recognition to take up amendment No. 9 made in order by the rule.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to take up amendment No. 9. What it does is, it addresses the circumstances of the underlying bill and strikes lines 14 through 18. Lines 14 through 18, the effect of that language is that it prohibits the U.S. Census from asking the question as to whether a respondent to the Census is a citizen of the United States. There are people who have political reasons to want to prohibit asking that question, but this great Nation of the United States of America has an obligation to know what percentage of the people within the United States, all of whom will be counted in this Census--the qualifier to be counted in the Census of the United States is be a Homo sapien, and that is all. So we have several categories: We have categories of U.S. citizens who need to be counted; we have categories of lawful permanent residents who need to be counted; we have categories of visa holders who will be counted; and we have illegal aliens who also will be counted. I wanted our Commerce Secretary to go further and to count each of these categories separately and ask the question: If you are a citizen, say so; if you are a noncitizen, but you are lawfully present in America, tell us by what legal authority you are; and if you are unlawfully present, give us that answer, too, so we can look at the whole cross section of the 30 million Americans that we are and understand the configuration of our people. Our Founding Fathers called for a mandatory Census at the end of every 10 years for the purpose of reapportionment and redistricting; and so it has been so very important that, for redistricting purposes, when we count the American people, we know what categories they fit in. The Commerce Department has dialed this down from the bill that I introduced, and they simply asked to separate the difference between U.S. citizens and noncitizens, which puts illegal aliens and other visa holders in the same category. I think we should go further, but all we are going to get is citizen or noncitizen, and that is what the Commerce Department has called for. The legitimacy of that question is important, and it is important that we understand that the voices in this Congress be the voices of American citizens, not the voices of illegal aliens. There was a study that was done two Censuses ago that showed that six congressional districts in California, theoretically, could have been represented by all illegal aliens. So that diminishes and dilutes the votes and the representation of American citizens. Furthermore, when electoral votes are cast for the votes of President of the United States, those electoral votes are added up. They also total illegal aliens in the United States of America. So, for this, I bring this amendment to correct this language, which is in the underlying bill, and assure that we count citizens separate from all the rest and remind people that, even though I would like to be able to count legals and illegals in separate categories and visa holders in separate categories, that isn't even proposed by our Census Department. This is a mild approach by the Trump administration and is seeking to be undermined by the language that exists in the underlying bill. Madam Chair, I appreciate the attention, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 11, 2019 as I had another commitment that did not allow me to make it back to D.C. in time for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 245; ``no'' on rollcall No. 246; ``no'' on rollcall No. 247; and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 248.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed the vote series on June 10th, 2019, due to previously planned travel that prevented me from being in Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 242, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 243, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 244.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding. Listening to the debate here, the first thing that I think was missed in this discussion was the subject of amnesty. This bill is clearly amnesty, and it is amnesty for a large chunk of people, whether they do the math at 2 million, 2.2 million, 2.7 million, or whatever that number may be north of that. Whenever we have had amnesty in this country, it has always been a lot more than was calculated. I recall those days back in 1986 when Ronald Reagan let me down. He only did it twice in 8 years, but this was one time. I watched the debate in the House and the Senate on whether to grant amnesty to roughly a million people. All along, I believed that the wisdom of the House and Senate would prevail, and they would understand that amnesty destroys the rule of law. I listened carefully, and the debate went the other way. The bill was sent to the President's desk. But I was confident that Ronald Reagan would see the principle and protect the rule of law and veto the amnesty act. Well, we all know he signed it that day in 1986. He regretted it after that, as did many of his Cabinet members, but that was a big mistake. This is an amnesty bill, and it goes a long way toward the destruction of immigration law. When you send out an advertisement that if you can get into America, you get to stay in America, people are going to keep coming here. It doesn't stop until they have to go back home again to tell those folks whom they