Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

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

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlemen that have bought this amendment to the floor. It is something that all America has been fixated upon, because they understand the injustice that underlies the prosecution of these two Border Patrol officers. And I would like to characterize this perhaps a little bit differently. Listening to the gentleman, my friend who just got done speaking, talking about the mandatory minimums being something that comes back to bite us in the you-know-where, no, this isn't the mandatory minimum issue that is before us tonight. This is the equivalent of a private bill. We have brought private bills through this Congress a number of times when we see issues that there is such an egregious case for specific individuals that we will generally bring that language through the Judiciary Committee, through the Immigration Subcommittee and on through Judiciary and onto the floor. It has happened a number of times in my time here in Congress. In fact, I have one here today that one of your colleagues from your side of the aisle offered to me, and I will consider it. But this is actually in my jacket pocket. This is a private bill asking for relief for people who have violated the law but find themselves in unique circumstances and pleading upon this Congress to make an exception because they are unique circumstances, and this is a measure to our heart. What does our heart have to say to us when you see two Border Patrol officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis and find themselves caught in this legalistic vice that has unfolded because, I think, of a discretionary decision by a U.S. Attorney in his prosecution? What I am concerned about is if this Congress doesn't stand up and defend these two people, Ramos and Compean, Border Patrol officers will be reluctant to pull their weapon in the line of duty and they will be in the line of fire. And I am afraid we will lose one or more Border Patrol officers in the line of duty because they will be hesitant to ever pull their weapon. That is a piece of their thing. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, and again thank him for his work in bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I'd say also there is a bill following this. If this doesn't do the job, I have a bill ready to introduce that grants them a new trial, a de novo review, and it removes the jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas. We're going to find a solution this. We're going to stand up and defend Ramos and Compean. This sends the message. It might get the job done. I urge adoption. I yield back.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I bring to the floor here reluctantly. It's an issue of conscience, and I think an issue of appropriate posture that this Congress should take. We have been, throughout the course of some in the 108th, and many in the 109th, and now more issues coming up within the 110th Congress that have to do with questions about the propriety of some of our Members, both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. And we're well aware of some of those cases. In a number of those cases, it was a good thing for us to step above that and seek to improve the integrity of this body. The public is aware, I believe, that there is an investigation that is underway. It has been taken up by the Department of Justice and published in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, and a number of other places, and the circumstances being that a former member of the Ethics Committee stepped down from the Ethics Committee to avoid the appearance of impropriety during an investigation. And yet, since that investigation began, the same Member has opted to step forward and take on the gavel of the very appropriations committee that deals with the funding of the investigation that's being conducted. This was an issue that was a subject matter before the Judiciary Committee in hearings that brought our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales forward. And I asked the Attorney General, after the allegation was made by a majority member on the committee about impropriety of investigations or political intimidations on the part of the Department of Justice, I asked the Attorney General if he was intimidated. I said, ``The question I would ask,'' and this is quoting from the Congressional Record, ``to you is, Mr. Attorney General, if the chairman of the Justice Appropriations Committee happened to have been under that kind of scrutiny, would that affect the kind of prosecution that takes place out of your Justice Department with regard to that particular Member of Congress?'' The question has been raised, it's been raised by the national media, it's been raised before the Judiciary Committee, and it needs to be raised here on this floor while we deal with this issue of propriety. I make no allegations about guilt or innocence. I simply say that there is a huge question of impropriety when the chairman of justice approps has in one hand the gavel, and in the other hand the pursestrings that funds the very people that are conducting the investigation. I bring this amendment forward to strike $1 million out and put $1 million in so that that $1 million can be used directly and exclusively for the investigation that's going forward and has been going on since December 2005. That's not swift and sure justice. That doesn't let this Member off the hook. He deserves an answer far more quickly from December 2005 until at least July of 2007. All of those issues before us are raised and should be considered by this body. And I urge that the Members consider the reason that I reluctantly brought this amendment forward to take $1 million out and put $1 million, but to direct that that money be used to accelerate and complete the investigation that's underway now that casts such a shadow over this entire process, and particularly this appropriations process that's taking place before us here on the floor of Congress. I think it's inappropriate. I think a decision should have been made by the Member. It has not been. That's why I have to bring this forward. I urge the Members to support this amendment, and I intend to be able to review the Record that we expect to have on this amendment. So I would urge adoption of this amendment directing $1 million for the FBI to continue and accelerate their investigation so that they can either move forward to completion, or clear the individual who sits underneath this cloud. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for coming to the floor and gaining some time to give me the ability to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I listened to his response. His response was measured. It was appropriate. But I didn't hear a response to the question about the intimidation factor and, in fact, the appearance of impropriety that the man holding the gavel is also holding the purse strings of the agency that is doing the investigation, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and a number of other publications across this country. I think that is an appropriate question. I think this Congress has to ask that question. I think we have to answer that question. I had hoped that it would get asked and answered by the leadership on the majority side of the aisle. The leadership knew about this when they made the appointments to the Chairs of the committee. So it is reluctantly that I bring this here. I wish that someone had stepped forward and taken this cup from me. But I can't cross this spot, which I recognize to be the Rubicon, knowing what I know, without raising the issue for the Members, to ask them to make a decision as well. It is appropriate for any Member to raise an issue when it hasn't been properly dealt with by the leadership of this Congress. It is appropriate to lay facts out in front and debate those facts. It is not inappropriate to ask questions and ask for answers. There is a lot more data here that I am aware of, but, factually, this is as far as I care to go with this issue. I want to ask the Members to make a decision. History will make a decision on this moment here on the floor of this Congress. Our decision is just temporary, but history will write this.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment follows through on the theme of the previous amendment, only it addresses that no homeownership assistance will be applicable to those who aren't legal to work or lawfully present in the United States. Again, it is a simple concept. It supports current law.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's acceptance of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of the chairman. I wonder if he might concede to a 15-second blurb here in order to get a couple of words into the Record. I appreciate the incentive and the concession. This amendment simply says none of the funds shall be used to hire people who are not legal and eligible to work within the United States. That's it. I think we have a consensus on this. 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 rise as one, again, who has worked on union shop and merit shop jobs, both as an employer and as an employee. As an employer, having been a union shop, I have paid union scale and also, of course, prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon wage scale. I've worked under a union shop, and I've worked on a merit based, and to look at the difference in the workmanship, I don't think we can apply high quality strictly to union. In fact, merit shop employees do a fantastic job with the work that they're doing, and they take pride in it, and they have to compete in the competition of the project. My son's now in the construction business, the second generation King Construction. I know the decisions he has to make, and sometimes he will pick up a set of plans and take a look at that and figure on bidding that project and find out that it's a Davis-Bacon wage scale. He understands that that messes up his flow of his employees, and it limits his ability to manage those employees on the job. For example, if you're paying an excavator operator $24 an hour and you're paying your laborer on the ground with a shovel or a grease gun let's say $10, that man is not going to get off of that excavator and pick up that grease gun or pick up that shovel, even if it's for a half hour or an hour if he knows he's going to be paid union scale for that when he could be paid the $24 an hour to sit on the machine. Those things work against our efficiency. My greatest frustration with Davis-Bacon wage scale is not the wage itself. It's that it takes away my ability to manage a project and my ability to provide incentives for employees to make decisions themselves on the ground. I have to manage them more when they're under a Davis-Bacon wage scale. I have to tell them what to do. I know people that are owners and operators of their company who get up in the morning and go out to the job at five o'clock to grease and service their machines because they can't afford to pay their operator to get out the grease gun and do it, and they'll be there at night, too, working 16 hours a day while that employee is at 8 hours a day on a Davis-Bacon wage scale. It distorts the work we do. It distorts the skills and the complement of the skills, and it raises the cost of everything that we do in the construction business. It injects the Federal Government in the way between that relationship between an employer and employee. Additionally, my employees have received 12 months of work, not seasonal work, health insurance benefits and vacation pay, all of that flowing because we