Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I say in response to the gentleman from Maryland's discussion about the States courts that have prohibited caps. That is one of the reasons that we need this legislation, is that you have out-of-control liberal judges that have decided that even their State legislatures can't pass the laws. They want to come in and preempt the states' rights of we, the people, of the individual States who elect their general assemblies to make their decisions. Often, the judges are set in lifetime appointments where they are not held accountable, so it would be interesting to look back into each of these States that the gentleman from Maryland has mentioned and address this thing from ``we, the people'' because we, the people, are the power in this country. Our rights come from God, and they are vested in we, the people. I thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania's look at H.R. 1215 was a really deft way to focus on this and speak about the Magna Carta, but there wasn't anybody back in old England in that time that had any shot at filing a liability claim, let alone receiving a frivolous claim that would make one individual vastly wealthy at the expense of a lot of other folks. So this is something that has accumulated over the last 502 years since the Magna Carta was signed. So I would say this: healthcare costs are out of control due in large part to unlimited lawsuits and other problems ObamaCare failed to solve or else ObamaCare made worse. H.R. 1215 is commonsense litigation reform legislation that will rein in overly aggressive and healthcare lawsuits while preserving the ability of plaintiffs to recover unlimited economic damages. The bill applies only to claims concerning the provision of healthcare goods or services for which coverage is provided in whole or in part by a Federal program, a Federal subsidy, or a Federal tax benefit giving it a clear Federal nexus. This isn't criminal legislation. It doesn't address the cases of rape. We should arrest those people and lock them up in prison and punish them to the max, but it is not the subject of this legislation. So wherever the Federal policy directly affects the distribution of healthcare, there is a clear Federal interest in reducing the cost of such Federal policy. This bill's commonsense reforms, which have been the law in California for over 40 years, are conservatively estimated by CBO to save at least $50 billion. The previous estimate was $54 billion in Federal healthcare dollars. At the same time, this bill doesn't in any way limit compensation for 100 percent of plaintiffs' losses. As reported in The Washington Post last month, the U.S. healthcare spending is projected to accelerate over the next day. A study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that the average growth in healthcare spending will be even faster between 2016 and 2025. The projections are based on an assumption that the legislative status quo will prevail. Studies show that, as healthcare costs rise, wages fall. H.R. 1215 will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs and will, thereby, increase wages for workers nationwide. Mr. Chairman, as I look at the picture of how I watched this defensive medicine grow over the years and over the decades, $650 billion potentially, reported by a Newsweek article, in unnecessary defensive medicine tests that are done. A doctor that ordered CT scans in massive numbers in a single day, when I see 97 percent of the MRIs just to be sure that the diagnosis of an ACL knee injury is protected in the case of liability insurance, we are not going to see just $50 billion in savings here. We are going to see hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. And as an anesthesiologist told me that--he was practicing in Texas-- when Texas passed the law that is roughly a mirror of California law, that his premium as an anesthesiologist was $26,000 a year; and after the law passed in Texas, it dropped to $6,500, exactly one-fourth. A 75 percent reduction in that particular case. He is now practicing in Iowa. Iowa passed mirror legislation as well. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. One of the most recent studies, published a few months ago in the Journal of the American College of Radiology studied the effects of tort reform on just radiographic tests alone and found that there were ``2.4 million to 2.7 million fewer radiographic tests annually attributed to tort reforms.'' Just imagine what savings would occur if such reforms were attached to all Federal healthcare programs, as this bill would do. It causes me to think of an orthopedic surgeon who told me that he can diagnose an ACL almost every time, yet he is compelled by his liability insurance to do additional tests, 97 percent of which are unnecessary. That is the kind of thing we are dealing with, Mr. Chairman, and it is time for us to bring sanity to this litigation that we have in this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the statement that this bill caps or limits States on economic or noneconomic damages is incorrect. In fact, I would point the gentlewoman from Texas to page 6 of the bill, that says, under State Flexibility, that specifies a particular monetary amount of economic or economic damages, there is no provision in this section that shall be construed to preempt State law. We wrote that specifically to respect the States' rights. I recall a number of these pieces of legislation that have come before this Congress. I can remember it back at least until 2007. I was uneasy about the constitutionality because it did reach in and preempt State law. And I am a respecter of States' rights, but we have a Federal interest in healthcare. That is the provision that is written into the bill. If there are Federal dollars involved, if it is a Federal program, then the Federal Government has an interest in limiting these damages. We capped the damages in this bill, not the economic damages. Those real damages that are economic damages are fully compensated, without limit, without cap, and without the interference of this law, unless States choose to cap economic damages. Noneconomic damages, however, are capped at $250,000; and that $250,000 cap is something that has existed in California State law for more than 40 years, signed into law by the very durable Jerry Brown. But if the States want to change that, if they want to raise the cap beyond $250,000, that