House Proceeding 03-22-10 on Mar 22nd, 2010 :: 2:54:40 to 3:35:50
Total video length: 3 hours 36 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:481 Duration: 0:41:10 Discussion

Previous speech:

2:54:37 to 2:54:59( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: hunch they aren't happy what we have done last night. i yield back to the the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from texas and i know he had trouble sleeping last night. he may be able to get caught tonight and rest a little. i do not believe that we are going to be forgetting this.

2:54:40 to 3:35:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Steve King

2:55:00 to 2:55:20( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: i'm not the only one that the first order of business this issued a bill draft request to repeal this legislation that passed the house last night, the senate version of the bill. and it's taped more than one of us have stepped forward to do that. i'll continue to work on that cause and working to have

2:55:21 to 2:55:41( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: legislation that n repeal the senate version of the bill. and that can be converted into a discharge petition, that can then bring a repeal to the floor of the house. there are 212 house members that voted against it. that means - if they'll stick to their conviction and there was one resignatn last night.

2:55:42 to 2:56:02( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: so tha means we ave seven more. if all of those would sign on to that and seven would have a conversion, we would be able to bring a repeal to the house. that is one of my eforts and am committed to that. going back to dr. burgess' comments with regard to cost and

2:56:03 to 2:56:24( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: he said the doctors' fix has to be in the area of $360 billion. and i spoke of the half a trillion cut in medicare reimbursement rates as part of that bill. that's $500 billion. and tax increases in their aggregate, $569.2 billion. that total, things that aren't

2:56:25 to 2:56:48( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: in this bill that changed the overall cost of the bill are $1 ,429,29,00,0000 that if they were designed to inform the american people would have shifted the balance of that

2:56:49 to 2:57:10( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: scoring from a deficit reduction of $10 billion to deficit increase to $1.4 trillion. so we would be in that area, 1,300 billion is what the additional cost of that is

2:57:11 to 2:57:32( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: massed by the cuts in medicare, tax increases, and by the necessity to pass the doctors' fix. and the net, that would be the net deficit that was created by this bill when you subtract those numbers works out to be $1 .3 trillion.

2:57:33 to 2:57:54( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: all of this, al of this to solve the problem that the president has identified as us ending too much money on health care. we spend too much money on health care and the economy is in a downward spiral. and we can't fix the economy unless we first fix health care. the problem with health care is we spend too much money and the president's solution is spending

2:57:55 to 2:58:15( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: a lot more. speaker pelosi's solution is spend a lot more. so that's what got done last night. the american people end up with a huge liability that goes on to our children, grandchildren and bies yet born wil be paying interest on the debt that shows no sign to be reduced any time

2:58:16 to 2:58:36( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: within the calculations of the people that are in control of this control, that being the white house, the gavel here in the house and the gavel in the united states senate. . when mr. burgess: talks about happily ever hand after, i don't any if there is a happily ever after --

2:58:37 to 2:58:58( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: ever after had in america, bureau we're living with a once upon a time, mr. speaker. i want to roll uback to the stupak amendment and what happened here in the house last night. the stupakamendment was brought forward in the weeks before the november 7 first passage of the house version of the bill. it was driven, i think, by the best merits of seeking to

2:58:59 to 2:59:21( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: prohibit american taxpayers from having to fund abortions, i'd like to prohibit abortions but if we can prohibit to have taxpayers fund abortions, at least we're maintaining -- main stain -- maintaining the current status quo. that changed last night, mr. speaker. the stupak amendment was motivated and designed to

2:59:22 to 2:59:42( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: prevent americans from having to pay for the elimination of innocent unborn human life. th was properly motivated and it was very hard work here in this congress. every republican supported constitute pack amendment, 64 democrats voted for the stupak amendment, every one got at least some cover to be able to

2:59:43 to 3:00:03( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: say, i am pro-life. and that went on from november 7 this cov of being pro-life democrats, on until last night, madam speaker. and now it's a legitimate question to ask, is there such a thing as a pro-life democrat? or was it always a political

