[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5671-5674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                REGULAR ORDER IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rice of South Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be recognized to 
address you here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  We are constantly confronted with agendas and issues, some of which 
are good for the country, and some of which are bad for the country. 
That is why we debate here in this Congress.
  I would like to think that anything that passes off the floor of the 
House of Representatives enjoys the full support of at least a majority 
of the Members of the House of Representatives. I would like to think 
that is also the case with the Senate. I would like to think that when 
we disagree, we come together in conference and we produce a conference 
report that can achieve and enjoy the majority support of the House and 
the Senate of the conference report and go on its way to the 
President's desk, where it is either signed into law or vetoed and sent 
back to the Chamber of origin, as the Constitution directs.
  There are also tactics and maneuvers that go on in this Congress, and 
this more than two centuries of the structure of this great 
deliberative body has developed a system within our committee process 
to define jurisdiction committee by committee. More committees have 
been created over the years, some committees have been abolished over 
the years, but it is designed to function so that this constitutional 
Republic--which is guaranteed in our Constitution, by the way--brings 
the best judgment of the people in America through their elected 
representatives.
  There are 435 House districts and 100 Senators from the 50 States. 
The good ideas that come from our neighborhoods need to go into the 
eyes and ears of their Member of Congress, and we need to bring it here 
and bring those best ideas forward and compete. Put those ideas 
together in a competitive fashion so that as we sit down and first we 
draft a bill, that bill gets assigned to the committee of jurisdiction 
where the people have accumulated expertise on the topic are seated. 
There will be hearings for them to get better informed about the bill 
in question itself, and then in the subcommittee, a markup of the base 
bill that allows every member of the subcommittee to offer an 
amendment, any series of amendments, that are germane to the topic and 
the subject of the bill, which is assigned to the committee because of 
the jurisdiction of the committee, and then that subcommittee acts, in 
which case then the bill goes to the full committee for a similar 
process to the broader committee.
  If it comes out of that committee improved in theory--and actually 
improved in practice most of the time--then that bill goes on the 
calendar here on the floor, where in which case it is subjected to the 
amendments that might come from all of the other Members, the Members 
that are on the committee of jurisdiction and the Members who are not 
on the committee of jurisdiction.
  When this Congress is set up to function accurately, when we are 
defending, protecting, and respecting the jurisdiction of the various 
committees, we get the best product because we have the people on the 
committees that have--at least in theory--the most knowledge about the 
topic that comes before the committee. Some have years and years of 
expertise accumulated, some not quite as long, but they might bring 
that interest from their private life into the committee, as well.
  I get very concerned when I see a bill come to the floor that didn't 
go through the committee process, that didn't have a legitimate hearing 
process, that didn't go through subcommittee or the full committee and 
comes to this floor because someone decided that it was so urgent that 
we act on a subject that we didn't have time to go through regular 
order.

                              {time}  1600

  That concerns me a lot. I get concerned when there is an expectation 
that we will have a full debate here on the floor on a bill, and it is 
brought to the floor and voice-voted on a weekend, going into a 
weekend, without the knowledge of most of the Members of Congress. I 
get concerned about regular order.
  I have had my conversations with our leadership regarding that. I am 
not yet satisfied that this is the last time. However, Mr. Speaker, I 
came to the floor to address a different kind of regular order, a kind 
of regular order that is this: if we have committees that are not 
committees of jurisdiction of a subject or a topic and that subject or 
topic outside their jurisdiction is slipped into a must-pass piece of 
legislation from another committee, now they have usurped the 
jurisdiction of the committee that actually has that jurisdiction, and 
they have placed a topic into a subject matter that must pass, and the 
people who have allowed that to happen on their watch, at least in 
theory, don't possess the expertise that exists within the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Now, all of this gibberish that I am talking about now, this 
technical explanation of what goes on here in this Congress boils down 
to this, Mr. Speaker--and I want to speak specifically to this issue. 
There is a bill that is floating around this Congress that is referred 
to as the ENLIST Act.
  I can't read for you the name of this bill because it is about as 
accurate as the Affordable Care Act is to naming ObamaCare; but it is 
one that grants amnesty to people who come into the United States--are 
unlawfully present in the United States.
  Many of them committed the crime of unlawful entry. A good number of 
others may have overstayed a visa or come into America on a visa waiver 
program. In any case, they are unlawfully present in America. They 
might sign up for the military. If they do that, they are defrauding 
the Department of Defense.
  We don't recruit people into our military who are unlawfully present 
in the United States. They have to have a