had recently left that they didn't get to stay in America, to discourage the rest of them. Here is an example: In a briefing from Francis Cissna, the recently retired Director of USCIS, he gave us these numbers. He said of 100 percent of those who apply for asylum, there will be 60 percent who show up for their asylum hearings. That surprised me. I thought the number would be maybe 95 percent that wouldn't show up. Sixty percent show up; 40 percent do not. Of the 60 percent, 10 percent get asylum. That amounts to 6 percent of the whole. Forty percent don't show up. Fifty-four percent then get assigned a deportation hearing, and they don't show up at all. When you add 40 percent, 54 percent, and 6 percent, that is 100 percent of them who get to stay in America. I recall a night when I was in Serbia in the middle of that huge, epic migration. I asked the chief of police, who was directing traffic, loading trains to go off to Germany out of Serbia, when and why this ever stops. The first thing he said was the international answer of, ``That is beyond my pay grade.'' But then, as I pressed him, he said it only stops when the people receiving them stop receiving them. That is the principle here. We have to decide what we are going to do here. Whom are we going to say no to? I haven't heard anybody define, especially on the other side, whom we might say no to. This is just the people that we want to say yes to, or at least as far as the left wants to say yes to.

Mr. KING of Iowa. There is a report that, before the last census, with an average 710,000 in a Member's congressional district, at least six districts in California were comprised, figuratively, of illegal aliens. That means that illegal aliens in California had more representation in the United States Congress than any one of 23 States that have less representation. That is something to keep in mind as this debate moves on. Mr. Speaker, I don't think this bill goes anywhere, but if it does, it could be the destruction of the rule of law and the fracture of the United States of America.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I came to the floor to highlight the disasters that we have in the Midwest. I recall back in 2011 when the Missouri River was 11 miles wide at its widest and 5 to 6 miles wide most everywhere else, all the way through Iowa and down across Missouri. It was a secret flood because you couldn't drive there. You had to fly over to see it. We have some of these similar circumstances this spring, although it has gotten a little more of the press. We had more water come down below Gavins Point than ever before. It wiped out a lot of ag land on the Iowa side and more so, even, on the Nebraska side. We have critical infrastructure that has got to be reconstructed. We have got to protect some of these communities that have been nearly wiped out. This Corps of Engineers, in particular, has 41 breaches on the levees just on the Iowa side of the river. I urge that we get to a conclusion and adoption of a final package on this disaster relief. But I would point out, Madam Speaker, that this message from the White House said that Congress should not use natural disasters as a pretext to engage in unnecessary spending outside the agreed upon discretionary spending caps. I am hopeful that this gets worked out between the House and the Senate. We need the relief, and we need it very soon.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on February 26, 2019 due to my flight being delayed on account of inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted no on Roll Call No. 90, no on Roll Call No. 91, no on Roll Call No. 92, and no on Roll Call No. 93.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on February 25, 2019 due to inclement weather preventing my scheduled air travel from Iowa to Washington, D.C. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YES on Roll Call No. 88, and YES on Roll Call No. 89.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, on January 15, 2019, the House of Representatives considered H. Res. 41, a resolution rejecting white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States. I voted for the resolution because it cited accurately the misquote of my words by The New York Times and because I wholeheartedly agree with the rejection of white nationalism and white supremacy. I write today to emphatically correct the quote once again to align with what I actually stated to The New York Times reporter and on the floor of the House of Representatives. As I stated on the House floor, what I actually said was `` `White nationalist, white supremacist-- (there is a dash here as a pause) Western civilization, how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and civilization'--that is the end of the quote--just to watch `Western civilization' become a derogatory term in political discourse today?'' According to my actual words, the question ``how did that language become offensive?'' clearly referred only to the term ``Western Civilization''. I was not asking how the terms white nationalist and white supremacist have become offensive. If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of this accounting, I would direct you to the CSPAN video of my floor remarks from that day, January 15, 2019. As the descendant of abolitionists and Union soldiers who fought and died to purge this land of the crime of human slavery, I well know why certain terms--such as white nationalist and white supremacist--are offensive. And I always have and always will reject them completely. I stipulate that the Record reflects precisely my words, which are those of a man who loves his country and all its people and will continue to work for the betterment of our society for all Americans, who are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and are equal under the law.