3:00:04 to 3:00:25( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: position that was con drived to posture, to -- con drived to pasture, to -- contrived to posture. i'm having trouble at this point finding a real pro-life democrat . i'm sure some them in their most private world do care a lot

3:00:26 to 3:00:46( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: about ending the destruction of innocent unborn human life. but after the stupak amendment, after the long negotiations that took place, after the events that took place yesterday of congressman stupak in one room, the pro-choice people in another room, shuttle diplomacy going back and forth and finally about

3:00:47 to 3:01:08( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: 4:00 yesterday congressman stupak held a press conference and revealed that the stupak 12, the dozen, that had pledged that they would hold out to defend innocent unborn human lives and oppose federal funding o abortion decided that they had found a solution that would take them off of the pressure hook

3:01:09 to 3:01:29( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and out of the pressure cooker that was being put there by the speaker. and we have to believe that the stupak 12 would have stuck together, this anti-life, anti-liberty bill would have failed last night. but it didn't. now what was the rationale that came before the stupak

3:01:30 to 3:01:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: conference yesterday? and the stupak dozen, i point out that we still don't know who they all are. we probably know who some of them are. we don't know who they all are. and you can't count votes and you can't count on votes in this united states congress or any legislative body unless the people that are on the list are

3:01:51 to 3:02:12( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: public. if they say, i will be a no on the senate version of the bill unless there is a fix that will put real pro-life language in it, if they'll step up at the press conference and take their position and make that pledge before god and man, you can generally count on them. a lot of them were pledged by

3:02:13 to 3:02:33( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: congressman stupak but they were none, madam speaker. and i never -- unanimous, madam speaker. and i never believe that an unanimous oath stuck for anything because they coul always flip and vote the other way and when pinned down later on say, i was never won of the stupak dozen. so you -- one of the stupak dozen. so you had the option. those whose names didn't leak

3:02:34 to 3:02:55( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: out into the press, they had the option to vote yes or no. if they vopetted no on the bill because it didn't have pro-life protections in it, then after the final vote they could always say, well, i stood up for innocent unborn human life. i was one of the stupak dozen. but if they voted yes, madam speaker, and when they were

3:02:56 to 3:03:17( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: accused later on of flipping their position and not sticking with their publicly announced convictions on pro-life, perhaps, they could always say, well, i was thever part of the stupak dozen. i really didn't make that pledge or that oath. i didn't tend to keep that, i didn't -- wasn't part of that deal. so don't write me into this presuming that i flipped positions and didn't stick to my convictions because i never

3:03:18 to 3:03:38( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: announced my convictions. that's what goes onhen people who are supposedly part of a coalition remain unanimous and are not -- their names do not become public, their public statements are not part of the record and so therefore they can vote any old way they want to vote. and always hide from the accountability. they don't have to give their word, they don't have to keep

3:03:39 to 3:04:00( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: their word. and for months the stupak dozen remained unanimous and now we have to wonder, was there a democrats on that dozen, by the way, was there a single one that had the courage of the convictions that put up a vote to defend innocent unborn human

3:04:01 to 3:04:22( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: life or did they all find a way to slip into the excuse of the president of the united states is going to sign an executive order that will take the stupak language and make it law of the land? that's the summary of the stupak conference yesterday as i heard it. the president's executive order makes protection of innocent

3:04:23 to 3:04:43( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: unborn human life from the assault of american taxpayer dollars, pro-life american taxpayer dollars, protected by an executive order of the president of the united states. now, i have to believe that a duping has taken place here. we're the people that have to take an oath and we're glad to do it, an oath to up hold the constitution of the united states.