[[Page 5672]]

green card, at a minimum; citizenship, better.
  Now, one might presume that we are having trouble recruiting people 
to come into the military, so therefore, we should bring in mercenaries 
from outside the United States and take the oath to uphold, preserve, 
protect, and defend our Constitution and go out and defend the liberty 
of Americans.
  That actually happens, but when it happens, it is a violation of the 
law. If they take that oath of office, illegal aliens into our military 
have to misrepresent themselves in order to be accepted into the 
military, so that is fraud. It might well be document fraud.
  This bill called the ENLIST Act would reward them for doing so, for 
defrauding the Department of Defense and, yes, putting on the uniform 
and, at least in theory, defending America. They take an oath to 
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. 
They salute our flag.
  They may mean it; they may not mean it. But we know the very act of 
entering the military was a dishonest act on their part. So why would 
we accept their oath to have more value--the oath to defend the 
Constitution, to have more value than their word that they gave when 
they misrepresented themselves to join the military?
  In any case, this ENLIST Act bill rewards people who broke our 
immigration law by putting them on a path to citizenship, giving them a 
green card. The only qualifications you need is you are unlawfully in 
the United States, you enter into the military, you misrepresent 
yourself to do that because we are not taking them into the military if 
they are unlawfully present.
  Then they have to assert they were in the United States continuously 
since before December 31, 2011, which happens to be the date that is in 
the Gang of Eight's bill, and they have to assert that they were 
brought into this country or came into this country by the time they 
were 15 years old--they might be in their 30s when they sign up for the 
military, who knows--but those have to be the assertions.
  Then if they are in the military at the time, then they have to be 
either honorably discharged or on the path to honorable discharge, and 
they will then have a path to citizenship.
  I think this is a misguided bill. I think it is misguided to think 
that we need to reward people for breaking the law. It is misguided to 
believe that Americans will not sign up for our military. We are 
shrinking our military. We are not expanding our military.
  We have high-quality Americans who are lining up to join in all of 
our branches of service. Yes, I am sure there are recruiters who would 
like to do a little more, but this is not an expanding Department of 
Defense budget; this is a shrinking Department of Defense budget. It is 
not an expanding military; it is a shrinking military.
  But that, Mr. Speaker, isn't so much the point as it is what is right 
and what is wrong, what is justice and what is equity and what is not.
  I understand there are people who have sympathy, and they say: this 
pulls on my heart strings; I think, if they are willing to defend 
America, I think we ought to give them a path to citizenship.
  I understand that, but do the advocates for this ENLIST Act, do they 
understand that it is a reward for lawbreakers?
  They are not just someone who came across the border illegally or 
someone who overstayed their visa. They are the ones who misrepresented 
themselves to get into the United States military; we would then trust 
them with perhaps military secrets and the security of Americans and 
American installations around the world?
  It is not that I don't trust them. I just don't believe that we 
should be rewarding people who have already proven they have broken the 
law. If they take the oath to the Constitution and if they are not on a 
path to citizenship already, if they are unlawfully present in the 
United States, then they violated the law already, and we are supposed 
to accept their word for it. I think it is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  I look at some of the press that has come out on this, the tactic and 
the effort that seems to be that they think they can slip a provision 
into the NDA bill, the National Defense Authorization bill, a provision 
in there that would legalize people who illegally entered into the 
United States military and reward them with a path to citizenship for 
their trouble?
  There are many countries in the world where you are a lot better off 
in the United States Marine Corps than you would be, say, on the 
streets of many cities in the countries of the world. That is true.
  So this would put out the advertisement, this bill, this ENLIST--
badly named ENLIST Act would put out the advertisement, which is sneak 
into America, sneak into the military, and that is going to be the most 
expeditious path to American citizenship and the whole smorgasbord of 
benefits that comes from American citizenship.
  Citizenship must be precious, not handed out like candy in a parade. 
We don't ride along and throw out citizenship like you do M&Ms or 
Tootsie Rolls or whatever it is that we are tossing out in our parades.
  Citizenship must be precious. The rule of law is precious. It is the 
center core argument on the immigration issue, the rule of law.
  We can't grant amnesty to people because our hearts tell us we have 
sympathy for individuals. I have sympathy for individuals. In fact, if 
I am ever declared a liberal, it is because of how I deal with some 
people individually, because I see something in their eyes and hear 
something in their voice and see how they carry themselves.
  I see something in how they conduct themselves and what they do that 
convinces me that this is a good person, and I want to invest in them, 
whether it is my capital, my time, my trust, or recommendations that 
others do the same. I actually do that on occasion because I have faith 
in an individual.
  But when you set policy--policy for the United States of America 
because your heart tells you to have sympathy for some people you know, 
keep in mind there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps 
millions of people that are impacted by that decision, and you have to 
say: I trust every one of those people the same way I trust the 
individual or the individuals that I know that bring the sympathy from 
my heart.
  We aren't charged with having sympathy here in setting foreign policy 
or setting our national policy because of the sympathies of our heart. 
We are charged with providing justice and equity, and that is laid out 
in the Constitution.
  To me, it is a clear charge; so when I take an oath to preserve, 
protect, and defend this Constitution, I mean it. It is the supreme law 
of the land, the Constitution, and it is the foundation for the rest of 
the laws.
  Congress passed a law that says we are not going to bring people into 
our military that are unlawfully present in the United States, and when 
I hear from let's say other Members, in particular an individual Member 
that says Steve King is dead wrong on this issue, Mr. Speaker, I take 
issue with that.
  I am right with the rule of law. I am right with current law. The 
policy is right because, otherwise, you fill our military up with 
people who may and likely do and some certainly will have foreign 
interests.
  It is not to the interest of the United States to replace on our 
ranks, our troops, people who are American citizens or people who are 
on a path to citizenship, replace them with people who came into the 
United States illegally.
  How poor would we be as a people? How empty our soul as a people if 
we say: Well, that is another job that Americans won't do? They don't 
want to put on a uniform and go defend our country, so we will have to 
reward illegal immigrants, if they will just lie to us, we will let 
them in the military, and we will give them a path to citizenship.
  That is what the ENLIST bill does. It does damage to the rule of law. 
It is misguided, however good the hearts are of the people who advocate 
for this.
  I think this is an important debate, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't belong 
on the