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time to address this issue. I understand and recognize the gravity of this issue that is before us. I can hear it from the voice of the gentleman from Georgia. I can hear it from Mr. Clyburn. And I can hear it from Mr. Nadler. I know all of you, and I think I know all of you well. I thought you all knew me well. But I began to read this resolution, Madam Speaker, and I started with the first ``whereas,'' and I am going to read it as it is here: ``Whereas, on January 10, 2019, Representative Steve King was quoted as asking, `White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization' ''--there is a dash in there, a pause--`` `how did that language become offensive?' '' I understand how you interpreted my words when you read them this way. There is no tape for this interview that I did. It was 56 minutes long. There are some notes on the other end, but there is no tape. There is no way to go back and listen. But I can tell you this: That ideology never shows up in my head. I don't know how it could possibly come out of my mouth. So I am going to tell you that the words are likely what I said, but I want to read it to you the way I believe I said it. And that is this: ``White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization--how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and civilization''--that is the end of the quote--just to watch ``Western civilization'' become a derogatory term in political discourse today? That is what I believe happened. And it is 13 words, ironically, that has caused this firestorm. And, again, I regret that we are in this place. I read all of the rest of the resolutions that are here. Number two, I reject the ideology. The statement is true, Mr. Clyburn. Number three, same story. I reject the ideology that is noted in here. Your statement is true. As I read these so far down, number four, number five, all the way through all of these resolutions, all of the ``whereases'' that are here in this resolution, I agree with all of them. I agree with every word that you have put in this. It is an honest and a direct resolution put together to address a subject that has been too long before the public dialogue in this country. And when I look down at the ``resolved''--that is usually the meat of these--it says: ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.'' Well, I agree with that. Just a couple of weeks ago, I stood on this floor with a Bible in my hand, and I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Bible wasn't just a regular Bible picked up somewhere. That was a shirt-pocket-sized leather Bible that my Great Uncle John Richardson carried in his shirt pocket for 3 years in the Civil War. I come from a family of abolitionists. Maybe I would have some artifacts from his cousin, my five times great-grandfather, if he hadn't been killed in that conflict. This means something to me, the abolitionism that goes clear back into my family, and they paid a price with their lives to make sure that all men, and now all women, are created equal, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I absolutely believe in that. It is in my heart and my soul, and in my works. By their fruits you shall know them. But The New York Times has a different version of this. They make a habit of attacking the President, as a matter of fact. And I look at this language that is here, this resolution that the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism, white supremacy, and hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States. I agree with that language, as I have said. But I would add to it the language that I used on this floor, this very place, last Friday afternoon, when I said I would strengthen it by adding my previous statements, which not only correctly reject white nationalism and white supremacy as evil ideologies, but also condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology that saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives. That is where I stand. That is what I believe. So I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for bringing this resolution. I have carefully studied every word in this resolution, and even though I would add some more that are stronger language, I agree with the language in it. So I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's vote for this resolution. I am putting up a ``yes'' on the board here because what you state here is right, and it is true, and it is just, and so is what I have stated here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me here this afternoon. I come to the floor here of the United States House of Representatives with a specific purpose today, and that is to address an issue that has become a controversy. I regret that I made a freshman mistake a week ago today when I took a call from a reporter from the New York Times, and that was a 56- minute interview, without a tape, that resulted in a long article. In that article were snippets of the 56-minute interview. Part of that inquiry was about the history of immigration