[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 32263-32270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                        IOWA PRESIDENTIAL CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the privilege 
to be recognized and address you here on the floor of the United States 
House of Representatives. Each time I come to the floor to address you 
and speak into the Record, I am very well aware that there are people 
in my district, Iowans and Americans, who are tuned in for one reason 
or another, who are shaping their ideas and their values as they listen 
to us here in the people's House, this great deliberative and this 
great debate body which has 435 Members, representing 300 million of 
us, each of us representing roughly 660,000 constituents. We are called 
upon by the Constitution and the rights that are passed from God 
through the Declaration and the Constitution, we are called upon to 
step up to those responsibilities. We are elected to represent the 
people in our districts with the priorities of what is good for 
America. First God, then country, then State, and then district.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, there are Members of this body who view their 
job as simply reflecting the political will of their constituents. In 
other words, take a poll, wet the finger, see which way the wind is 
blowing, put down a vote, and determine that your longevity here in 
this Congress somehow puts together this vast mosaic which turns out to 
be a beautiful painting. I, Mr. Speaker, do not believe that.

[[Page 32264]]

  I believe we are charged with the responsibility of leadership. We 
are elected for our judgment. We owe our best effort and best judgment 
to our constituents, and part of that best effort and best judgment is 
to listen to them and receive their input, but exchange the information 
that we gather here and across the country.
  We are full-time paying attention to the issues that affect this 
Nation. We have access to more information than most of our 
constituents do. We have a responsibility to process that information, 
give our opinion back to our constituents, exchange our ideas and reach 
a conclusion on how best to conduct ourselves on our public statements 
which affect public policy, on our votes and on our activities, on the 
bills that we sponsor and cosponsor and author, and the positions that 
we take in committee and here on the floor. All of that comes with a 
great profound responsibility of serving people here in the United 
States Congress.
  I came here this evening to address one of those profound 
responsibilities, and maybe a little bit outside of the realm of an 
official duty of a Member of Congress, but certainly implied within our 
duty and responsibility, and that is that all of us in this Chamber are 
involved in a constant conversation with each other, with our 
constituents, with our associates, with the press, on how we select the 
next leader in the free world because, Mr. Speaker, the nomination 
process here in America will determine generally two nominees, one 
Democrat and one Republican, and perhaps an Independent, that will be 
on the ballot in November. One of them will be the next leader of the 
free world. One of them will be the Commander in Chief of the Armed 
Services of the only unchallenged superpower on the globe, and with 
that comes a series of profound responsibilities.
  So how then do we in these positions of leadership, how do we take 
this job, and I am going to say seriously, to make this evaluation? How 
do we come to the conclusion on whom we support and might consider 
endorsing for President of the United States?
  I, Mr. Speaker, have the great privilege to represent a district in 
Iowa, one of five Congressional districts, where we are the first in 
the Nation contest. Iowans will, in the caucus on January 3, make the 
first recommendation to the rest of the Nation and the individuals that 
Iowans believe would make the next President of the United States, both 
Democrats and Republicans.
  We have had that responsibility of the first in the Nation caucus for 
several decades now. I believe it was Jimmy Carter that first 
identified the leverage and the opportunity to come to Iowa in the 
first in the nation caucus and engage in that process and emerge 
victorious and go on to New Hampshire and South Carolina and beyond and 
be successful in the process of nomination and be successful in the 
process of being elected as President.
  Jimmy Carter identified that opportunity in Iowa, and since that time 
we have had Presidential candidates constantly in Iowa over the last 
year and a half in particular. But this process is an open process 
whereby it is the first time in my memory that both the Democrats and 
the Republicans neither has an incumbent President that will be up for 
renomination for a second term or a Vice President who might have been 
picked or anointed by a sitting President. It is wide open. It is wide 
open for Democrats and Republicans. We have known that for 3 years, 
perhaps, maybe a little more than 3 years.
  So we have seen candidates come through Iowa, and I am sure the 
people in New Hampshire have as well, and the South Carolinians as 
well, and this has been going on for a year and a half. Now it is 
coming down to the crunch time. Iowans will be making their decision on 
whom they will support in the caucus within the next 30 days, 29 days, 
perhaps.
  There are a lot of Iowans who have not yet made up their mind. I am 
here to say I understand why. The January 3 contest will bring 100,000 
Republicans out who will go to homes across the State. Some will be 
sitting in living rooms and gymnasiums where they pull the caucus 
together for an entire county. Some will go to schools or other public 
buildings, but many will go to the homes. They will go to the homes of 
Iowans and sit in the living room. Sometimes they will not all fit in 
one room and they will flow into other rooms, but they will go through 
the process, Republicans and Democrats, declaring themselves. Democrats 
openly declare themselves for Presidential candidate. Republicans put 
up a vote on a piece of paper, and they can maybe vote for a 
Presidential candidate in a caucus and not be identified as a supporter 
for a particular candidate. Generally, we listen to each other speak 
with such focus we know how people vote whether it is a secret vote or 
whether it is the way it is in a small neighborhood contest.
  But before I get into that, I want to get into how important it is 
that we have a process of nomination that includes a contest like an 
Iowa caucus, an opportunity for individuals, to caucus-goers, 
registered voters, and they will all be registered voters who have a 
voice in our caucuses, regular people, heartland people, regular 
Americans from all walks of life, it is so important we have a process 
that allows the supporters of the candidates to get to know the 
Presidential candidates.
  We are in this modern cyber era where information goes with the click 
of a mouse and you can transfer capital around the world in a 
nanosecond. In that period of time, we can also transmit visual images 
and radio commercials and print text in the blogosphere. Anyone who has 
an e-mail distribution list can listen to a Presidential candidate in a 
living room in Davenport, Iowa, write that little quote down and pump 
it into their BlackBerry and send it off to 10,000 people on their e-
mail distribution list. We have those kinds of folks who do that.
  These Presidential candidates are being evaluated day by day, hour by 
hour, minute by minute, by people who take their privilege to weigh in 
on this nomination process very seriously.
  We have developed over the generations astute people who are engaged 
in politics. But I don't want to say that Iowans are the only ones that 
have that ability because we don't. Obviously that ability exists in 
every State in significant numbers. But I do want to say that if no 
State has a first in the Nation caucus process, if every State, for 
example, if we went to Super Tuesday on the 5th of February, if 
everybody held the primary contest at the same time, the polls opened 
at 7 in the morning and closed at 9 at night, we would all go in as a 
Nation, 300 million of us, those who voted in the primary, and we cast 
a ballot for our selection for nominee, if we did that, we would 
nominate the Democrat candidate and the Republican candidate who had 
the deepest pockets, most ability to raise money and the most ability 
to buy ads and put their chosen persona out before the American people 
to convince them that on Super Tuesday, February 5, they should go to 
the polls and vote for them. Not a personal contest, but a media image, 
money raising contest is what we would have. We will have that media 
image, money raising contest on Super Tuesday on February 5 and those 
dates beyond that other States have their primaries, and some have a 
caucus or convention.
  But this first in the Nation caucus is different. You simply cannot 
earn votes by running media. You simply can't run television ads and 
radio ads and print and mailer and do robocalls and be able to get 
people to be inspired to get up on a cold January night and go on out 
into their neighborhood's living room or the school gymnasium and 
declare for a candidate for President. It takes more than that.
  If people are going to invest hours of their time, because it isn't 
just write the name of a Presidential candidate on a piece of paper and 
turn it in. It also includes the initial offering of the planks for the 
State party platform and the election of precinct captains and the 
election of the delegates that go to the county conventions. These 
nights are full of political debate and exchange of ideas.
  There are people who will go to the caucuses who have not made up 
their