can pay them what they're worth for a week's work as opposed to an inflated value of what they're worth for an hour's work. They make out better, we make out better, and we've got more consistent employees. That goes across this country almost universally. So I would urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that strikes the requirements for the Davis-Bacon Act within the appropriations of this bill, and the Davis-Bacon issue is something that I have lived with for at least my 28 years in the construction business as an owner and operator, and we'd add about four or five more years as an employee. I have received Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've paid Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've managed my way through the combination of paperwork and requirements that are part of this. I'm maybe the only one in Congress who has real hands-on experience for years of dealing with the additional costs that are involved with the Federal wage scale that's Davis-Bacon. And my numbers throughout my history of working with these projects vary from anywhere from 8 percent increase in the cost of the projects up to 35 percent increase in the cost of the projects. I round that down to a round number of 20 percent additional costs. We're in a situation where we're arguing that we need to bring in more labor from foreign countries to do this work, and yet we're setting a Federal wage scale for this work, and we know that labor is developed by supply and demand. I am a supporter of labor being able to collectively negotiate the value of their work, but I'm not a supporter of the Federal Government telling the workers and the employers what they need to pay their employees. I believe that if two adult individuals want to enter into a contractual agreement, they should be able to do so without interference of the Federal Government. This is not a prevailing wage in practice. It's only a prevailing wage by statute. Actually, it is union scale imposed upon wherever the money is spent. Any construction project with $2,000 or more in it takes the inflationary cost of a Davis-Bacon wage scale. Some places, it's actually below the prevailing wage. Other places, it distorts that prevailing wage dramatically. In almost all cases, it costs a lot of money, and for example, if it's a 20 percent increase, then if you can build five projects or 5 miles of road, this will let you build six. Why would we limit the resource and the infrastructure that we are building with this project by imposing such a draconian, top-down, Federal management tool that not only costs a lot more money, but it makes it a lot, lot harder to manage your projects? So with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, as I reflect on what the Labor Relations Act of 1935 means, it says specifically in the act that there will be no discrimination with regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment by membership in any labor organization, et cetera, and essentially says, by my recollection, that no one shall be coerced into joining a union, nor shall they be discouraged from joining a union. It's a balanced labor relations act that's there, but the statement that was made by the gentlelady from Texas said it provides for a report for projects on federally funded projects. I don't know where that might exist in the statute. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a question. I noticed in your remarks your amendment provides for a report for union workers on federally funded projects. I don't recognize where that might be in the 1935 act, and I am wondering, since I don't see it in your amendment, what the basis of that might be.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from Texas for that clarification. I listened carefully to the presentation, and the clarification comes now that it is union and nonunion workers protected equally alike, on balance, between union and merit shop employees. The advocacy here is for current law. Now, as we have made this clarification into this record, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my opposition to the amendment and congratulate the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate her patience.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for his comments. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia coming down to defend this particular language that's here. I think we need to take a look at this thing from a perspective that's perhaps broader than this particular project, that being that the issues that have been raised here in this Congress will be discussed again and again throughout this appropriations process. But if the project has merit, it should have merit. It should be able to succeed in its efforts without being specifically identified. But I think it has a fair amount of weight to drag with it, in that that trail has been there a long time. It could wait awhile longer. I would submit that the issues that surround the particular district that the gentleman represents should be considered in light of this particular appropriation. The report that came out in the Wall Street Journal that's a little more than a year old, about land that has been purchased along the river that happens to be the same river that this trail runs along, I don't know that it's adjacent, brings a question to mind as to whether or not the gentleman from West Virginia will be able to follow through on statements reported in the Wall Street Journal that say any claim whatsoever that says these investments are in any way related to my actions as a Member of Congress is categorically false. I don't deny that statement. I don't actually take issue with that. I would just ask the gentleman if he could suspend his aggressive effort to fund this project until such time as these questions that surround this Cheat River project could be resolved.