policy in this country for over the last, say, 18 or so years, of which I have been a significant part, especially in Iowa, as we have a voice to shape policy and help these presidential candidates move on to the Oval Office. I am grateful that much of the policy that was debated then is in the Oval Office today, and it is being debated all over this country. But one phrase in that long article has created an unnecessary controversy. That was my mistake, Mr. Speaker, so I want to start this out with some context of that discussion, and that is this: That if you can control the language, you can control the policy. Labels have been hurled in this country at people like we have never seen in this history of America. I made a point of this in a September 12 tweet that I sent out as a component of this broader dialogue, and here is the tweet, verbatim, Mr. Speaker: The word ``Nazi'' is injected into leftist talking points because the worn out and exhausted word ``racist'' is overused and applied to nearly everyone. That is the foundation for at least part of that discussion with a New York Times reporter, Mr. Speaker. In that also was discussion of other terms that had been used, almost always unjustly labeling otherwise innocent people the word ``racist,'' the word ``Nazi,'' the word ``fascist,'' the phrase ``white nationalist,'' the phrase ``white supremacist.'' They even are derogatory toward Western civilization, which is the foundation for the American civilization, and we are today the flagship. At this point, I will read the quote that had brought about this controversy, Mr. Speaker, and this is from The New York Times article titled: ``Before Trump, Steve King Set the Agenda for the Wall and Anti-Immigrant Politics,'' which, by the way, is a bit pejorative, because I have never been anti-immigrant. I have been anti-illegal immigrant, and I remain that way. But here is the quote. It says: `` `White nationalist, white supremacist' ''--and this is from me, by the way, Mr. Speaker--`` `White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization--how did that language become offensive?,' Mr. King said. `Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?' '' That is off of this article, and that is the substance of this heartburn that seems to be churning across the media in America today. So I look at that and I think, well, what was that conversation? It was about how those words got plugged into our dialogue, not when the words became offensive, which is what the technical interpretation of this is. How did that language become offensive? It is, how did that offensive language get injected into our political dialogue? Who does that? How does it get done? How do they get by with laying labels like this on people? When I asked the question, ``Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?'' that response was strictly for: Why did I sit in Western civilization classes to hear about the merits of our history? I have never sat in a class at any time and heard any merits about any of those other names, including I have never heard a merit about ``racist.'' I have never heard a merit about ``Nazi'' or ``Fascist'' or ``white nationalist'' or ``white supremacist,'' but Western civilization has merit, and I remain a defender. So I put together a statement, which is public, and I choose to read it into the Record now, Mr. Speaker, and it is this: ``Today, the New York Times is suggesting that I am an advocate for white nationalism and white supremacy. I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology, which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives. ``It's true that, like the Founding Fathers, I am an advocate for Western civilization's values and that I profoundly believe that America is the greatest tangible expression of these ideals the world has ever seen. Under any fair political definition, I am simply an American nationalist. America's values are expressed in our founding documents. They are attainable by everyone, and we take pride that people of all races, religions, and creeds from around the globe aspire to achieve them. I am dedicated to keeping America this way. ``This conviction does not make me a white nationalist or a white supremacist. Once again, I reject those labels and the ideology that they define. As I told the New York Times, `It's not about race. It's never been about race.' One of my most strongly held beliefs is that we are all created in God's image and that human life is sacred in all its forms.'' All of my life's work, all of my public record, all of my bills, all of my votes, all of my activities support that statement that human life is sacred in all of its forms and that we are created in God's image. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret the heartburn that has poured forth upon this Congress and upon this country, and especially in my State and in my congressional district. But the people who know me know I wouldn't have to even make this statement, because they do know me. They know my life. They know my history. They know that I have lived in the same place since 1978. There is nothing about my family or my history or my neighborhood that would suggest that these false allegations could be supported by any activity whatsoever. I reject that ideology. I defend American civilization, which is an essential component of Western civilization. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas again for the opportunity to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak out on behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Iowa, which I claim is the number one agriculture-producing congressional district in all of America, and to support this underlying bill, which does a number of good things. I have heard that it provides certainty. When you deal with agriculture, I have some apprehension about that, Mr. Speaker, because certainty in agriculture seems to be an oxymoron to me. But it does provide predictability, and we owe that to our producers, in particular. So it does a number of good things. It sets up the ARC payments so that they will be identified to the physical location of the farm. That corrects an inequity. It has $255 million a year in there for MAP, market access, for foreign market development, for technical assistance, and the Emerging Markets Program. It addresses FMD beyond foreign market developments in another way, and that establishes a vaccine bank for foot and mouth disease, which we anticipate could well be something that could befell the United States. We need to be ready. I encourage also that we develop a GMO vaccine for FMD, so we can produce it in this country in sufficient quantities. This bill allows for that to be developed. Then it also increases the loan guarantees along the line, especially for our young producers, up to $1.75 million, and the direct loans to $400,000, and the direct farm ownership loans to $600,000. Those are all good things. I am really happy about the piece that goes in for Iowa State genome and phenome. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for recognizing me to speak here on this Special Order to honor National Bible Week. It starts off, for me, this way, Mr. Speaker. I will go to Psalm 139:13: ``For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.'' God knew us all in the womb. At the moment that we were formed in our mother's womb, from that moment of fertilization, that moment of conception, He gave us life. I believe that is also the instant that He places the soul in all of us who are created in His image. Once we recognize that and we recognize also that our Founding Fathers understood this as well when they laid out the prioritized rights in the Declaration of Independence--and they prioritized these rights as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It wasn't just pulling three different words out of a grab bag and putting them up there in the Declaration of Independence, but, instead, they were prioritized. Our pursuit of happiness cannot trample on anyone else's liberty or life, and exercise of our liberty cannot take someone else's life. Life is the paramount right, and this is natural law. It is God's law. It is the laws of nature and nature's God. I serve here in this Congress, and, for all the time that I have been here, the priority has always been to protect innocent unborn human life. That has brought about H.R. 490, the Heartbeat bill. I wear this pin on my lapel, Mr. Speaker, every day because I believe it saves those lives. H.R. 490 protects every baby that can be detected with a heartbeat. If a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is protected. I want to announce here tonight that we are very close to being able to say that we will have a markup in the Judiciary Committee very soon on the Heartbeat bill, H.R. 490, which protects the life of every baby with a heartbeat, a certain indicator of life.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, October 10th is Taiwan's National Day--also known as Double Ten Day. I would like to take this opportunity now to offer my best wishes to the people of Taiwan. As my colleagues are aware, Taiwan is a close friend, as well as security and trade partner of the United States. This year, I was happy to cosponsor and vote for H.R. 535, the Taiwan Travel Act. And I was even happier to see the bill pass the House, the Senate and be signed into law by President Trump on March 16, 2018. This important law expresses the sense of Congress that the United States Government should encourage visits between officials from the United States and Taiwan at all levels. Furthermore, it states it should be U.S. policy to allow U.S. officials to travel to Taiwan to meet their Taiwanese counterparts; permit high-level Taiwanese officials to enter the U.S. to meet with U.S. officials; and encourages the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) to conduct business in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with this policy. In my home state of Iowa, we are enthusiastic to build on our already strong trade ties. Just this past September, Taiwan renewed its pledge to purchase a total of up to 3.9 million metric tons of soybeans valued at up to $1.56 billion in 2018 and 2019. Under the revised deal, the U.S. share of soybeans purchased by Taiwan will increase to between 80% and 90% of total Taiwanese purchases. It was also announced that the new agreement with Taiwan will result in 75% of Taiwan's total soybean purchases coming from Iowa. As President Trump's Administration scans the globe looking for bilateral trade partners, Taiwan holds as much promise as ever for the U.S. Iowa and every state in the nation would benefit from the signing of a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the U.S., which would eliminate tariffs on most products and increase Taiwanese demand and Iowa exports. Though a small country with a population of 23.5 million, Taiwan has the potential to become a strong export market for Iowa and the U.S. Taiwan is a major importer of our nation's agriculture missions to the U.S. Other sectors such as Iowa's strong wind energy sector have potential for bilateral cooperation as well. Mr. Speaker, again, I wish the people of Taiwan a Happy Double Ten Day. And I take this opportunity to once again echo the words of Barry Goldwater when he said, ``I have great affection for the Chinese people, their culture, their skills, and their potential.''