[[Page 5673]]

defense authorization bill. This debate doesn't belong in the Defense 
Committee, the Armed Services Committee. This debate belongs, if it is 
going to take place at all, in the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, where it 
ought to have--if it deserves any debate at all, it ought to have 
witnesses who agree with people like me.
  I have seen these hearings come out before, even in our Judiciary 
Committee, where someone gets the idea that we ought to grant a path to 
citizenship to several million people who are unlawfully here, and I 
have seen the committee, even there where there were four witnesses, no 
questions, another round of four witnesses, now the chairs and the 
ranking members get to ask questions, 90 minutes after the beginning of 
the hearing, the first voice of dissent might be heard.
  That is not a very good committee, in my opinion; but at least it was 
in the committee of jurisdiction. I would like to expect that the 
subcommittee chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee would defend the 
jurisdiction of his committee and reject the idea that they sneak this 
bill into the defense authorization bill.
  I would like to see that the chairman of the full committee defend 
the jurisdiction of the committee, as he did so effectively last year, 
and deny this end round that they are attempting to run this poorly 
named ENLIST Act around an end run of the Judiciary Committee and to 
slip it into a must-pass piece of legislation that would come to the 
floor here under the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Our country will be stronger. The security of the country will be at 
least as strong. The heart of our country will be just as strong. We 
can still have sympathy for people without turning them all into 
Americans, and our defense will be stronger because we will have more 
American citizens step up and actually qualify to get into the service.
  Just think, across this country, you go to work, whether you punch a 
timeclock, whether you are on salary or whatever it might be, you walk 
into that workplace, and you are there, and let's just presume you are 
on a production line making an American car.
  Let's call it a ``Hord.'' On your right hand is someone working who 
is unlawfully present in the United States and can't work legally in 
the United States. On your left hand, there is somebody who fits that 
same category.
  Do the workers standing there realize that there are two good, well-
paying jobs that Americans aren't doing, not because they won't, but 
someone else who is unlawfully in the United States has stepped into 
their stead and taken that good-paying job, that job that actually pays 
taxes and contributes to the benefits of people who aren't working?
  So if you look on your right and you look on your left and you see 
somebody working who is unlawfully present, and you say, I like him, I 
enjoy working with him, he is efficient, probably that is true.
  But what is it doing to America? What is it doing to the soul of 
America? And what is it doing to the rule of law to reward people who 
break the law while this Congress borrows money every year, 42 cents or 
so off of every dollar we spend from places like China, Saudi Arabia?
  And with the bonds that are out there, about half of our debt to the 
American people that so far are willing to reinvest in the debt we 
have, what does that do to America when we are borrowing money to fund 
the more than 80 different Federal welfare programs that are there?
  We have a population of some 316 million Americans. 101.4 million of 
those 316 million are of working age and simply not in the workforce, 
and some of the biggest reasons are right there in the list of the 80 
different means-tested welfare programs.
  So what should we do in this Congress, Mr Speaker? We should have 
policies that increase the average individual annual productivity of 
our people. Each one of us should get out of bed and go forward to 
contribute to the gross domestic product that day.