[[Page 32265]]

mind who they will support for President, but they will listen to the 
speeches, whether Republicans or Democrats.
  So what is this caucus process and why is it unique? It is unique 
because it requires organization. It requires the candidate to build an 
organization within the State, to identify workers within the counties 
and people that will go forth and profess the validity of their 
candidate as the best President that we could ask for in this era as 
President of the United States.
  This statewide conversation that goes on continually is a 
conversation one on one, person to person. It goes on in the coffee 
shop and it goes on in schools and churches and over talk radio 
constantly. It goes on over the telephone lines from neighbor to 
neighbor and business conversation to business conversation. People 
seeking to influence others to support their candidate and others that 
are ambivalent, and some that will lay out the principles that they 
require a candidate to stand for, but may not be behind the personality 
of the individuals.
  And there are components of this statewide conversation that have to 
do with anecdotes about each of the Presidential candidates, how they 
conducted themselves in private. Maybe they went to a barbecue 
someplace in Iowa County and when nobody was looking, they got up and 
cleaned off the table and helped out. Or maybe they got mad at a staff 
aide and cut loose and yelled at them behind the curtain and the stage 
when they thought nobody was listening. And maybe they walked off with 
some young kids when intense conversations were going on about policy 
and sat down over by the lake and had a conversation about God and 
country with young impressionable children that won't be voting for 
that candidate. They might be leaders of this country at a future time. 
They might have invested in young people instead of likely caucus-
goers.
  All of these little anecdotes get added up and transferred along and 
retold, and they become part of the personality, part of the evaluation 
of each of the Presidential candidates.
  This is a statewide conversation through e-mail, by telephone, in 
print media, word of mouth, things that are said and unsaid. Most good, 
some negative. But in the end, Iowans will come to a measure of a 
consensus and they will support different candidates, obviously. But 
they will make a recommendation. Some candidates will be weeded out and 
some candidates will be advanced. But there will be two tickets punched 
in New Hampshire, no more than three, maybe only one.