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Red Arndt for his many years of service to the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, as well as his lifetime commitment to bringing safe and reliable water to the rural comers of this country. Bom Lennis Arndt on May 1, 1948, he earned the nickname, Red, while in grade school from his full head of red hair. The name stuck and most people only know him today as Red Arndt. Red grew up in Springfield, Minnesota, about 90 minutes from his current hometown, Luverne where he first started working in 1989 as their public utilities director. Shortly after beginning his new position, Red heard about a proposal to bring water from the Missouri River in South Dakota to the surrounding states. A major undertaking with more people doubting the idea than supporting, Red saw the opportunity and potential, recommending to the mayor and city council that Luverne join and become one of the first members of the corporation that would later become the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. Seeing Lewis & Clark develop from conception to construction was a labor of love for Red, and a mission he fought hard to achieve. Red, one of only two original directors from 1990 still on the board, held a shovel when the ground was first broke in 2003. He has probably made over 60 trips to Washington, DC and many more to the state capitals and attended countless county, city and community meetings. Fighting to get Lewis & Clark off the ground was just a starting point for Red. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the project, serving as the vice-chairman of the board beginning in 1994 until becoming the board chairman in 2006, a position he still holds. Lewis & Clark has experienced ups and downs during those year, yet under Red's leadership over 200 miles of pipeline have been laid in the ground currently delivering much needed water to 14 member communities and rural water projects, reaching over 300,000 people across South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. He has seen over $470M in funding to Lewis & Clark, including $57M in advance funding from the three states. Red's indisputable dedication was demonstrated when he participated in the ribbon cutting ceremony for the water treatment plant in August 2012, a mere two weeks after having open heart surgery. His fellow directors surprised him at the ceremony by presenting him with the Lewis & Clark Trailblazer Award, which is the organization's highest honor. In May 2016, Luverne was finally able to celebrate their connection to Lewis & Clark, with Red reveling in taking the first swig of water. It was at this ceremony that the meter building in Luverne was dedicated in Red's honor. Red will be the first to acknowledge that this endeavor, benefiting generations to come in the tristate area, has been a true team effort. But, there is no question Red's vision for the future, dogged dedication and strong leadership have been a driving force through the years. When he is not dedicating his time to Lewis & Clark, Red is a proud father of three boys (all sharing his red hair) and grandfather of three red-headed little girls. His family is his pride-and-joy. You will often find Red wearing a pin honoring his son who served in the United States Air Force. As a dessert first type of guy, Red lives life to the fullest, enjoying travel, fishing and numerous other outdoor activities in his free time, as well as hanging out in his ``man cave''. I am grateful for his commitment to public service, his hard work on behalf of Lewis & Clark, and, more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend. Mr. Speaker, I commend Red Arndt for his many great contributions and wish him the best as he continues to make the most out of the life God has given.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on September 25, 2018, I voted against H.R. 6369, the Expanding Contracting Opportunities for Small Business Act of 2018, as amended (Roll Call No. 401). H.R. 6369 was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of the Rules of the House of Representatives. H.R. 6369 increases the dollar cap of sole-source awards under the HUBZone Program, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Program, and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program. Although I support increasing the dollar cap of sole-source awards for our nation's service-disabled veterans, I reject the equivocation between service-disabled veterans and women. When it comes to being a small business owner, it is easy to understand that our nation's service-disabled veterans may need and definitely deserve an assist. However, women are just as qualified and able to succeed as anyone. We should not equivocate between those who served our nation and suffered a disability on account of it, and those who are biologically female , and fully capable of succeeding as a small business owner, just as much as any other American.