                              {time}  1615

  That means we come in an hour or 8 hours or 24 hours, if you can. You 
are contributing to the GDP. That will increase your income. You can 
pay your share of the taxes. When you make that contribution, you are 
helping pull the load.
  If you are sitting, though, and you are one of those people that has 
taken this safety net that we offer that I support and turned it into a 
hammock for yourself and you are riding here when you should be 
contributing off of somebody else's labor, it is wrong.
  We need more Americans going to work. We need a higher percentage of 
Americans working. There is no work that Americans won't do, including 
putting on a uniform, going into basic training, being trained up in 
AIT or wherever you might be assigned to go and step up and defend our 
country. It has been done with honor. It has been done with dignity. It 
has been done gloriously by Americans since before there was an 
America, and it needs to be so for the duration of this Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, furthermore, the idea that there are jobs 
that Americans won't do, I looked at this and I thought: what would be 
the toughest, dirtiest, nastiest, most dangerous job that Americans are 
ever asked to do? When I think of this, I think, I bet I know somebody 
that is an authority on that, and that would be one of the gentlemen in 
my Conference from Colorado that served in the Marine Corps. The 
toughest, dirtiest, nastiest, most dangerous job we ask Americans to do 
is how about rooting terrorists out of a place like Fallujah. What does 
that pay? How do we get Americans to do that if we can't get Americans 
to cut meat or pick tomatoes or whatever it might be? How do we get 
them to do that?
  I went back and ran the numbers on that. So a marine in the streets 
of Fallujah in the line of fire, if you figure him at a 40-hour week, 
instead of about a 70- or 80- or 90-hour week or more, at a 40-hour 
week, they were getting paid right at about $8.09 an hour. If a marine 
will go into the line of fire for God and country for $8.09 an hour--
and God bless him--I bet we can find some Americans for $20 an hour to 
go out there and cut meat and $20 an hour that might go out and pick 
lettuce, as the Senator from Arizona used to talk about during his 
Presidential campaign.
  So here is my point, Mr. Speaker. I think this Enlist Act is 
misguided. I think the press that has spilled out on this has 
illuminated a deft maneuver to try to circumvent the jurisdiction of 
the Judiciary Committee. I reject that. I am here defending the 
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I think that those who have a 
heart that tells them, ``I want to pass some legislation because I have 
sympathy for individuals that I know who will make good Americans,'' I 
understand that. I have some sympathy for individuals I know that will 
make good Americans, too, but I am not about--I am not about to usurp 
and undermine the rule of law, because I didn't run for office telling 
my constituents my heart is going to overrule my head, my heart is 
going to overrule human experience and human history and the rule of 
law and the Constitution. We should know better. We are here to be 
analytical, to lead and not let the emotions drive us.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I remember a display at the 
National Archives as I was waiting some years ago to be able to walk up 
there where the Declaration of Independence is on display. There I see 
they had the display of the Greeks who had demagogues in their 
communities. They had the pure democracy. They found out that there 
were demagogues that could get the masses all ginned up and they would 
storm off in a direction that was bad for the city-state of Greece. 
They couldn't control the overheated rhetoric of the very effective and 
persuasive demagogues, so they had a system to blackball them. If three 
of the members of the city-state--men of voting age in those days--
dropped a black ball into the pottery that was the voting one and 
discarded a white one in the nonvoting one, then they would banish

[[Page 5674]]