                              {time}  1945

  But to win the Iowa caucus says you have met the standards. You have 
held up under the bright light of public scrutiny and you have done 
that for more than a year, and you have not been found wanting in your 
character or your policy. Your faith will be measured. Your work ethic 
will be measured. The tempo of your work, the people who are gathered 
around as paid staff and volunteers, all of them become part of a team, 
and the personalities of each of those players makes a difference in 
the evaluations process. If we do not have such a process, then again 
it becomes just a media campaign, just a media contest.
  I would take you back, Mr. Speaker, to reflect upon the 2004 caucus 
when, at this stage before the caucus, a month before the caucus, the 
national news media had Howard Dean as the nominee for President for 
the Democrat Party, because Howard Dean had built an organization, he 
had raised a ton of money, he had an Internet presence there that was 
unique and hadn't been matched at the time. The polls were showing that 
Howard Dean was way ahead and that his next closest competitor was not 
likely to be able to overcome him or overtake him. And yet 3 weeks 
before the caucus, at least 2 weeks, in that period of time, 2 to 3 
weeks before the caucus, we knew that Howard Dean was not going to win 
the Iowa caucus. He might have won the nomination elsewhere, but we 
knew he wasn't going to win the Iowa caucus. We could tell on the 
streets of Iowa. People were starting to walk away from and back away 
from Howard Dean.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't come here to speak ill of the individual. He set 
a new standard and certainly made a name for himself in the State and 
across America. And many, many Iowans had the opportunity to meet 
Howard Dean. But I think that the conclusion that they drew and the 
reason that they didn't show up in the Democrat caucus where you have 
to stand up and say, I'm for Howard Dean, all of us that are for him, 
come gather around here, we'll count our bodies and that will be the 
number of people that showed up to support him. If there is an 
insufficient number, then we won't be able to report support for Howard 
from this caucus. That's the system and the rules that they have. And, 
truthfully, they did not show up to support Howard Dean. That was not 
because of the scream. The scream was a result of folks not showing up 
to support him, Mr. Speaker. I believe that Iowans came to the 
conclusion that Howard Dean, of all the things he had to offer, did not 
have the temperament to be President of the United States. I think that 
was the bottom line conclusion. And as Iowans walked away from Howard 
Dean, John Kerry then won Iowa and went on to win the nomination. His 
prospects were pretty dim at this point and 4 years ago, but we know 
how history launched John Kerry forward and how Howard Dean went 
forward to let out the scream that was the scream of frustration that, 
of all the good things he had done as he was on the inside track and he 
was turning on towards victory and it collapsed, because in the end 
we're making a measurement on real people, evaluating their work ethic, 
their faith, their character, their personalities, how they interact 
with people. That's something that only happens there and only happens 
in Iowa. It happens, I think, in New Hampshire also to some degree, but 
it is a different process. It is a primary process, not a caucus 
process. So it changes the dynamic in New Hampshire. And then beyond it 
becomes more and more of a media and less and less of an organizational 
effort.
  But to have this unique process, this first-in-the-Nation caucus 
process so that Presidential candidates are meeting people face-to-
face, eye-to-eye. Some might call it a relic of the old days, but I 
will tell you that I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the foundation of 
one of the great things about America that those of us who have the 
privilege to represent the people, whether it is in the White House or 
in the Congress or in the statehouse or through our courthouses or city 
hall, we face the people, we answer their questions, we let them 
evaluate the things we believe in and we let them evaluate our work 
ethic and our value system, and then they make the decision. It is up 
to the people.
  So I am a great fan of this caucus process. I will do all I can to 
protect and preserve it, because I do not want to see an America that 
is simply a paid media nomination and a paid media campaign that 
insulates Presidential candidates from the people and perhaps launches 
somebody off to be President who might not meet that test if they had 
to look you or me in the eye. That is what the caucus does.
  On the Republican side of this in the Iowa caucus, Mr. Speaker, we 
are evaluating a lot of different components, and we have watched the 
polls sort some of this through. We have some very good people there 
that stand solid on the issues. Some people with whom I stand alongside 
on the floor of the House of Representatives, if I put down a wish list 
of the Presidential candidates, where they stand on each of the issues 
and a little box to check, we have some people from this House running 
for President to check all my boxes. They check every piece that I 
would want to have in a Presidential candidate. And partly due to the 
media and partly due to the selection process, some of them don't have 
a lot of traction right now, and it's too bad. They deserve more of our 
respect. And some of them have stepped forward with a solid agenda on 
the issues.
  I want to at this point, Mr. Speaker, compliment my friend Tom 
Tancredo for making immigration the issue of

[[Page 32266]]