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Red Arndt for his many years of service to the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, as well as his lifetime commitment to bringing safe and reliable water to the rural corners of this country. Born Lennis Arndt on May 1, 1948, he earned the nickname, Red, while in grade school from his full head of red hair. The name stuck and most people only know him today as Red Arndt. Red grew up in Springfield, Minnesota, about 90 minutes from his current hometown, Luverne where he first started working in 1989 as their public utilities director. Shortly after beginning his new position, Red heard about a proposal to bring water from the Missouri River in South Dakota to the surrounding states. A major undertaking with more people doubting the idea than supporting, Red saw the opportunity and potential, recommending to the mayor and city council that Luverne join and become one of the first members of the corporation that would later become the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. Seeing Lewis & Clark develop from conception to construction was a labor of love for Red, and a mission he fought hard to achieve. Red, one of only two original directors from 1990 still on the board, held a shovel when the ground was first broke in 2003. He has probably made over 60 trips to Washington, DC and many more to the state capitals and attended countless county, city and community meetings. Fighting to get Lewis & Clark off the ground was just a starting point for Red. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the project, serving as the vice-chairman of the board beginning in 1994 until becoming the board chairman in 2006, a position he still holds. Lewis & Clark has experienced ups and downs during those years, yet under Red's leadership over 200 miles of pipeline have been laid in the ground currently delivering much needed water to 14 member communities and rural water projects, reaching over 300,000 people across South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. He has seen over $470M in funding to Lewis & Clark, including $57M in advance funding from the three states. Red's indisputable dedication was demonstrated when he participated in the ribbon cutting ceremony for the water treatment plant in August 2012, a mere two weeks after having open heart surgery. His fellow directors surprised him at the ceremony by presenting him with the Lewis & Clark Trailblazer Award, which is the organization's highest honor. In May 2016, Luverne was finally able to celebrate their connection to Lewis & Clark, with Red reveling in taking the first swig of water. It was at this ceremony that the meter building in Luverne was dedicated in Red's honor. Red will be the first to acknowledge that this endeavor, benefiting generations to come in the tristate area, has been a true team effort. But, there is no question Red's vision for the future, dogged dedication and strong leadership have been a driving force through the years. When he is not dedicating his time to Lewis & Clark, Red is a proud father of three boys (all sharing his red hair) and grandfather of three red-headed little girls. His family is his pride-and-joy. You will often find Red wearing a pin honoring his son who served in the United States Air Force. As a dessert first type of guy, Red lives life to the fullest, enjoying travel, fishing and numerous other outdoor activities in his free time, as well as hanging out in his ``man cave''. I am grateful for his commitment to public service, his hard work on behalf of Lewis & Clark, and, more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend. Mr. Speaker, I commend Red Arndt for his many great contributions and wish him the best as he continues to make the most out of the life God has given.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 18, 2018 due to an unforeseen delay. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YES on Roll Call No. 206.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an important family to the state of Iowa. Pastor Marvin Edward Smith III, his wife Alice and their two children helped found the Harvest Baptist Church in Fort Dodge and on October 21st, they will have served their church and their community for 25 years. Their church has grown into not only a place of worship but also a force for good in their community. Their K-12 school provides a place for spiritual growth for children, as does their youth ministries and Sunday schools. Their prison ministry and their addiction ministry both provide judgement-free rehabilitation, and a place for people to safely grow when they are at rock bottom. As we look back with appreciation to the service they have provided to their church and their community, we are also gifted with the opportunity to look forward and have hope that people like Pastor Smith and his wife Alice will continue working towards the betterment of society. I applaud their commitment to the values that make this country so great and look forward to see what they will do going forward.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 28, 2018 due to an unforeseen delay. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YES on Roll Call No. 308.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 10, 2018 due to an unforeseen delay. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YES on Roll Call No. 180.