is their right to do so. We specify that in the bill. I would like to discuss a need for this bill. It is necessary to preserve fiscal sanity in Federal healthcare policy. And I would like to point out, also, at the outset that this bill only applies to claims concerning the provision of goods and services for which coverage is provided in whole or in part by a Federal program, a Federal subsidy, or a Federal tax benefit. It is a clear, clear, Mr. Chairman, Federal nexus. Wherever Federal policy affects the distribution of healthcare, there is a clear Federal interest. So, the bill's commonsense reforms, which have been the law in California for over 40 years and that the CBO has scored a couple of times here--the previous score was $54 billion; this score is $50 billion--is over $50 billion in savings to the people who are paying for healthcare in this country, and that includes our taxpayers and the healthcare users. But the $250,000 cap is reasonable. It has sustained itself over those 40 years in California, and it is good enough for other States to emulate. When I hear some pushback from Texas, I am kind of thinking they want to keep the system they have, and they don't want to have to compete with the rest of the country. I think we might lose a vote or two to from Texas on that alone: We have ours; we don't want America to have anything like that because then we have to compete with all of America. This bill will allow courts to require periodic payments for future damages instead of lump sum awards. That helps limit bankruptcies so plaintiffs that might receive only pennies on the dollar can be prevented. And it includes provisions creating a ``fair share'' rule by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault. That has got to help a lot when you are thinking about the cost of healthcare. The bill does all this without in any way limiting compensation for 100 percent of the plaintiffs' economic losses, which include anything to which a receipt can be attached, including all medical costs, lost wages, future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, or any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as a result of a healthcare injury. Far from limiting deserved recoveries in California, these reforms have led to medical damage awards in deserving cases, Mr. Chairman, in the area of the $80 million to $90 million range. The Washington Post reported a few months ago: ``U.S. healthcare spending . . . is projected to accelerate over the next decade. . . . A study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that the average growth in health spending will be even faster in 2016'' on up through the decade of 2025. ``The projections are based on an assumption that the legislative status quo will prevail.'' If we don't change the law, we are going to see these costs going up. As Nate Silver pointed out in The New York Times, not my favorite document: ``All the major categories of Federal Government spending have been increasing relative to inflation. But essentially all of the increase in spending relative to economic growth and the potential tax base has come from entitlement programs, and about half of all of that has come from healthcare entitlements specifically.'' Studies show that as healthcare costs rise, wages fall; and the more companies pay in healthcare costs, the less they can pay in wages. So when healthcare costs increase and that growth increases, wages stagnate; and when healthcare costs growth slows, wages go up. Members who want to see wages increase should vote for this bill--it is good for the healthcare workers--because one of the drivers of higher healthcare spending is so-called defensive medicine.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes. That is a very real phenomenon confirmed by countless studies in which healthcare workers conduct many additional costly tests and procedures with no medical value. That is charged to our Federal taxpayers, and it is simply to avoid excessive litigation costs. A survey published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that 91 percent of the over 1,000 doctors surveyed ``reported believing that physicians order more tests and procedures than needed to protect themselves from malpractices suits.'' The study also asked: ``Are protections against unwarranted medical malpractice lawsuits needed to decrease the unnecessary use of diagnostic tests?'' And the answer, an identical number: 91 percent of the doctors surveyed agreed. But there is one Newsweek reporter who described the personal experience of individual doctors this way: ``Typical was one doctor, who had a list as long as my arm of procedures ER docs perform . . . for no patient benefit. They include following a bedside sonogram . . . with an ``official'' sonogram because it's easier to defend yourself to a jury if you've ordered the second one; a CT scan for every child who bumped his or her head, to rule out things that can be diagnosed just fine by observation; X-rays that do not guide treatment, such as for a simple broken arm; CTs for suspected appendicitis that has been perfectly well diagnosed without it. ``Although doctors may hate practicing defensive medicine, they do it so they don't get sued. . . . Nationwide, physicians estimate that 35 percent of diagnostic tests they ordered were to avoid lawsuits, as were 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries. . . . All told,'' according to the Newsweek article, $650 billion in unnecessary care every year was provided by these doctors. Another ER doctor said he ordered 52 CT scans in one 12- hour shift for a total of $104,000 in a single day. These are the things we are dealing with, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, it is just interesting to me to hear this discussion about the Senate addressing the healthcare situation in America. I stood on this floor time, after time, after time, and in 2010, March 23 of 2010, the final passage of ObamaCare was sent out of the Congress to the President of the United States, who signed it immediately before the sun could come up in the morning. And I was sick at heart at what happened to our Constitution, our rule of law, our individual rights. And now we have a mess of a healthcare system in America. This is a component of the fix. We don't have a single Democrat in the House or Senate that is willing to even commit to work with us to put up a single vote to try to improve the healthcare