the day. When I first met him, I already knew him, I thought, because 
of the hours that he had spent on this floor speaking into this 
microphone, Mr. Speaker, about the importance of border control, about 
the importance of preserving our national sovereignty by controlling 
our borders and who comes in the United States and who does not, 
protecting the security of the American people from the terrorists from 
without. Tom Tancredo has done that job to the extent where, in the 
debate the other night, they spent 30 minutes or more, all of the 
Presidential candidates, debating on who would be the toughest on 
immigration and who would be the most like Tom Tancredo. I call that a 
victory for Tom Tancredo.
  I think he has implanted the issue that burns the most passionately 
within him, the immigration reform, border control, workplace 
enforcement, ending anchor babies, the automatic citizenship that comes 
with babies of illegal immigrants who are born here on American soil. 
All of those components that he has worked so hard for all of these 
years, many of which I stood on this very floor and debated with him 
and supported with him, and he has come forward to support me on the 
agenda that I brought forward. I want to compliment Tom Tancredo, 
because they all were there, standing there seeking to out-Tom 
Tancredo, Tom Tancredo. And to some extent that is what happens in a 
Presidential campaign when the issue that is the most important to you 
is adopted by the rest of the candidates.
  Now, it doesn't mean they didn't have some opinions on it. It doesn't 
mean that immigration wasn't important to them. But what I have seen 
happen is that they understood that Tom Tancredo was right, and they 
wanted to make sure that they had a plank in their platform that 
reflected the view that he brings to the immigration issue, and 
generally it is a no amnesty pledge.
  I believe all the Presidential candidates have taken the pledge to be 
opposed to amnesty. Mr. Speaker, amnesty is and it needs to be defined, 
and I have done so here many times, to grant amnesty is to pardon 
immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their 
crimes.
  The reason that definition is that way is because those who come into 
the United States across the border illegally are criminals. They are 
guilty of the criminal misdemeanor of illegal entry into the United 
States. And those who overstay their visas are unlawfully present here 
in the United States, and they are generally guilty of a civil 
misdemeanor of overstaying their visa. But most of them, and I will say 
those who are unlawfully present and many of those who are lawfully 
present and it is not lawful for them to work here, still falsify 
documents, still present themselves to be somebody they are not in 
order to get a job, in order to do some type of business here to gain 
the benefits of this society. Most of those who cross the border are 
criminals because they violated a criminal misdemeanor, and most of 
those who overstayed their visas have also violated or committed some 
crime, generally document fraud, identity fraud in order to achieve 
access to our benefits or jobs here in the United States.
  So this is a group of people who stood up and said they do not 
deserve amnesty. We do not want to reward immigration lawbreakers. So 
whether they jumped the border illegally or overstayed their visa, they 
are lawbreakers. And they should not be rewarded, because if we do, we 
will get more of them, not less. And to grant a pardon to immigration 
lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. What was 
their objective? Well, to be in the United States for one thing, 
obviously, because that is the definition of what they have done is 
found themselves unlawfully present in the United States. So if that is 
their objective to be in the United States, if we grant them an amnesty 
that lets them stay in the United States, that's amnesty. We have 
rewarded them with the objective of their crimes. Or, if they are here 
and they are working here unlawfully and we jigger the books so that we 
give them an opportunity to continue working here but we legalize it, 
we have granted them amnesty because we pardoned them for their crime 
and we give them their objective, which is a job. Or, if they just want 
to live here and utilize the social benefits of this great welfare 
state that we have, that also could be the objective of their crime. 
Or, if we let them stay here in the United States and they actually are 
part of that smaller percentage who do have ill will towards Americans 
or who are criminals or those who do smuggle drugs, those who are part 
of the criminal element, if they would be allowed to stay here as well, 
we don't know who the criminals are and who aren't. And the idea that 
if we would just legalize them, they would all come forward, good guys 
and bad, and they all sign up and we give them a United States 
identification document, and then we would know where they are and what 
they are doing is just a false premise, Mr. Speaker.
  The standard is Presidential candidates on the Republican side need 
to oppose amnesty. Presidential candidates on the Democrat side, I 
think we know, they have been fairly consistently for amnesty if I read 
their statements correctly, and I believe I do. If I am incorrect on 
that, I would hope that one or all of the Democrats would step forward 
and sign off on the ``no amnesty'' pledge. I am happy to put the 
amnesty definition in print. And, if you are listening, to grant 
amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the 
objective of their crimes.
  Well, Presidential candidates on the Republican side have all sworn 
off on amnesty. We just don't agree quite on what amnesty is all the 
way down the line. And that brings me some concern.
  But that is one of the foundational issues that has been debated 
here, and I wanted to in the Record thank Tom Tancredo for making sure 
that it is part of this dialogue in the presidential race on the 
Republican and on the Democrat side of the aisle. And, Tom, you have 
won this debate. Now we have to figure out how to implement the policy, 
but you have won this debate.
  So that is the definition of amnesty. That is what has taken place 
here and across Iowa and New Hampshire and down into South Carolina and 
beyond.
  I want to point out also that this Presidential contest does start in 
Iowa January 3, the first-in-the-Nation caucus then. Immediately, 
within a couple of days, on the 5th of January, it goes to a convention 
in Wyoming. And I am glad for them being involved early in the process. 
It's not very much focused on what happens in Wyoming, but shortly 
after that the following Tuesday, January 8, just 5 days after the Iowa 
caucus, is the New Hampshire primary. And we all know that is the 
first-in-the-Nation primary, and it is significant not so much in the 
numbers of delegates that will be achieved there but in the message 
that it sends to the rest of the country. From the 8th of January until 
7 days later on the 15th of January, that is when the primary is in 
Michigan, and then on the 19th we have the primary in South Carolina 
which will take us to the fifth process. And in Nevada on the same day 
there is a caucus.
  And so the early five contests that we have, Iowa on the 3rd of 
January, Wyoming on the 5th, New Hampshire on the 8th, Michigan on the 
15th, and Nevada and South Carolina on the 19th of January, those early 
races, six States actually, but the major contests will be Iowa, New 
Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina. Those will set the stage for the 
Florida, Alabama, Alaska primary on the 29th.
  As this moves forward, the momentum that comes from a victory in Iowa 
transcends, at least launches a candidate on the road to New Hampshire, 
asks the people in New Hampshire: Take another look. If you were 
looking at this a different way, take another look and see. There was a 
reason Iowans made the decision that they did. Do you agree with them 
or do you not agree with them? And I don't want to stir up any 
contrarian attitude on the part of the New Hampshirites. I have great 
relationships with the people and I would love to be up there with

[[Page 32267]]

your primary. I really would. But this process; it is a process of 
momentum, it is a process of selection. And as Iowans measure the 
character of the Presidential candidates and as they go to the caucus 
on the night of the 3rd of January, that message will be heard around 
the country and around the world. And those who have not then made a 
decision on who they support will be taking another look. Some who have 
made a decision might be reassessing.
  So I would ask this. Let's evaluate their character, their work 
ethic, their personalities, how they handle themselves in a time of 
stress or a time of relaxation. Let's do that. But I like to look at 
this as a matter of principle, and I would ask that these Presidential 
candidates be those who carry with them the convictions on a series of 
issues that I think are important to the future of America. And this, 
Mr. Speaker, is the point for which I come to this floor.
  The issues that I believe this Nation's future pivots on, the most 
important issues, among them are life, marriage, the war on terror, 
illegal immigration, tax reform, second amendment, health care, and 
national sovereignty.
  Of that list of issues that I have laid out here, Mr. Speaker, I will 
start with life, and that is innocent unborn human life. In particular, 
life from its natural beginnings, which is from fertilization/
conception until natural death. The human life is sacred in all of its 
forms. It begins and ends as I have described. Do the Presidential 
candidates understand that and believe that? Or, I would ask them if 
they did not, then to them I would say, when did your life begin?