that demagogue from the city-state for 7 years. But that was 
emotionalism.
  Our Founding Fathers understood we didn't want to form a democracy 
here. We created a constitutional Republic. It is guaranteed in our 
Constitution. And it has done so because it charges each of us to have 
a cool head. And I owe my constituents, as everyone here does, my best 
effort and my best judgment. That includes listening to my 
constituents, all of them. But it includes also, step back, take a look 
at it from 10,000 feet; analyze the policy; understand my oath to the 
Constitution and the supreme law of the land; and act accordingly for 
the long-term best interest of the United States of America.
  This Enlist Act is not in the long-term best interest of the United 
States of America. It is not in the best interest of America that we 
circumvent the jurisdiction of the committees. That is not either in 
the best interest of America. What is in the best interest is we 
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the rule of law and 
recognize that this immigration debate is driven by emotion on their 
side. The open borders, amnesty people are driven by emotion, and there 
are others that stand here and say: We are going to protect the rule of 
law.
  So here is what I would submit, Mr. Speaker. If they are successful 
in passing a Gang of 8's bill in this House or bringing it to the floor 
and trying to get it passed, if they are successful in eroding the rule 
of law with regard to the Enlist Act, if they are successful in getting 
passed what they call the DREAM Act, that also erodes the rule of law. 
Anything that rewards people for breaking the law is a continuation of 
the Amnesty Act that was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. We are 
debating the results of the signature on that bill today.
  It was passed this way. It said we are going do legalize a million 
people who are here illegally because we don't know what to do, and 
then the promise is we are going to enforce the law hereafter and there 
will never be another amnesty so long as anyone shall live. That was 
the promise of the '86 Amnesty Act, and Reagan was honest about it.
  So we live with that, but they are pushing on the other side. We 
never got the enforcement. The 1 million became 3 million plus. The 
enforcement didn't come, but the implied promise of amnesty exists, and 
that is what they are pushing on.
  If any amnesty is passed now, that perpetuates the promise that there 
will be another amnesty, which turns up the current end of the huge 
electromagnet that draws people to come into America, the promise that 
they will receive citizenship, a path to citizenship, some kind of 
amnesty.
  We have to restore the rule of law, the respect for the rule of law. 
If there is a provision that is an amnesty provision that passes, then 
that promise exists in perpetuity that there will be another one, which 
means we will not be able to restore the rule of law in this country--
at least with regard to immigration--again. I don't know that I can say 
``ever,'' but I can say never again would we see the rule of law with 
regard to immigration within the duration of this Republic, not as long 
as I shall live or as long as we shall live, not until death do us 
part. But until the death of this Republic, we will not be able to 
restore the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration. And the 
argument goes to the next and the next and the next, Mr. Speaker.
  So this is a critically important issue. I am happy to debate this 
with the colleagues from my Conference in any State where they would 
like to take this up, be it California, be it Colorado, be it anyplace 
else around the country.
  This debate is one that is important. We need more American people 
that are aware that our hearts cannot overrule our heads. We cannot 
allow the rule of law to be torn asunder because we have sympathy for 
certain people.
  Let's have sympathy for Americans first. Let's understand that 
America can be defended by Americans, and if people want to come and 
join and defend and help protect America, go get in line the right way. 
Because the advocates for this kind of legislation will tell you, well, 
they go to the back of the line. Except this bill isn't the back of the 
line. It is we create a new line and you are in the front of it. They 
are not going to allow them to go to the back of the line. They don't 
really believe it. They will just tell you that.
  They will say there is work Americans won't do. Defending America, 
then how is it that marines will step in the line of fire for $8.09 an 
hour? How is it that we have Americans working in every single job and 
profession that is listed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site?
  Americans are doing every work there is to do in this country. They 
just need to be paid what the work is worth. The wages are being 
suppressed by elitists who are making millions of dollars off of the 
cheap labor that is subsidized by the taxpayers who are backfilling and 
funding these households with the 80 different means tests and welfare 
programs, and we are borrowing the money from China to do it. So let's 
have that discussion.
  Tell me how we get this budget back to balance. How do you do that 
while you are rewarding people for not working and you are rewarding 
people for breaking the law? What kind of country do you want?
  I think the advocates for this bill that I so oppose actually want 
the same kind of country that I want. I just don't think that they see 
what they are doing to erode the progress that we need to be making.
  I think that when they declare that I am dead wrong, the real result 
is, if they get their way, there will be more Americans that eventually 
are actually dead, because there is not a day that goes by in this 
country that there isn't at least one American citizen that dies at the 
hands of someone who is unlawfully present in the United States. 
Whether it is an act of homicide, whether it is an act of willful 
manslaughter, whether it is an OWI on the streets of America, hardly 
anybody has gone through the last 10 years and doesn't at least see 
that show up in their local newspaper, if it doesn't show up in their 
neighborhood.
  So Steve King is not dead wrong. Let's keep more Americans alive. If 
I need to go to those States and have those debates, that is what I 
will do. But I call upon our committee chairs especially to defend the 
jurisdiction of our committee. If you are chairing a subcommittee or a 
committee in the United States House of Representatives that happens to 
be the Judiciary Committee, the rule of law and the Constitution are 
essential. I also expect and call upon those who have that special 
charge to renew their vigorous defense of the rule of law, the 
jurisdiction of the committee, and the supreme law of the land, the 
Constitution.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________