3:04:44 to 3:05:05( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: we take that oath right down here on the floor together. and i carry the family bible to take my oath on that bible, to uphold this constitution of the united states. and we're upholdg a constitution of what we understand the text of the constitution to mean and what it was understood to

3:05:06 to 3:05:27( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: mean at the time of its ratificatn. it cannot be anything else, it cannot be a living, breathing, growing, moving, changing, morphing organism. the constitution has to mean what it says. if it doesn't mean what it says, it's no guarantee whatsoever. it's simply a document that allows the judge or manipulting

3:05:28 to 3:05:49( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: attorney to manipulate society however they choose to do so. or the constitution could just become instead a shield that an activist judge could hold up an say, hold it, don't criticize me, that's the constitution, it was my job to interpret it as a growing, breathing, moving, changing, morphing document and because society has changed, the

3:05:50 to 3:06:10( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: constitution has to adapt to it. that is nuts. it is nuts to think the constitution has any value. if we're going to put it into the hands of an activist judge and have him turn it into something that's malable, that they can shape it in hair thats -- hands however they would want to, there wouldn't be any reason for a constitution if it was growing, moving, changing, morphing.

3:06:11 to 3:06:31( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: it's got to mean, the text of it has got to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of the ratification of the basic document, the bill of rights or each of the amendments in their time as they came through. and the founding fathers put provisions in place so if they weren't satisfied with this constitution, its text and its orge understanding then we

3:06:32 to 3:06:53( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: could amend it. fair amount of wisdom. it's a high bar. but still it needs to be a high bar to amend the constitution because this is our guarantee. and to think that we would have members of this united states congress at this very high and presumably well educated, well informed and sfift cadded --

3:06:54 to 3:07:15( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: sophisticated level, it would take an oath to uphold this constitution, each two years as they are seated in this congress , and believe somehow this congress, this constitution doesn't mean what it says, that there really isn't what you'd call a separation of powers, that the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government somehow are not defined specifically in

3:07:16 to 3:07:38( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: here with our individual duties, all legislative powers are vested in the congress. they're vested -- not vested in the president of the united states. article 1, section 1, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate

3:07:39 to 3:08:00( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and a house of representatives. all legislative powers, madam speaker. and yet, congressman stupak and the other 11 of the stupak dozen found it conveniento believe that this doesn't mean what it says, that a president of the united states can amd the

3:08:01 to 3:08:23( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: legislation of the land, the law of the land by executive order? who could dream of such a thing? what kind of a country could we have if the president could amend our legislation, the federal code, by executive order? any president could come in then on a whim and amend the very reason deliberations of the

3:08:24 to 3:08:44( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: house and the senate, that we've co sent the document to the president of the united states president could then just simply sign an executive order to chan it, if the president can could to do that why didn't he just -- can do that why didn't he just write the entire obamacare package?

3:08:45 to 3:09:05( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: if he can run this country by executive order, you don't need a legislative branch, come together to appropriate money. this is the kind of thinking that subverts our constitution. this initiated and promised from the president of the united states who used to teach

3:09:06 to 3:09:28( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: constitutional law at the university of chicago as aned a junction professor. i'll just read this again in case we forget what article 1, section 1 says. you start off simply rife after the preamble. all legislative powers here in granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate

3:09:29 to 3:09:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and house of representatives. the gentleman from michigan, the 11 other gentlemen and gentleladies that are part of the stupak 12 found something that was the best deal they could find, to let them do what they were probably willing to do for a long time before they find little -- finally capitulate and

3:09:51 to 3:10:12( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: at's vote for this -- capitulated and that's vote for this socialized medicine -- socialized bill. so they'll migrate what political power is instead of standing on their convictions. how could this be? the president of the united states will sign an executive

3:10:13 to 3:10:34( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: order that alters the legislative lanage of the united states congress. what utter arrogance on the part of the white house, what utter naivety at best on the part of the members of this congress to buy into such a thing. madampeaker, i'm not without experience in this category. i didn't just open up the

3:10:35 to 3:10:55( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: constitution and read article 1, section 1. i have a deep and long history with defending the constitution and the separation of powers and in fact as a state senator i exercised that at some expense to myself and my family.

