If United States decided not to do that, that would be a willful act on the part of the President. It would be malicious for him to do that.
Steve King
The Public Record
Steve King is a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Iowa's 4th congressional district from 2003 to 2021. Known for his conservative views, King was a prominent figure in the House, often advocating for strict immigration policies and fiscal conservatism. He served on several committees during his tenure, including the Judiciary Committee and the Agriculture Committee, where he focused on issues important to his rural constituents. King's tenure was marked by controversy over his remarks on race and immigration, which drew criticism from both sides of the political spectrum.
The statute presumes that everyone does use health care, and it presumes that health insurance is an obligation.
If an individual doesn't engage in purchasing health insurance, then they are not engaging in interstate commerce...
If the Supreme Court rules in favor and upholds this bill, this Act, this law of the land...
I think it was dishonest, I think it was disingenuous, and I think it was willful, a strategic effort to try to blur the definitions.
I don't think it is arguable whether this is sustainable economically or whether it will improve our health care.
And my view is that the Affordable Care Act has a whole series of upward risks on the budgetary side that make the possibility of that crisis much higher.
Reclaiming my time, may I inquire how much time I have remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). The gentleman has approximately 12 minutes.
It's not default. They've been calling it default to try to stampede people into taking a bad deal here in this Congress. The American people understand this.
I think the chairman has made a significant point here. Sometimes we are playing catch-up. I would like to have had the lead work done so that this information was out in front of the majority and the minority. I think you've seen the…
I might point out I didn't yield, but I would be happy to yield to the gentleman and hopefully get you a copy.
I really work to try to eradicate poverty in my district, and in some cases the only meals they get are when they are at school.
It is hard for taxpayers to understand that more food stamps solves obesity.
I would just like to back us up historically a little bit and ask you if you could inform us as to what the original reason for the nutrition program at its inception?
The amendment that I have put out here says: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose.'' And so I've specified why I'm concerned and why I address this language…
Reclaiming my time, I believe I did, but I would restate that there's a line item in the bill that provides $15 million to go to grants for telemedicine.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new section: Sec. __. None of the funds made available…
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cravaack
I just ask, since the gentleman has raised the issue of the Senator from Wisconsin, if he could name any individual who was unjustly charged by the Senator from Wisconsin.
Let me just take your argument, then, down to the conclusion, which will be, if I respond to your question, you'll ask me another and another and another, and it will get down to have they been convicted in a court of law and are you sure…