                              {time}  2000

  Mine began at conception. When did your life begin?
  Madam Speaker, I believe that every American that's going to have an 
opinion on policy needs to ask themselves that very question. When did 
your life begin? Mine, I believe, began at that moment of conception. I 
believe that's when I was blessed with a soul, and I have a destiny 
like all of us, and we're all created in God's image and we have a 
duty. And from whom much is given, much is required. And so the issue 
of life is an essential component, and I will say the most important 
issue in this race or any race because that tells us the quality and 
the character and the integrity and the faith, the core faith of the 
Presidential candidates, how they view this subject.
  The second issue is marriage. And Madam Speaker, marriage is an 
institution that I believe is a sacrament. It's a blessing that's given 
to us from God. Adam and Eve were joined together before original sin. 
Marriage is as old as man and woman itself. It's a blessing too that 
came from God, and marriage has survived original sin and marriage has 
survived the great flood, and marriage has been with us for thousands 
of years, and it's been defined as the same thing throughout, a man and 
a woman joined together in holy matrimony. That's marriage, according 
to our faith. It's marriage according to our civil law in this country. 
It's marriage according to the Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal 
level. It's marriage according to the Defense of Marriage acts in all 
States except Massachusetts, if I have that chart correct, and it's 
between a man and a woman. And it's protected in the Constitutions of 
27 States in America. We don't have a difficulty understanding what 
marriage is. It's between a man and a woman. And yet we have activists 
in the country that are using our courts to try to redefine marriage.
  I would submit that if you believe differently than me, come to this 
Congress and make your case. If you believe differently than the law, 
different than the 27 Constitutions in America, different than the 
Defense Marriage Act here in the Federal statute, then take your case 
to the States and make your argument there and lobby for the 
representatives and the State senators to redefine marriage if that is 
your wish, if that is your will, if that is your conviction. That is 
how it's done in this country. But when we hand over decisions to the 
courts when we know that we don't have the support of the people, then 
the people who hire the attorneys to take these suits to the courts are 
asking for an activist judge that will overturn the will of the people, 
will overturn the Constitution and overturn the State law or the 
Federal law, as the case may be, that's when we get strife, that's when 
we get stress in this country. That's when we get domestic conflict in 
America is when the judges make the laws. But when the people's voice 
is heard, we accept that as the will of the people and we move on.
  If you believe differently than me, I believe marriage is between a 
man and a woman. I believe Iowa must pass a constitutional amendment 
now to fix a wrong that was committed, I believe, by an activist judge. 
I think we have to do that to preserve this oldest institution between 
people, this institution of marriage that goes back to the Garden of 
Eden and Adam and Eve, before original sin and before the great flood, 
and has survived all of that time. And now, here in this era, I am to 
believe that we're enlightened and we can look at this differently, 
that all of human experience, all of human history, and the 
Constitution and the law and our faith can all be set aside because we 
have modern-day people who want something different. And they would 
upset all of that for what? For their wish, for their will, when there 
are provisions that can be made within current law to make sure that 
people have the things in life that are necessary to respect their 
rights.
  So life is essential. And it's a human life. Marriage is essential 
for a Presidential candidate to understand and to defend it because the 
President sets the moral standard for America, and the words that are 
uttered by a President either raise the standards or lower the 
standards. They shift the focus. And that's why marriage is so 
important that we have Presidential candidates that understand this.
  The next issue that I mentioned is the war on terror. And we know 
that here in this city we were attacked on September 11, 2001. We've 
been conducting this global war on terror since that time, and 
particularly with operations within Iraq and Afghanistan. And who would 
have dreamed that on that day, September 11, we didn't think we'd get 
through the afternoon without being attacked again, let alone all of 
these 6 years and 3 months since that period of time. No one would have 
believed that this Nation would have been without a terrorist attack on 
its soil, a significant terrorist attack on this soil, at least a 
successful one. But that has been the case because this President has 
carried this issue to the enemy. The global war against these 
terrorists must be pursued. We cannot cut and run. We cannot decide to 
pull our troops back to the horizon. We can't wake up tomorrow morning 
and decide the horizon is Okinawa. We have a responsibility to defend 
this country in this global war on terror. And I believe, Madam 
Speaker, that at least the Republican candidates and probably the 
Democrat candidates will defend this Nation in this global war on 
terror, some more aggressively, some with more insight, some with a 
vision towards a final victory, some reluctantly because they don't 
really believe that this is a war that we're fighting. Some kind of 
think on the other side that we just need to understand why they hate 
us and maybe we can take away the reasons for the hate. But we have to 
fight this war on terror, and our Republican candidates all will, to 
one degree or another, a little bit of difference in methodology, but 
they'll fight this war on terror.
  I mentioned the illegal immigration and how important that is. It 
changes our destiny, Madam Speaker.
  And then the next component of this is tax reform. Now, there are 
people here in this Congress that believe that through money 
management, through tax management, regulation management, access to 
tax revenue and handing that money out, that we can engineer this 
entire society, that we can socially engineer in America with a tax 
policy, that if we just set our tax structure right, we can grow the 
businesses that need to grow and shrink the businesses we'd like to 
shrink and reward