3:10:56 to 3:11:17( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: as a state senator i took an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of iowa. . sometime in 199, i received a fax and i don't know where it

3:11:18 to 3:11:38( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: came from, but it was a photo copy of an article written in "the washington blade" and it said, the governor had signed an executive order that granted special protective status for

3:11:39 to 3:12:01( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: gender identity and it was -- it took get credit for that executive order advancing the special rights of those who read "the washington blade" newspaper. it seemed that someone had expected that would be sent out here and posted in the newspaper and nobody in iowa would have

3:12:02 to 3:12:24( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: picked up on it but someone cut it out and faxed it to me. i read the article and checked the iowa administrative buletin and there on page 632, i found the executive order. now the governor had had a pres conference that day and talked about several other actions on

3:12:25 to 3:12:45( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: his part, but didn't talk about the executive order, granting special status. and i went to our attorneys and i said this is a violation of the sprigs of powers. i belive he is legislating by executive order and i believe that is a constitutional violation. and the attorneys on our side of

3:12:46 to 3:13:06( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: this analyzed it and said no, you're wrong. this is very carefully written and artfully drafted in such a way that it isn't a violation of the constitution and this executive order wil stand. it didn't make sense to me and they couldn't explain it to me. it isn't because i can't understand it, it might be they

3:13:07 to 3:13:27( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: don't either. i sat down at the word processer and put the language in the iowa code. i typed it in so i had the words to work with and took executive order number 7 on page 632 and i patched that into the code of the civil rights code, iowa law,

3:13:28 to 3:13:49( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: just like our federal code here, federal law, and what struck out words in the iowa code, put strike throughs in them and underlines in them and i had a document that showed me what the code of iowa would read like if that executive order were allowed to stand. andt was clear to me that the

3:13:50 to 3:14:10( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: governor had legislated by executive order and aded two more categories to protected status and was patterned after the civil rights act and the code. it was clear to me that the governor had legislated by executive order.

3:14:11 to 3:14:33( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: i didn't have anybody who agreed with me, buti agreed with it. t i wrote up an analysis and i sent it out to about a dozen of people out there whose judgment i trusted and asked them to give me an opinion. and that was on a thursday night. before i got an opinion back, i

3:14:34 to 3:14:54( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: was driving down the road at 15:15 listening to one o our radio talk show hosts in iowa, who happens to be one of the people that is talking on who radio and that is the original station where ronald reagan had a microphone.

3:14:55 to 3:15:15( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: so anyone who has access to that microphone has a legacy to uphold and as our talk show host was talking, he brought up this executive order which i didn't think anybody knew about it, but me and he began going down through a list of items he objected to it and as i

3:15:16 to 3:15:36( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: listened, it occurred to me this sounds like the points i had set out the night before to my friends. and i pulled my pickup truck - where i come from, just a pickup -- off the gravel road and i dialed on my cell phone into that radio program and he asked

3:15:37 to 3:15:58( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: me what i thought and i told hi i said i believe the governor is legislating by executive order. i believe it's a violation of the separation of powers. and he said what he is going to do, senator? and i said, i'm going to sue the governor. and he asked me, do you have the

3:15:59 to 3:16:20( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: support of the legislature? i said there are 150 of us between the house and the senate. and if 149 of them think it's a bad idea, i'm suing him anyway because he has violated the constitution of the state of iowa by legislating by executive order. now, to move this longer story

3:16:21 to 3:16:42( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: into a shorter vrgs, it comes down to this, i through on this. there were a number of people who joined me as plaintif. i'm glad they did and they were stalwart. but thcase of king versus vilsack went to the court and the courts found in favor of me and the people who stod up to

3:16:43 to 3:17:05( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: defend the onstitution and vacated the executive order, because it was unconstitutional. it was an attempt by an executive officer to legislate by executive order rather than allow the constitutional authority of the legislative branch to make those decisions. that was vacated by the courts.

3:17:06 to 3:17:27( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and i believe it was the help to the administration, the vilsack administration so they didn't follow down that path and continue to try to run the state of iowa without regard to respect for the legitimate authority of the legislative branch. well, now, governor vilsack is the secretary of agriculture.