system in America. They made a mistake, and they passed ObamaCare. They served it over to us and said: Now you fix it. Well, we are going to declare it a mess no matter what you do. We are going to fix it. It is going to take some time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, as you listen to the stories that are here that have been delivered by the gentleman from Florida, I am wondering why we haven't heard these stories come out of California. Because this legislation essentially mirrors California legislation. That was the model that we followed. And they have had over 40 years to repeal or amendment it, and it has been sustainable. There is a right to a jury trial under this. It is just that there are caps that are set, that are reasonable caps, and the States are free to change those caps up or down. So I don't quite follow this, but I would say someone who is raped in a nursing home is not covered under this. This legislation doesn't affect it at all. It has to have an affect by a diagnosis, a prevention, or a treatment of a disease impairment; and a rape is not that. So it would not be covered under this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I know that my opposition would like to have this legislation killed. I would just point out something that I heard on the floor of the House here about 10 years ago, and it was this: We can pass this legislation, but the Senate may not pass it. And I would urge them to take it up. There is a special interest, and it is the Trial Lawyers Association. They are the ones who will not come out of this very well. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I point out also that this bill keeps these cases in State court. It doesn't move them to Federal court. Previous legislation that has been brought to this floor, a decade or so ago, did move a lot of these cases to Federal court. But it is carefully drafted to keep this with the maximum amount of respect for States' rights that can be held and still have a Federal interest. There has to be a Federal interest in every dollar involved in this. In every single case, there has to be Federal dollars involved in it, or this bill wouldn't affect it at all. And so I am one who is also a great respecter of States' rights. And in this legislation, as drafted, there are provisions in there over and over again that protect as many of the States' rights as can be. And if you take the other side of this argument, then it is far stronger that the right of the Federal Government would be usurped by the States if we don't have this legislation. That is what is taking place now--States that choose not to make a decision, not to set caps, and we are seeing huge settlements going on around the country. This is what we want to end, so that we can save the $50 to $54 billion for the taxpayers. But the thing that is even worth more than this is, how much of that $650 billion in defensive medicine will no longer be used in this country, and how much safer and less expensive will our healthcare be in America? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I was a little surprised to hear that a judge in the State of Washington had ruled that caps are unconstitutional. In fact, it is kind of curious to hear the same arguments--or conflicting arguments coming out of the other side. One of them says it is the States' rights to be able to set the caps. The other one says it is unconstitutional to set the caps. So I think that conflict, it would be good if that were resolved. I think, in either case, that I disagree with both of those positions, Mr. Chairman. If a Washington State judge says caps are unconstitutional, on what basis? That would say, then, that a State legislature couldn't cap them; Congress can't cap them; that this is essentially, then, a function of the courts. I remember a decision that came out of the State of Washington. It was a Federal judge that essentially ruled that the President's executive order on, let's say, migrants coming into the United States was unconstitutional, even though Congress specifically granted the authority to their President. So I am not going to defer to a single judge's opinion in that fashion. I would point out, too, that we do protect States' rights. There is provision in this bill after provision, and it is titled State Flexibility. Look through their and find all the provisions of State Flexibility where we respect States' rights. And it is written as carefully as it can be to respect the maximum amount of States' rights. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would just point out to the body that I didn't hear a single fact in the previous 2 minutes. It is all opinion and hurled accusations. But I think it is important for this body to deliberate over the facts themselves, and I have delivered a lot of that data. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would point out, first of all, the gentleman from Maryland must know that this isn't a criminal statute. This is civil law. It doesn't have anything to do with crime or criminal law, so let's keep our discussion to the civil actions that we are discussing here. It is not propaganda. It is facts that we have delivered on this side. So I want to put this into the Record verbatim, Mr. Chairman. Regarding cases of rape or physical abuse, H.R. 1215 does not cover such cases at all. That is because the bill only applies to medical malpractice claims based on the provision or use of healthcare services; and healthcare services are defined in the bill as things related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any human disease or impairment. Clearly, rape or any other physical abuse, and the neglect of basic sanitary conditions, is not related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any human disease or impairment. So in cases involving rape or physical abuse by anyone, or neglect of basic needs, the bill simply does not apply. But it does respect States' rights. It is carefully written to protect States' rights. It is a significant and huge improvement upon some efforts we have seen in the past, and one of those reasons is because many of us care about States' rights, and we pay attention to the Constitution. There is a Federal nexus in everything that goes on here, and States are not limited from raising caps on economic or noneconomic damages or lowering those caps. We respect the States in every way possible, and still get a positive result out of H.R. 1215. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the gentleman from Maryland say that this legislation would override the laws of 28 States. That was a surprise to me to hear that when I heard the number before Rules Committee, which I think I actually recall it was 27. But 28, 27, it doesn't override laws. It is the absence of laws. There are States that don't have caps. That is what we are talking about here. So it is not overriding State laws in States where there are no laws. It simply is setting a Federal foundation and a guideline for them. And if I am in a State legislature, I know I have the authority to raise or lower the cap on economic and on noneconomic damages, and that my laws are not being overridden, but they are being provided by the wisdom of the American people, then I am going to be thankful I have that to work with until I can amend it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I want to express, Mr. Chairman, how much I appreciate the work that has been done by so many people and their part in this bill. I rise in support of this improving amendment--it comes out of the minds of Texas, I might add--which would clarify the timing of the statute of limitations in the provision base of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Sessions amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on the Rules Committee and in many other ways; and I also thank Dr. Burgess, another gentleman from Texas on the Rules Committee whose amendment is being offered by Mr. Sessions. As I listen to this dialogue, Mr. Chairman, I am just thinking that States do have rights. They have the right to control any of the healthcare services that are funded by individuals or States. This only affects that because it has Federal dollars in it. We drive at a 55- mile-an-hour speed limit because the Federal Government sets that. So I rise in support of this amendment, but the States are not funding Medicare, Medicaid, or ObamaCare.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I am happy to accept the time from the gentleman from Tennessee and make the point that hasn't been made very well here today that--apparently, not well enough or the gentleman wouldn't have yielded the time to me, I don't believe--where there are Federal dollars involved, there have been Federal regulations that have matched along with that. We have written all kinds of legislation in this Congress, a lot of which I disagreed with. But there was a Federal nexus, and it hasn't been litigated successfully time after time after time. We saw ObamaCare itself was litigated over and over again and the Supreme Court came down with rulings that let that legislation stand. That is one of the reasons why we have the angst that we have today. But the case that this usurps States' rights is thin. It is not without some consequence, but it is very thin. We have gone way over to the other side, and we have written everything that we can possibly write into this bill that respects the rights of States. There is always a Federal nexus--we can count on that--and it is so small in comparison to so many other Federal things. Some of the things in our Federal Government are overreach. This is not. This is a minimal, de minimis reach in order to regulate over-the-top trial lawyers, who are the ones who are the only losers today, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Roe, the gentleman from Tennessee, for bringing this amendment. Looking at the language here, it is interesting that the concern was that the witnesses may not be available within a large State. I notice, as I read the language, that unless the person was licensed for practice in the State or a contiguous border State--that is pretty good. If you are Hawaii, maybe not so good. But Dr. Roe, typical to his style, anticipated these things by putting the waiver authority in the last provision in the amendment, which says: ``The court may waive the requirements in this subsection if it determines that the appropriate witnesses otherwise would not be available.'' So this is a sound, well thought-out directive that ensures that we have a high level of professionalism. When the gentleman earlier talked about a jury of your peers, what about having professionals who are highly credentialed that do understand the locality and the normal practices within the region? So not only do I support this amendment, but I encourage its adoption. It requires expert witnesses to have knowledge of the standard of care in their local communities. It is a commonsense amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this improving amendment which would save even more Federal taxpayer dollars by requiring the filing of affidavits of merit from an appropriately qualified specialist, requiring that expert witnesses have speciality backgrounds relevant to the case, allowing doctors to apologize without fear of penalty, and requiring a 90-day cooling-off period before lawsuits can be filed to facilitate voluntary settlements. I urge its adoption by the House, and I would point out that, as the gentleman from Tennessee referred to a fraternity of healthcare professionals as if somehow they couldn't come to an objective decision on their own profession, there has to be a fraternity of lawyers that are making these decisions for all of America right now. What we are seeking to do today is to bring this back to common sense, bring it back to we the people, keep it within the bounds of the Constitution, and reduce the cost of healthcare across America $54 billion, and we are looking at a potential for $650 billion a year. Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement before me from Chairman Goodlatte, the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee. I am going to represent this as his statement, but the chairman thanks the gentleman from Kentucky for his clarification while he remains opposed to the amendment because it provides an overly broad definition of the eligible professional organizations authorized to issue the guidelines that would be used as an affirmative defense, and because it is not supported by the wider coalition of medical groups supporting the base bill. He looks forward to working with the gentleman to further refine and improve his legislative proposal. That concludes Chairman Goodlatte's statement that he would like read into this Record. And I would say on my own behalf, Mr. Chairman, that I very much appreciate the work that Mr. Barr has brought to this. The language that he presented originally, that had to be amended in order to conform with the parliamentarian, I believe, does define this with clarity. So I am inclined to support the gentleman from Kentucky. We will see what happens if there is a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, this great deliberative body that we have and are, and this deliberative body that brings this Nation together to discuss our troubles, to discuss our triumphs, and sometimes intensively debate our disagreements here on the floor and in committee. We have seen a fair amount of that disagreement around the country. There are a few things we see that brings this country together, and we join together in these efforts when we can be Americans, and reach out with the hand of the American heart and spirit and help others when they are in sometimes dire need and dire difficulty. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss one of these circumstances where Americans joined together and reached out their hands--not only of friendship but physically reached out their hands--to deliver the kind of medical care that saved three lives from a terrible accident that took place in Tanzania. This terrible accident in Tanzania was worldwide news. There were 39 people on a bus in Tanzania, and all but three were students, children, 12 to 13 years old. There were two teachers and a bus driver on the bus. From the reports that I got, the bus was going too fast. It went around a curve and reached the peak of a bump in the road, a rise in the road. The bus went airborne off the road into a ravine, and it crashed nose down in the same fashion that a plane might crash into the Earth. Of the 39 people on the bus, 36 of them children, there were only three survivors. These three survivors were in the back of the bus, and all others in the front were thrown to the front, where the engine and the front part of the bus, all the way back to behind the driver, was jammed into the fuselage, I might call it, of the bus itself. And as that was jammed backwards, they were all thrown into that. The three survivors were in the back, and the violence to them was cushioned, to a degree, by those who had perished in front of them. Everyone else was essentially instantly killed, and these three children by the name of Wilson and Sadia and Doreen were survivors. The bus was crushed together like a tin can. Three vehicles behind the bus were some missionary workers who are associated with STEMM, the Siouxland Tanzania Educational Medical Ministries, which was formed in Sioux City, Iowa, and it was formed by the inspiration of a long chain of, I will say, the Hand of Providence that arranges people together. They were there in Tanzania, following the bus three vehicles behind. Mr. Speaker, the situation there was that, as they saw the bus go off the road and crash, the bus crashed down off into the ravine; they stopped. The three of them were trained medical personnel named Kevin Nygard and Jennifer Milby and Amanda Volkers. I believe there are also a couple that I don't happen to have their names in front of me this evening, and I don't want to leave them out, Mr. Speaker, but they raced down the bank to the ravine where the bus had crashed nose down. They knew it was a terrible accident. I don't think they could have imagined how bad and how terrible it was, but the only way to get in that bus was through the windows in the sides, schoolbus-type windows, as we know. Most all of us are familiar with those, Mr. Speaker. So they climbed into that bus and began to look for survivors and to try to pull the survivors out and then the bodies of those who didn't survive, and they worked frantically there with other volunteers, also, who happened to come along to the scene. They were able to remove the three survivors that I had mentioned, Wilson and Sadia and Doreen, and lay them out on the bank. They were all medically trained, and so they were applying first aid. These three kids, these three students, 12 to 13 years old, two girls and a boy, were then transported by ambulance into the city in Tanzania. Now, I didn't know that this had happened, even though it was international news, but I was on an international trip as well into the Balkans. I happened to be in Bosnia at the moment in Sarajevo. I received a phone call from Dr. Steve Meyer. Steve Meyer is the founder of STEMM, the Siouxland Tanzania Educational Medical Ministries. His heart has gone out to Tanzania nearly 20 years ago. He spends about half of each year there doing missionary work and providing and conducting orthopaedic surgery because he is an orthopaedic surgeon. He has taught them how to farm. He is drilling wells for irrigation. He also is running an educational system there that, at least the last report I had, it was the largest nonpublic school in Tanzania. This is all done by the drive and the inspiration and the heart of Dr. Steve Meyer and his wife, Dana. And so the people that work with him had contributed to the survival of the three students that they had helped pulled out of that bus. Yet I received a call from Steve Meyer. I was with the charge d'affaires in Sarajevo, Bosnia, and I stepped out of that reception to take a cell phone call. When I pick up my phone and it says, ``Steve Meyer,'' I know I better answer the call. He is a friend. He is a pheasant hunting buddy. I guess he is a neighbor in the neighborhood, not technically a constituent, but we are brothers by faith, by head, by heart, and I know the level of conviction that Steve Meyer has. So I took his call when I stepped out of the reception, and he said: ``You have already seen this on the news. I need your help. There are three students that will . . .'' He said: ``One, probably two, of them will not survive if we cannot get them out of Tanzania. The third one likely will be handicapped for life, but is more likely to survive.'' I know that he does orthopaedic surgery in Tanzania, and I said: ``Can't you help them there? Can't you fix them there?'' And he said: ``No, I can't. We don't have the equipment in Tanzania. We are not going to be able to save them unless we can get them out of Tanzania, get them back to Sioux City, where we can provide all the best medical care and perform the surgery necessary to put their bodies back together.'' And that was his medical prognosis. Now, I know from previous times that I have been around