Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady from Texas. I did happen to write that quote down verbatim, I am confident. We have a lot of debate here on the floor. Some of us offered more than one amendment. I would simply thank the gentlelady for that statement. I, for myself, we have the law on the books, and this law is a neutral law. It's not one that promotes union labor, and it's not one that promotes nonunion labor. It's one that promotes the freedom and the discretion of the employee to make that decision. It does allow for union members to approach workers on the job. That's a protection that's in there, but it also allows the freedom for those workers to make the decision as to whether they would want to collectively bargain or not based upon a vote within that workforce. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was detained due to official Congressional business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: ``yea'' on H.R. 404--Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act; ``yea'' on H. Res. 553--Mourning the passing of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson, and celebrating her life and contributions to the people of the United States; ``yea'' on H. Res. 519--Honoring the life and accomplishments of renowned artist Tom Lea on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Additionally, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: ``nay'' on the Previous Question--H. Res. 558 for H.R. 3074; ``nay'' on H. Res. 558, the Rule for H.R. 3074-- Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. personal explanation

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I'll close the same deal with the chairman, and I will not describe this. The Record will show what this amendment does. And I'd be happy to urge adoption. I yield back.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I will be happy to yield.

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

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I'm very amenable to that process of doing business about every time I come to the floor. I would be happy to thank you for that.

Mr. KING of Iowa. And I would drop my remarks, except to say that this closes the issue with government working and hiring illegals. That's a State issue. I yield back.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would start out with the title of this, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Positively Orwellian to name a resolution the Redeployment From Iraq Act. I have gone back and revisited George Orwell, and I can tell you this says, the Cut and Run From Iraq Act. And however you want to cut it, that's part of it. Then it says, be moved in a safe and orderly manner. And I'd like to know from the other side, was the helicopter lifting people off of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, was that safe and orderly? Would that comply with your definition? Another point, we have in this Congress constitutional responsibilities and authorities with regard to war. The first thing we can do in this Congress is declare war. The second thing we can do is to raise an army and a navy, and the third thing is to fund it, not to micromanage it. This is another piece of micromanagement. This is another piece of moving us down the path towards what history will record as a defeat on the floor of Congress, not a defeat in the field of battle. Von Clausewitz said the object of war is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war. And we understand that if you don't have the will, it doesn't matter what your ability is. We're the only unchallenged super power in the world, and you're breaking down the will of the American people. Sun Tzu said it more simply. ``Supreme excellence in warfare lies in destruction of your enemy's will to resist an advance of perceptible hostilities.'' And yet the American people's will has been systematically undermined by the debate here on this floor, by the debate in the national news media. And I question, in the face of the opposition that we have to our will here in this country, if we ever can manage the effort to rise up and defend freedom with this kind of support that we lack. And then, when Mr. Price of Georgia lays out that the Defeatocrats in Congress are invested in defeat, the former gentleman from California rose up and squealed. And being the leading number one pork-producing district in America, I can tell you, when you throw a rock into the pigpen, the ones that squeal are the ones you hit.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding. I have listened to the opening of this debate, and I think sometimes we get a little bit confused about what it is about. But there is plenty of evidence out here and plenty of support out here that the polar bear population is not threatened. There is a healthy population of 25,000 worldwide, I think. And contrary to the gentleman's remarks about it being in America, it's globally, that population; and that it has been carefully studied, and that the permits that are issued generate funds for Native North Americans as well as funds to help sustain the polar bear population. I think what this debate is about, and I can't question, certainly, anybody motives, but I can tell you what I got here. I got an announcement that said: ``This recorded vote will be scored on the 2007 Humane Society scorecard.'' So I look at the information that I see, and much of it is source from that Web page, which I happened to have printed as well. But I think the debate is a broader debate than the debate of the welfare of the polar bear. I think this debate is about, and I am going to broaden this, ``the incremental implementation of global vegetarianism.'' That's the big picture. And the second picture is, ban sport hunting. And the third picture is, ban livestock production and feeding. And the fourth picture is, ban the consumption of meat. All that stuff fits within this big umbrella. This is one component of the much broader picture. But if you take it back down to the issue that was raised, and another one is using the canard of global warming being the issue, well, it actually works against you, gentlemen. If you're worried about global warming and if you're worried about the habitat for polar bears being diminished by global warming, then humane hunting would be the thing to do as the habitat diminishes to make sure they had a healthy habitat for them to roam on. That's not the case. It's a canard, not a reason. And it's not an environmental reason. It's a broader agenda, through which the environmental and global warming agenda fits. So this is sound science that holds this up on this side. And sports hunting is a good way to manage population. I would urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa

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

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, the amendment that I offer here today is an amendment that reaches out and directs $100 million to the National Parks Service for the purpose of putting up barriers on our border. This comes from one of my multiple trips down to the region where I sat and talked with a number of the park officers and visited the border parks that we have. And I can take you down through the pieces of this argument, but I think the centerpiece of it was addressed by Mr. Bishop of Utah, when he talked about one-third of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument being set aside off limits to American citizens, to American tourists because it has been so inundated by illegals and by drug smugglers and drug traffickers and litter that when I asked to go to that area, they said it's not safe, we don't have the personnel to take you. So it's essential that we protect these national treasures that we have, these national parks and national monuments. I want to reflect upon an example here, Madam Chair, and that is this poster that I have. This shows the entrance to the lesser long-nosed bat cave. It's one of four maternal bat caves in the United States. And this is an endangered species. This is a location where illegals used to go in and hole up. And their constant presence there drove the bats out. The 4,000 bats that lived here were driven to other places. They found $75,000 in their budget and volunteer labor and went to build and construct this barrier around the bat cave to keep the illegals out. The bats returned, thankfully. But we have other species, and we have this precious area. And if I can reflect back, Madam Chair, just upon my notes with a meeting with the director of one of our national parks on the border. First, he said we were concerned about disease, hoof and mouth disease, for example, as I am. But from 1978 to 1984, there wasn't much of a problem with illegal traffic. By 1989, activity had picked up. By 1999, 13 miles of fence were stolen. By the year 2002, ``everything went haywire.'' The numbers increased dramatically, 20 to 25 cars at any one time abandoned, litter all over the parks, 20,000 pounds of drugs recovered just on that refuge alone. And his question is not, what are you going to give me? But what can I cut in order to save these national parks? So I've made a recommendation on what to cut, Madam Chair, and it reaches out into three different areas to come up with $100 million so that we can protect these national parks along our border from this traffic. When it gets so bad that the litter is so bad that we won't let Americans drive by on the road and look, when it gets so bad that a Member of Congress can't get an escort with enough armed personnel to go down into one-third of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the location where Park Officer Chris Eggle was killed in the line of duty in order to intercept a drug smuggler across the border, I call upon this Congress, Madam Chair, to do something. And the director of this park said to me, a year or two or five ago, I would have said don't build a fence, don't build a wall, I don't want that mark across my monument. Today I say, that's what will preserve the rest of it. So I think that makes my strongest argument. We need to find the funds to protect our precious national resources. There should be not one square foot of a national park that an American citizen is off limits to because we can't protect it from infiltrators that come from across the border to smuggle drugs and commit crimes. So I would urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Is it the chairman's expectation that these types of projects will be added in conference with the Senate?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy. I raise the issue today of Storm Lake, Iowa. It happens to be one of the southerly most glacial lakes in the country, and it's the shallowest one that we have. It has been under a process of removal of that silt for water quality and for environmental reasons. We've done a great job of protecting the siltation in the entire watershed area. There's always ongoing work there, and it's never perfect. But this is a project that has been engaged in with local money, and that means private money, city money, county money, State money and Federal. It's a five-way partnership that has been working here, and we have 700,000 yards of silt to go. I direct my inquiry to Chairman Dicks. I requested funds to address this challenge through the EPA's EPM account. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that these projects have not been earmarked at this time for that particular account. Would that be a correct assumption?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the chairman's recommendation and will happily follow through on that recommendation. I thank your staff as well. Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for his attention to this matter and Ranking Member Tiahrt as well and look forward to those discussions as we move forward to conference.

Mr. KING of Iowa

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I take us to this path where we are, and I haven't heard the response to the issue of the constitutional constraints that we all have. I have traveled foreign and I have sat in there in diplomatic discussions and debates and I have heard us get off track. I have heard us put our national security at risk, because sometimes the people that were there on the codel weren't tuned in with the administration's policy. I have not seen us take us to the crisis moment, but I have seen the precipice of the crisis moment. But our founders understood this clearly and that is why they laid that responsibility in the hands of the President of the United States to conduct our foreign policy. That is why he appoints the Ambassadors. That is why he negotiates the treaties. That is why 200 years of tradition and history and constitutional law takes us down this path. And if we can ignore our oath to the Constitution, then on top of that, how can we ignore the Logan Act, which is the only controlling Federal statute that we have? The Logan Act says no citizen of the United States shall take foreign policy into their own hands. Our Speaker clearly traveled to a terrorist-sponsored state against the express wishes of the President of the United States.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we may not have the same view on how to proceed in Iraq, but it is my intention to foreclose any permanent bases in Iraq and allow those that are under agreement now and perhaps temporary ones that might be negotiated to get us through this process. I think that is the intent on both sides of the aisle. I think that is the intent of the White House. So I believe we are consistent in our understanding.

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

Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is a fairly simple amendment. It goes into the section and limits the funds for travel by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. And it simply says none of the funds may be used to support travel by the Speaker to the nations specifically of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria. And the reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that there are two constraints on the Speaker of the House. One of them is a constitutional constraint that vests the authority of foreign policy into the President of the United States. And that's clear. And that's established in the Constitution and codified by our founders specifically so there wouldn't be a division of messages, that we would speak with one voice on foreign policy. And when they had problems with that even after the ratification of the Constitution, then they passed the Logan Act, which has been in law for over 200 years. And the Logan Act prohibits anyone representing the United States, without the authority of the administration, to conduct foreign policy. And it's clear that's what happened in Syria, and it was reported in newspapers all over this country in April. And so this legislation, this appropriation, without my amendment, would allow taxpayers' dollars to support what I believe is unconstitutional behavior and statutory violations. I urge support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring to the floor of the House under limitation on bases in Iraq is an amendment that addresses the subject matter that we have debated on the floor at least twice before that I recall. And I believe there is a consensus here in this Congress, and certainly there has been a message that has been put forth by the President, that we are not interested in permanent bases in Iraq but we do have bases there and we do have temporary basing agreements. So as I read through this appropriations bill and it says that ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq,'' that language clearly forbids any agreements, however temporary they might be. And so the amendment that I bring to the floor simply adds the word ``permanent'' to that language. So that now, if the amendment is adopted, it will read that none of the funds may be used to enter into a ``permanent'' basing rights agreement. I think it is a matter of language and semantics here but a matter of clarity, too. And I would point out that in our last debate in the 2007 DOD approps, Mr. Murtha made the statement, what we are saying with this bill is that at this point in time there shouldn't be any permanent bases in Iraq. What I have done is offer an amendment that simply says there won't be any of the funds used to promote permanent bases in Iraq out of this Foreign Ops bill.