3:17:28 to 3:17:49( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: we have had our times together. but i'm appreciatetive of that time, because that gave me the background and it gave me the responsibility to analyze these issues and come to a fundamental conclusion. the governor can't legislateby executive order. neither can a president.

3:17:50 to 3:18:12( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: it's the height of arrogance to think you can do so especially when the president has so much on the record that would say otherwise. and i would point out that president obama vast very, very critical of president bush for his signing statements, not

3:18:13 to 3:18:35( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: executive orders that would amend a statute, that hasn't even gotten to the president's desk but a signing statement that points out reservations about constitutionality about certain segments of a bill. here is what president obama said about signing statements. march 9, 2009, been inaugurated for a couple of months, and the

3:18:36 to 3:18:56( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: title othis memo is, from the ite house, memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, subject, presidential signing statements. rember, this is the president who as a candidate was critical of president bush for his signing statements. and he says this. in recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of

3:18:57 to 3:19:17( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: signing statements to rise constitutional objections to statutory provision. this is a president who has objections to the out lization of signing statements, which i have some of those same reservations to be objective in this. and he goes on, there is no

3:19:18 to 3:19:40( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: doubt that the issuing of such statements can be abused. continuing, constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. hm. let me read that again. constitutional signing

3:19:41 to 3:20:04( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: statements. constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president wil disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. that's president obama as recently as march 9, 209, and here he is, well, march 21, now

3:20:05 to 3:20:25( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: the 22, 2010, so let's just call this a year and a couple of weeks later, the president of the united states apparently believes that he can go beyond the signing statements, even though he is critical of signing statements and the constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will

3:20:26 to 3:20:46( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: zrarled statutory requirmentse -- disregard statutory requirements. apparently it is a policy disagreement betwen bart stupak and the other 1, however ano, ma'am mouse they might be and those who were wiling to vote for this bill regarless, but we know the president of t united states doesn't disagree with the policy in the bill that he's

3:20:47 to 3:21:08( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: about to sign tomorrow. he and bart stupak disagree, as do the 11, as do every 11 that voted for the stupak amendment and those part of the 64 democrats. but the president has taken a position that signing statements

3:21:09 to 3:21:29( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: are to be used carefully and with great restraint even though he said as a candidate, he didn't support signing statements as -- at all. the president is saying he can amend a piece of legislation that has been fought over since last july by everybody in america and finally passes the

3:21:30 to 3:21:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: house of representatives and goes to the president's desk and going to amend it by executive order to keep bart stupak. and i sued a governor to make the point that the chef executive officer of the state or the uted states has no

3:21:51 to 3:22:12( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: authority to amend legislation by executive order. the decision is in he boks. this executive order doesn't have any weight or substance. it will either be thrown out in court or be disregarded. mr. stupak has to know that. another thing that the president went on and said with signing

3:22:13 to 3:22:36( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: statements, i quote, with these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the department of justice, president speaking through his memo, i will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropria to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities.

3:22:37 to 3:22:57( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: in issuing statements i shal adhere to the principles. only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. the president doesn't have the constitutional responsibility to sign an executiveorder. it would alter the language of the legislation. that's the responsibility of this congress.

3:22:58 to 3:23:19( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and to think that there would be a piece of legislation that was passed here that could not have passed, if the convictions of the people that were required to vote for it would have been reflected in their vote. but, no, the false promise of an executive order brings about the flip of a dozen votes and a bill that couldn't pass.

3:23:20 to 3:23:40( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: in fact the bill at couldn't pass the united states senate today passed e flor of the house last night and on its way to the president because the president promised an executive order that would, ineffect, amend the legislation that will soon be signed into law. it is a constitutional violation .

3:23:41 to 3:24:02( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: i have been to court to prove it. and i will go further and say, why would anybody believe that it's the intent of the president to follow through on such a thing if in the hypothetical situation he had the authority to sign an executive order that would bring about this effet. why would anybody believe this.