Steve Meyer, the level of conviction that he has and, of course, the depth of his heart. So I said: ``I think I know what you need from me.'' And he said: ``Yes, their parents need to go along, too; and we want to send along a doctor and a nurse. I have only got just a little bit of time, and I am going to have to leave Tanzania, but we need to get them out of here while they are still alive.'' So my job was to accelerate the visas, acquisition of visas for the three patients, the kid patients, for each one of their mothers, and for the doctor and for the nurse that needed to accompany them back to the United States, and to promote and accelerate the issuance of passports, which nobody had that needed to travel here either, and that would be a function of the Tanzanian Government and a function of something that we might be able to encourage. So that was the easy part. It doesn't sound easy, Mr. Speaker, but it was the easy part compared to the second part of the assignment Dr. Meyer gave me. And he said: ``I need a medevac plane, and we are going to have to fly them out of Tanzania in a medevac plane. I have got everything set up in Sioux City. It is at Mercy Hospital. All of us are going to donate our time, our medical care, the devices that will be used to do the reconstructive surgery. All of that is going to be provided. It is going to be at no cost, but we need to get them there and get them there fast.'' So this is a high emergency. I hung up the phone and I began to make phone calls. And the fortunate thing was I was leaving Bosnia shortly to go to Macedonia. Well, I would employ the staff at the Bosnian Embassy--the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia to pull some phone numbers together for me and start the outreach on this and to accelerate the effort to get the visas, promote the passports, and get the medevac plane. I want to thank the people there at the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia for their work and their cooperation. I shortly arrived in Macedonia, where now I had a whole new embassy team to put to work; and they did. They pulled together phone numbers and made connections for me, too. I spoke--I believe it was from Macedonia--to the Tanzanian Embassy--the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania. I want to thank Anthony Pagliai. Anthony Pagliai is the officer who issued the visas, and he was Johnny-on-the-spot. He couldn't have moved any more quickly or with any more conviction once I convinced him that this was for real. And it was interesting how that happened, Mr. Speaker, that the--you know, when a congressman calls a staff person in an embassy in Tanzania, he doesn't have any way of knowing that it actually is a Member of Congress, for one thing, and what is the level of urgency and credibility of that call. But I told him I can vouch for Dr. Steve Meyer and I have known him for a long time, I know the level of his credibility and his conviction, his heart. I have spoken to that, Mr. Speaker. I relayed that to Anthony Pagliai, and it seemed that the message wasn't clearly resonating because he didn't know of Dr. Steve Meyer. So I said to him that Steve Meyer is also working with Lazaro Nyalandu. Lazaro Nyalandu is an individual who ran for Prime Minister in Tanzania in the last election cycle--didn't win, but a fairly high name recognition within Tanzania. And when I gave Lazaro's name--you heard me hesitate already, Mr. Speaker. I have always had trouble remembering his name, but it is Nyalandu. And I hesitated on his name, but I said: ``Lazaro, the Prime Minister candidate in Tanzania, is working with Dr. Meyer, and I can vouch for Dr. Meyer. I know Lazaro, and I know, if the two of them are working together, this is a credible endeavor, and you should help them in any way that you can.'' And he finished up and he gave me Lazaro's last name. He volunteered it: Nyalandu. He said: ``We know him. He was the only candidate for Prime Minister that actually answered our phone calls.'' So I knew that he had a good relationship with the U.S. Embassy and that they had all of the incentive to move forward to expedite the visas. And I asked Anthony: ``Find me also a medevac plane.'' Well, that was a very big request for somebody that is in the business of issuing visas for travel. And he said he would go to work on that, but I knew it was very difficult. So with the confidence that the visas would be moved expeditiously and that the encouragement to deliver the passports would be supported out of the U.S. Embassy, I moved on to begin looking for a medevac plane while the course of his lifesaving techniques were going on in the hospital in Tanzania, trying to save the lives of these three badly broken bodies. Mr. Speaker, as I move then from Macedonia to Albania, I have been continually making phone calls trying to find a medevac plane. I talked to the White House. I talked to the West Wing of the White House, and in particular, communicated with Steve Bannon and others who then did the outreach to the Department of Defense and went so far as to check with Stuttgart, where they command AFRICOMs out of Stuttgart, Germany. The assets to do this didn't really exist in an available way. I reached even further into a security company that I worked with as head of my security in the Middle East, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and they found a plane. This plane was sitting on the tarmac in the Middle East. It could have gone down. It was set up well enough to be a medevac plane, but the price, because it was a leased plane, was $300,000. So I told them: ``I don't think I want to spend that amount of money out of my kids' inheritance. I am not sure we could raise it to replace it, but put that plane on hold because I want to make some more phone calls and see if there is a better alternative.'' I kept making phone calls, and at about 4 o'clock in that afternoon, in a little back street in Albania, I had a phone call connection with Reverend Franklin Graham. And I want to give credit in the Congressional Record to Elizabeth Soderholm, who was a staff person out of our U.S. Embassy in Albania, who made sure that that phone call made connection as the cell signals were bad and the batteries were going down, nearly down on my phone. We made the connection with hers, so I dialed, and I got an answer from Reverend Franklin Graham. And over the course of less than a 5-minute conversation altogether, over the