[[Page 32268]]

the people that need to be rewarded and punish the people that need to 
be punished. Some people think that through tax policy you can do all 
of those things. I am not among them, Madam Speaker. I believe that tax 
policy should be for the purposes of raising revenue, for the 
legitimate functions of government, for the constitutionally legitimate 
function of government and nothing else; that we should not have a 
thought about if we reward this behavior and punish this behavior with 
our tax structure, that will maneuver this country into a direction 
that we like better.
  We should have a tax structure that's fair, that makes everyone a 
taxpayer, that rewards earning, savings and investment and work and 
sweat equity. We need to have a kind of a tax policy that takes the tax 
off of all productivity in America and puts it on consumption. If we do 
that, and I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the Federal 
Government has the first lien on all productivity in America. If you're 
going to produce in this country, if you punch the time clock at 8:00 
on Monday morning, or if you go collect the interest on your passbook 
savings account, or if you sell the farm and you take the capital gains 
and you roll it over and you invest it into a factory with a production 
line and higher workers, wherever there's production, wherever there is 
a return on an investment, the Federal Government has the first lien. 
And Ronald Reagan said what we tax, we get less of. And so we hear with 
our tax policy, tax everything that produces and nothing that consumes. 
Well, little of what is consumed. And tax reform is a big issue. It's 
important. And I'll get back to that perhaps a little bit later, Madam 
Speaker.
  One of the other issues that I mentioned that we want to make sure we 
can evaluate Presidential candidates in is the second amendment. Our 
gun rights, and if we look back in our Constitution under the second 
amendment, clearly, that we are guaranteed an individual right to keep 
and own firearms. A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free 
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed. That's the second amendment, Madam Speaker.
  There's a case before the United States Supreme Court that will come 
up perhaps in March of next year, and we will get the first decision of 
the Supreme Court on that question, I believe, in 70 years. But we need 
a President that will defend that right to keep and bear arms.
  And I would remind the body, Madam Speaker, that the right to keep 
and bear arms is not a right for self-defense specifically. It wasn't 
written for that reason. It isn't necessarily a right to go out and 
target shoot or to hunt. Those things that I've mentioned, self-
defense, hunting, target shooting, collecting firearms, all of those 
things are fringe benefits to the real reason for the second amendment. 
The real reason we have a right to keep and bear arms is because our 
forefathers feared tyranny, and they understood that a well-armed 
populace would not capitulate to a military state, that a dictator 
could not emerge and herd the people like sheep at the point of a 
bayonet if the people themselves had guns. That's the philosophy that's 
behind the second amendment. And you'll notice in the last 200-and-some 
years, we haven't had a single tyrant emerge as a leader here in 
America. Some would disagree with me, but I'm sure that they're wrong 
in any analysis. And one of those reasons is because of the restraint 
that's in place because the people in America hold guns within their 
possessions, within their homes. And that is a silent deterrent against 
the emergence of tyranny. And while that's going on, we're deterring 
tyranny, and we're protecting our homes and we get to enjoy target 
shooting and hunting and collecting.
  And by the way, if you go over to the Smithsonian, Madam Speaker, you 
can walk through the collection of firearms that are there and track 
the history of America, as the history of America is written within the 
firearms that have defended the balance of our freedoms, and without 
that defense, the ability to defend our freedoms, none of the rest of 
this holds together. So the second amendment becomes an essential 
evaluation and how it's defended by a Presidential candidate.
  And health care is an issue that we are constantly churning and it 
will be an issue in the next Presidential race. It is today in the 
caucus and in the primary, both among Democrats and Republicans, how 
would these Presidential candidates deal with health care. And it is 
\1/7\ of our economy that is consumed in health care, Madam Speaker. 
That's a significant percentage. And I'll come back to that perhaps in 
a moment.
  But I wanted to mention the last issue, which is our national 
sovereignty. And this national sovereignty issue is one that we give 
away if we don't control our borders. If we simply have 2,000 miles on 
the southern border and 4,000 miles on the northern border and open 
seashores on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and people that want to 
come to America come, and those that want to go certainly are always 
free to leave, Madam Speaker, that is no sign of sovereignty. No nation 
that doesn't protect its borders will long be a nation. And if we do 
not protect our borders, if people flow back and forth at will, if they 
carry goods and contraband back and forth across the border at will, we 
are no longer a sovereign nation. We're just a location where people do 
business and trade, whether it's legitimate or illegitimate. This 
national sovereignty has an essential component, and it must be part of 
our decision-making process as we evaluate the Presidential candidates.
  And so, Madam Speaker, as we come to this, I began to ask these 
questions. How do I sort these issues? And what stands out as the 
essential components of this decision-making process? And I'll read 
through this list again. Life, marriage, the war on terror, illegal 
immigration, tax reform, the second amendment, health care, protecting 
our national sovereignty. How do these top Presidential candidates on 
the Republican side, how do they shake out when I evaluate where they 
stand on these issues and what are the most important?
  Well, as I look across this list, and having served in this Congress 
now for 5 years, I come to the conclusion that the next President, 
whether he's a Democrat or Republican, will defend access to health 
care in America. I don't think that there are any Americans that are in 
danger of losing their access to health care under any policy that's 
advocated by a Republican or a Democrat. It might come in a different 
form from the Democrat side of the aisle. It would be universal 
socialized medicine. That's clearly in the debate platform and there's 
no one over there that disagrees. They're all talking about how they 
would provide socialized medicine, not whether.