3:24:03 to 3:24:24( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: i went back today and looked through the transcripts of the illinois state senate and here's what i find, state of illinois, 92nd general assembly, senate transcript, 20th legislative day, march 30, 2001, not so old in our time. where is th president on the

3:24:25 to 3:24:45( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: issue of protecting innocent unborn human lives? well, before the illinois legislature, several times the illinois born-alive infants' protection act was introduced to provide legal protection to al born babies wanted or not, and it gave them them the right to

3:24:46 to 3:25:06( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: medical care. then senator barack obama voted multiple times against such legislation. the president has not stod up to defend innocent human life. when he was asked back in august of 2008 when life begins. his answer was, that's above my

3:25:07 to 3:25:28( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: pay scale. well, he seemed to think it was not above his pay scale when he spoke on the floor of the senate that day and the sum totalof the ialogue ofthe president would tell any careful reader with a somewhat critical eye

3:25:29 to 3:25:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: that the president of the united states must believe that a woman who is seeking an abortion even though the baby survived the attempted abortion has the right to a dead baby anyway. here's what i read from that transcript on that day, which is mar 30, 2001. the floor of the illinois

3:25:51 to 3:26:11( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: senate. and the question came from senator obama, thank president. wi the sponsor yield for questions? the responder indicates, he will. then state senator obama folwed with this. this bill was extensively debated in the judiciary committee and so i won't belabor

3:26:12 to 3:26:32( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: the issue. i do want to make sure that everybody in the senate makes sure they know what this bil is about as i understand it. senator o'malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the concerns was, is, there was a method of abortion, induced abortion where

3:26:33 to 3:26:54( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: the -- the fetus or child, as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. and one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still lifing.

3:26:55 to 3:27:15( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: is that correct? is that - lisk. is that one of the key concerns in the bil? senator o'maley apparently responded and, the sponsor of the bill said, senator obama, it is a key concern the way

3:27:16 to 3:27:36( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: children are treated folowing the birth has been reported to be in my opinion, les than humane. this bill sugests that it be treated as a citizen of the united states and afforded all the rights and protections under

3:27:37 to 3:27:58( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: the constitution of the united states. senator obama responded, wel, it turned out that during the testimony, a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose, woms's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and were raised by

3:27:59 to 3:28:20( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: witnesses in the testimony. and there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might met constitutional muster with carrying forth fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. senator obama continued, this bill goes a litle bit further so i want to sugest that i

3:28:21 to 3:28:41( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: think it wil make - excuse me, i just want to sugest not that i think it wil make to much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not oing to survive constitutional scrutiny. number one, whenever we determine a previable fetus that is protected by the equal

3:28:42 to 3:29:02( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: protection clause and other elements in the constitution, what we're saying is that they are persons that are entitled to this consideration. in any case, watching the clock tick down, madam speaker, i'm gog to follow with this - let's see -- they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be

3:29:03 to 3:29:24( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: provided to a child, a nine-month-old, a child that was delivered to term. in other words, he draws a distinction between the unborn child that is struggling for life after the attempted abortion and the child that's nine months old and goes on, quote, that determination, if it

3:29:25 to 3:29:45( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: was accepted by a court would forbid abortions to take plae, it would esentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child. so he admits that. and closing the quote there, he admits then abortion is killing a child, if you allow that child to be named as a citizen of the

3:29:46 to 3:30:06( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: united states by law. . and if this is a child and this would be an antiabortion statute for that purpose, i think it would be found unconstitutional. the second reason that it would be found unconstitutional is for this, it see lentionsy says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child

3:30:07 to 3:30:27( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: or fetus. however way you may want to describe it, viability is the line that has been drawn by the supreme court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. closed quote. not true, actually, madam speaker. they didn't draw that line, they made exceptions for life or health of the mother and that includes now, according to dole