course of about 3 minutes, I explained the situation to him. And Reverend Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse said: ``I have a DC-8 that I can fly and move them out of Tanzania to Sioux City, Iowa. I am willing to do that. I want to help.'' And I said: ``Reverend Graham, I don't know that I can raise the money for that.'' And he said: ``You don't have to. We will take care of it.'' And at that moment I knew that we had the problem solved and we had a reasonable chance to save these three kids. So, of course, I thanked him effusively. I texted Dr. Meyer's number to Franklin Graham, and Franklin Graham's number to Dr. Meyer. I said to each one of them: ``Call each other right away so that you can make this connection and get this plane set up and dispatched to evacuate these three patients out of Tanzania.'' And Dr. Meyer had no idea this was going on. He was 30 minutes from boarding his commercial flight out of Tanzania to come back to Iowa. Because of the obligations he had, he could not have stayed. And the phone rang, he answered it, and it was on the other end: ``This is Franklin Graham, and I want to help.'' And that is when Steve Meyer knew that the problems, the difficulties were going to be resolved. In any case, at that point they set up the logistics. The plane arrived in Tanzania, boarded these patients out of there, and flew them back to the United States--not without incident, but back to the United States. Again, I am very grateful for all the people involved here. And I want to let this Congressional Record know, Mr. Speaker, that the driving force behind this was Dr. Steve Meyer. And it has been his heart to help the people of Tanzania for two decades, and anybody that has been around him like I have been, my pheasant hunting buddy, and the times that Marilyn and I have been involved in the fundraising efforts that go on with STEMM and Sioux City, you just know. You want to make sure that he is going to get it done. So why not make it as easy as possible on him and knowing that, when that calling comes from above, you answer that call? So I wanted to point out some things here on the posters. This is how this came together. These pictures were taken, I believe, 2\1/2\ weeks ago, maybe 3\1/2\ weeks ago, but the accident took place May 6. So within a couple of weeks of the accident, they had finished the surgery of our three victims here. Mr. Speaker, I will say, among these three, there were five broken arms and at least, I believe, three broken legs. There were two fractured spines. There were 17 broken bones altogether. There was a broken jaw over here in Doreen. And this is a fractured spine in her neck. And this is Sadia. And Wilson had a fractured femur. And when you add this all up, it would have been--I guess I better not necessarily point out which one, but both of these girls were at great risk of death in Tanzania and likely would not have made it. Wilson here in the middle likely would have survived, but he had a fractured femur where, in Tanzania, would have required that they amputate his leg at the hip. And now, as of a week ago Saturday, I went up to the Sioux City Bandits' football game--indoor football--and they were co-captains for the team, for the playoff game that took place that Saturday night. They wheeled all three of them out to the middle of the field for the coin toss. And after that, they came back, and we had a little stage on the end where we watched the game from the stage. And they look a little fresher and more alert that night than they do in these pictures, Mr. Speaker, but they are now happy. Their parents are delighted and very grateful. This is Dr. Steve Meyer here in the picture, and I just can't say enough about a man who inspires everyone around him and makes things happen by force of will and faith that would not and, we would think, could not happen otherwise. And then of the patients here, Wilson is the one that cracks me up the most. On that Saturday night, this young fellow who would have, by now, lost his leg up at the hip, I leaned down and I said to him: ``Wilson, is what I heard about you yesterday true?'' And he looked at me and smiled a little bit, and said: ``Well, what?'' And I said: ``Did you really kick a ball yesterday? Did you stand up and kick a ball?'' And he got this grin on his face and said: ``Yes.'' So that is how far this has come. This is a happy result, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to also show the picture. Here is Wilson and his mother. I will give you an example. He has got this ready smile. He is not the only one of the crew with a ready smile, but he has got a great ready smile. And part of it is he had got a big wound in his head that you don't see in the picture, too, but it doesn't suppress the grin on his face. And we did a little press conference there. It was the first time he had been out of a hospital room. The only thing he had seen in America was the inside of a hospital room, and then wheeled down the hallway to the reception area of the hospital. And he is there with the two girls in their wheelchairs. That was also taken the same day. And the press asked him: ``What is it you like best about America?'' Well, the only thing he had seen of America was the inside of the hospital, and he smiled and he said: ``Everything.'' And they asked him: ``What is your favorite food here?'' And he said: ``Everything.'' And they asked him only one more question: ``Is there anything else you would like to say, Wilson?'' And he said: ``Thank you.'' And that is something that the parents have been saying ever since, the three mothers that are here and the doctor and the nurse that are here also to take care of them. They are now out of the hospital. They are at Ronald McDonald House there in Sioux City. They have been taking them out on occasion to get some fresh air and see what normal life is in our part of the country. And you can just see the heart, and Steve Meyer here in this poster. I would be remiss if I didn't have this poster up also tonight, Mr. Speaker. This is Samaritan's Purse. This is the DC-8 that Reverend Franklin Graham dispatched to fly our three patients out of Tanzania and into Sioux City, Iowa. These are the people that have gathered at the departure wondering if they are ever going to see these three Tanzanian kids again. Many of these people would be people that were at the state funeral for the 36 who were killed in that bus accident. Tens of thousands