                              {time}  2015

  That's not a disagreement. On the Republican side, there is 
discussion about this, and I don't know Republican candidates that 
support socialized medicine. Some have varying degrees on how they 
would approach this, but all would ensure that all Americans have 
access to health care.
  So I don't think health care becomes the deciding issue by which I 
should throw my support behind an individual Presidential candidate. 
It's important. We'll debate it, we'll protect it, we'll preserve it, 
and hopefully we'll make it better. And I bring some ideas to this 
Congress that I hope can get implemented, along with many of my 
colleagues. I had a meeting this morning, as a matter of fact. So I 
will set health care off on the side and I will say it's not in 
jeopardy. I think that all Presidential candidates will preserve and 
protect access to health care.
  Then I look at the war on terror and also come to the same conclusion 
that, on the Republican side at least, all Presidential candidates will 
continue to conduct this war on terror. We understand who our enemy is 
far better today than we did 6 years and 3 months ago and we will 
understand our enemy better a year from now. And the next President of 
the United States will understand this enemy better than we did 4 years 
ago, and certainly 8 years ago.

[[Page 32269]]

  But I believe that this Congress supports this global war on terror. 
It's a battle. You brought 40 resolutions against us, but the American 
people are going to continue to defeat this enemy that is seeking to 
kill us. I believe the next Republican will do the same. And I think 
it's a matter of debate and degrees; whether Rudy Giuliani would have 
the most insight and be the most aggressive or whether John McCain 
would have the most insight and be the most aggressive. There are 
strong convictions on the part of Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Mike 
Huckabee, would all stand up to this foe, would all work to defeat our 
enemies, would all narrow the laser beam down on Osama bin Laden and on 
al Qaeda. And I think all would work to promote our American values 
overseas so that the people over there understand that we want to help 
them rid themselves of the habitat that breeds that kind of terror. I 
think that happens.
  So I think I can put health care over on the side and say it's not at 
risk in this nomination. Americans are going to be okay. We can debate 
this in Congress on how we want to move forward with it, but let's set 
it off on the side because we're going to be all right with it. Let's 
set the global war on terror off on the side because I believe that all 
Presidential candidates will fight that.
  And as I take these issues on down then, the second amendment is 
another one. It's important. It's essential. We need to protect our 
right to keep and bear arms, and yet this Congress will protect our 
second amendment rights. The courts, I believe we will discover in 
March, or if the decision comes down the following June, that they will 
have protected our second amendment rights and written for a long time 
a definitive word on the meaning and the understanding of the second 
amendment to be consistent with our historical readings and 
understanding and the text of the Constitution. I think that happens. 
And I think, even with an unfriendly President on the second amendment, 
I think that this Congress in the end protects our second amendment 
rights. So as much as I believe in the second amendment, I think I can 
set that over on this side with the war on terror and with health care, 
those three in that category, that we can protect and defend this 
another way.
  But what does it take a President to do? What will the next President 
do that will turn the destiny of the United States the most profoundly 
for the good, or miss that opportunity by taking a wrong turn and never 
being able to get back to the interstate again? And I believe the next 
President will make probably two appointments to the Supreme Court, 
maybe more, and these will be significant appointments to the Court.
  I think it's imperative that we elect a President who understands 
that the nominees to the Supreme Court must be originalists, they must 
be textualists, they must be the kind of jurists who read the 
Constitution and understand that the Constitution means what it says, 
means the text that's in the Constitution. They must be the kind of 
judiciary that look at the Constitution and understand that we need to 
evaluate it within the original understanding of the Constitution 
because, without that, without originalism, without textualists, 
without the original intent of the Constitution as the foundational 
criterion for determining the constitutionality of current law, without 
that, the Constitution is no guarantee at all, except a guarantee to 
the justices to be able to manipulate their decisions to move this 
society in the direction they choose, as if they were legislators.
  The last people that should be amending our Constitution, whether 
literally amending it or de facto amending the Constitution by their 
decisions, are the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. The next 
President has to understand that. And he cannot ask the question of the 
potential nominees for the Court, are you pro-life or are you pro-
choice? Are you pro-marriage or are you pro gay marriage? They can't 
ask that question because that would interfere with the confirmation 
process. It would interfere with the decision-making process. And, in 
fact, I don't ask those questions of the judges myself because I know 
they have to make a decision on the case that's before them. We would 
be asking them to make a decision on a case that hasn't been written or 
presented to them, perhaps.
  But they need to be the kind of justices that have profound and 
reverent respect for this Constitution, for its meaning, for its 
guarantee. Because in it is the guarantee of our rights and our freedom 
like none other on the face of this Earth. And we cannot have a 
justice, or five of the nine, that decide they want to social engineer 
by the decisions that they make.
  This next President must understand this, must have advisers that 
will probe into the potential nominees, and must come down with 
nominations of the kind of quality that we see in Justice Roberts, 
Justice Alito, two stellar appointments to the Supreme Court made by 
President Bush. If we can continue down that line, we will eventually 
see the justices in the lower courts start to respect the text of the 
Constitution, too. And then, in my perfect world, they will start to 
teach the Constitution in con law in law school instead of teaching off 
the case law. I know some of you do. Many do not. And that is 
essential.
  So the issues for the next President to understand and promote and 
embody are the appointments to the Supreme Court being essential, that 
they be originalists, within the vein of Roberts and Alito. I want 
those decisions to come down on the Constitution, not on their will or 
their whim of what the policy should be; not in some legal 
contortionist approach to try to arrive at a conclusion that fits their 
social liberalism. I want a justice that can maybe come to a conclusion 
that, even though they disagree with the policy that unfolds, the 
Constitution says so, they must follow it. That becomes the most 
important thing. And life and marriage do hang in the balance on that, 
but those decisions will be made off the Constitution in my future 
world, not off the whim of the policy because we wish it so.
  So as I look down through this list, life and marriage, wrapped up in 
the original understanding of the Constitution, that being, I think, 
the most important, and then the issue of our national sovereignty 
wrapped up within the immigration issue, who will defend our borders? 
Who is strong and who is silent? And as I evaluate the Presidential 
candidates, there are some who have clearly supported our amnesty 
policy. And the Senator from Arizona has a policy such that has his 
name on it, or at least did have, the McCain-Kennedy. And some of that 
has changed, but the debate is the same and the policy is the same. It 
is amnesty. He served America honorably for every day of his adult 
life, and I have profound respect for Senator McCain. He and I disagree 
on the amnesty issue and on the border. And I think that our national 
sovereignty and the destiny of America is turned if we don't uphold the 
rule of law.
  I'm concerned about the mayor of a sanctuary city, Rudy Giuliani, who 
has essentially presided over a city that the ``broken windows'' policy 
is wonderful. It set a standard and cleaned up a city, but it did not 
preserve and protect the rule of law when it came to immigration. This 
Nation cannot be sustained if we don't uphold the central pillar of 
American exceptionalism, the rule of law. Those things weigh heavy in 
my head and on my heart and on my instincts when it comes to the 
evaluation process.
  It weighs heavy on me that the State of Arkansas, to some degree, has 
become a sanctuary State because of the promotion there of the DREAM 
Act. Now, it has a nice name, but what it is is scholarships for 
illegals to go to college. And also opposition there for a ban on tax 
dollars going to welfare to illegals. People that are unlawfully 
present in the United States, the question needs to be asked and 
answered to each of these Presidential candidates, and I would implore 
you, you have this opportunity in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and 
South Carolina, ask these Presidential candidates, what would you do 
with the people here in the United States who are unlawfully