3:30:28 to 3:30:48( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: versus bolton, as the economic or familiar al health of the perspective mother whom i consider as a mother of the that day. it goes on. i bring this down to a conclusion. the president of the united states continues all this dialogue on the floor of the illinois senate, standing up in

3:30:49 to 3:31:11( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: opposition to the life of a child survived an abortion from being starved to death and the door closed to no one can hear that child scream itself to death. the president argues in the substance of this that a woman has a right to a dead baby and particulars this way, as a consequence, and this is a quote, as a consequence i think that we willrobably end up in

3:31:12 to 3:31:33( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: court once again as we often do on this issue. and as a consequence, i will be voting present, closed quote. this president said wie vote present on the issue of the born alive act which is the most

3:31:34 to 3:31:54( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: outrageous position and it finds itself in direct contradiction to the born alive act that is almost identical to the illinois act that was passed unanimously in in the house and by voice vote in the senate, or vice vera, i don't rember which way, with

3:31:55 to 3:32:18( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: opposition in each chamber but opposition in the chamber of the illinois senate by the president of the united states who now we're going to trust to write an executive order that's not going to be constitutionally upheld? that doesn't have the convictions of the president but it gives just the smallest of fig leaves for the stupak dozen. that's what the american people have seen, madam speaker.

3:32:19 to 3:32:40( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: it's what brings some of their outrage. but shifting subjects and bringing t congressional record and towards the conclusion, i'll point out a press release that does give me some hope. it's a press relief that also comes from chicago a.p., headline is this, "acorn disbanding because of money woes

3:32:41 to 3:33:02( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and scandal." it's an article by michael tarm. and it was filed at 8:57 p.m. fairly fresh news for us. it says the once mighty community activist group acorn announced monday it is folding amid falling revenues. six months after a video footage emerged showing its workers giving tax tips to conservative

3:33:03 to 3:33:24( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: activists, posing as a pimp and a prostitute, hm. in six months, according to this article, brought about the destruction of acorn. acorn. the criminal enterprise, acorn that's been involved in advocating for a community reinvestment act and then

3:33:25 to 3:33:45( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: deciding they're the brokers of who's riding the most bad -- writing the most bad loans in bad neighborhoods, 400,000 fraudulent voter registration forms, acorn that's been under prosecution in multiple states, at least 14, i believe, it's 16 states in the country, for voter fraud, voter registration fraud,

3:33:46 to 3:34:06( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: a number of other activities, acorn, the organization that was raided -- rated in new orleans -- raided in new orleans, louisiana, at their headquarters and the attorney general of the state of louisiana brought ute a massive amount of records, copied those records for acorn and they're being sorted through to this day. acorn, the organization that

3:34:07 to 3:34:29( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: seemed to want to change its single but it couldn't change the forces -- faces of the organization. and the pressure from this congress shut off funding to acorn. the united sta off funding to acorn. thanks to senator johanns who offered the amendment to get that done.

3:34:30 to 3:34:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: and then there was the judge in the eastern district of new york who decided that congress didn't have a constitutional authority to end funding to a multiple criminal enterprise entity because we failed, our government failed, our solicitor general apparently failed to make the argument before the eastern district of new york that congress had so motive

3:34:51 to 3:35:11( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: other than punitive. and so there was an unprecedented decision made by a judge and she ruled that it was a bill retainedernd we shouldn't have punished acorn because acorn had funding to grants and contracts, not only what's going on in the past but in the future because they've been successful in the past and

3:35:12 to 3:35:32( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: congress failed to prove. well, there isn't going to be that center of acorn to appropriate funds to as long as we keep theressure up, madam speaker. america's a better place because of this good news tonight. i am not convinced that this is the end of acorn. i think people like that reform again and shape new organizations and come back in an insidious way but we've got

3:35:33 to 3:35:50( Edit History Discussion )

Steve King: to follow and track all of the money all the way down. we've got to stand up for the principle of life, we've got to stand up for the constitution, we've got to respect article 1, section 1, where all legislative authority is vested in the constitution of the united states, follow through on acorn, the sun did come up this morning