[[Page 32270]]

here, whether they came across illegally on the border or overstayed 
their visa, how would you deal with them? Would you send them home, or 
wouldn't you, if they had broken no other laws? And if the answer is, 
well, we can make some other accommodation, or I would send them to 
college under a scholarship program, or I would grant them a path to 
citizenship, all of those things are amnesty.
  If we don't have the will to send people home when we encounter them 
on the streets of America through our local law enforcement, for 
example, if we don't have the will to send them home, then we cannot 
have an immigration policy that is established here by the people in 
America. Our immigration policy will be driven by people in foreign 
countries that, some who drive here, some who take a boat here, some 
who fly here, but they come to America and do what they want to do, and 
then we have Presidential candidates out there that would adjust our 
national policy to accommodate their wish, their will, their whim 
against the wishes of the American people, against the rule of law. I 
think that weighs heavily when we make decisions on who we support for 
President, weighs heavily if they have supported amnesty, and weighs 
heavily if they've advocated policies like sanctuary cities, if they've 
presided over sanctuary cities. It weighs heavily if protecting that 
central pillar of American exceptionalism, rule of law, has been 
sacrificed to a whim because of a heart taking over where the head 
needs to rule. We need to have tough love or we will be sacrificing the 
rule of law. And I am quite concerned that we have a series of 
Presidential candidates that won't hold their ground on that issue 
because holding their ground on the immigration issue holds our ground 
on the sovereignty issue.
  Now, if they would make the right appointments to the Supreme Court, 
that's going to be, to some degree, a redeeming characteristic, but in 
the end, the right appointments to the Supreme Court and the sacrifice 
of our national sovereignty and the importation of every willing 
traveler changes forever the face of America. We have a unique American 
character, a unique American spirit. We have a vitality here, much of 
which comes from having skimmed the cream of the crop off the donor 
civilizations through the process of a legal immigration policy, and we 
have such a massive illegal policy that we can no longer have a debate 
in this Congress on a legal immigration policy. We need a President to 
lead us out of that, not a President that leads us into that mess even 
further.
  To think of the idea of another 4 or 8 years of hypercompassionate 
conservatism that would grant a DREAM Act scholarship to people who are 
here illegally, or grant paths to citizenship to reward people who are 
unlawfully present here in the United States, that would not uphold the 
rule of law, undermines our sovereignty, what America do we have left?
  If we have a court that would preserve life and marriage, but we 
don't have a national sovereignty that's protected because the heart of 
a presidential candidate ruled over their head, then we sacrifice our 
sovereignty and our destiny.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I submit this: Look through the list of the issues 
that matter, life, marriage, the war on terror, illegal immigration, 
tax reform, the second amendment, health care, and our national 
sovereignty. Look at those issues that we can put over to the side and 
say, we can protect them and promote them here from Congress and we 
think all the Presidential candidates will stand behind them, and those 
would be the war on terror, the tax reform issue, which probably 
doesn't change our destiny right now, but we can put that off on the 
side because I just think that it's not a destiny changer at this 
moment. The second amendment we will protect here in this Congress. 
It's important, but we'll protect it. Health care is important, but 
we'll protect it. It's not constitutional, by the way, for those of you 
who are wondering. But what it comes down to is life, marriage and our 
national sovereignty as viewed through whether we will protect our 
borders.
  Ask yourselves: Do these Presidential candidates understand these 
issues? What is their focus on life and marriage? What confidence do 
you have in their judicial appointments all the way down the line? But 
ask yourselves, where are they in the end? Are they for or against 
amnesty? Do they stand up for amnesty, as I have defined it, or do they 
redefine it for their own purpose because their heart leads their head?
  I hope you make some sound decisions and make a solid recommendation 
to America. I thank you for your attention tonight, Madam Speaker.

                          ____________________