came to the stadium as those 36 caskets were all lined up side by side, and the nation went into mourning in Tanzania because of that terrible loss that they had and the tragedy that was there, that was commemorated by the attendance of tens of thousands. Probably over 100,000 Tanzanians came to their soccer stadium for that huge funeral that they had. And now some of them come to the airstrip to see these three survivors, these miracle kids from Tanzania be flown off to the United States. I can only imagine what it is like in their mind's eye, what they imagine is happening with their three children that have been flown over here to the United States. And the father of one of these patients said to Dr. Meyer: ``Why? Why? Why?'' And Dr. Meyer said: ``Well, what do you mean `why?' '' ``Why do you do this? Why are you willing to do this for our children?'' And his answer is: ``We are Christians and we are Americans. That's why.'' And so it is the head and the heart of our country, our people. It does come to us to reach out and lift others up and help them. We can't help them all. We can't save them all. But every once in a while, there is a cry out and a need for a chain of individual miracles linked together. Without a connection, by the way, between Steve Meyer and Lazaro, who met years ago when Lazaro was going to college in Iowa, Lazaro Nyalandu--as he went to college in Iowa, he was brought together by Steve Meyer's pastor and then Steve Meyer, and they got to know each other and they became friends. And because of that relationship, Steve Meyer went to Tanzania and became one of the lead people on mission to Tanzania. If it hadn't been for that, he never would have formed STEMM. The Siouxland Tanzania Educational Medical Ministry would have never been formed had it not been for that connection more than 20 years ago. And if it had never been formed, the workers wouldn't have been behind the bus when it went off the road, and, likely, everybody would have perished in that bus rather than all but three. If they hadn't been behind the bus, we would have not heard about the injuries that they had and wouldn't have had the connection to fly them back to the United States. I don't know Lazaro myself. I don't have that to use to convince Anthony Pagiliai that this is a credible act. Now, he might have done it anyway. His head and his heart sounds good to me, too, but it helped to have that series of networks already built. I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because I want people to know, the people that are listening here, and especially young people as they form and shape their lives, that networking is worth a lot. You can be the smartest person in the world with the best intentions in the world, but if you don't have relationships with people so that you can communicate, that you can share ideas, that you can connect and team up on projects, then you can't get a lot done. The smartest person in the world in a phone book hasn't had much effect on our society. But people with good convictions and good relationships and positive attitudes and a good heart can get a lot done that is good if they are connected with the right people. So I just encourage, especially, young people: Go out there and build those networks. Build them while you are young. Build them while you are in school, when you are in K-12, when you are in college, when you are after college, when you are building those networks of young people that are going into the profession together. And understand that 40 years later you are still going to have friends that you can call on to produce a good and positive result if you build those relationships and those networks, not be reclusive. Push yourself out there and build friendships with people. And that multiplied itself over and over again. By the way, I am grateful that Franklin Graham took my call and I carried enough credibility that that actually worked that way, too. That is another piece of networking. But I can't thank Revered Franklin Graham enough. I remember sitting in my living room watching a black-and-white TV while Billy Graham was preaching and calling for an altar call, and that is a little bit of how we grew up in our family, clear back then when TVs were black-and-white. And now, his son, Reverend Franklin Graham, took a phone call from me from Albania that resulted in a DC-8 being dispatched to fly these three patients out of Tanzania to Sioux City, Iowa, where they received surgery that repaired 17 broken bones and, by the way, with all of the medical devices donated by the company that produced them as well. When I look at this, Doreen was paralyzed, particularly in her right leg, and there was no confidence as to whether she would ever be able to have any feeling in that leg or ever be able to walk again. Today she has feeling in that leg. She has some movement in that leg, and my level of confidence that she will walk again is pretty high right now. All the other prayers have been answered; why not this one? I think the day comes when these three arrive back in Tanzania, and I will predict the date. I think it will be the 18th or 19th of August that they will be flown back to Tanzania, and I believe that these three patients, with their mothers with them, will walk down the steps off that plane onto the soil of Tanzania; and I believe that there will be tens of thousands of Tanzanians there to welcome them back home again. The completion of this series of miracles that came about because one person, Steve Meyer, had the right head and heart at all times, and he had the right networks, with people like Lazaro Nyalandu and people working in our U.S. Embassies like Anthony Pagiliai and Elizabeth Soderholm, who set up that call, and our Ambassadors within each of those places that promoted and allowed this to happen, including Ambassador Lu and also Ambassador Baily, whom I worked with. I got the good news when I was in Kosovo that it was going to be, it was likely to be completed then, that they had reached that transaction. I called it a transaction. They had put together the logistics so that the plane was going to go and pick them up. I found myself then at the Vatican shortly after that, and kind of as maybe a little extra frosting on the cake, I was offered the opportunity to do the Bible reading at St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican that Sunday. I don't know how that came to me unless it was just a little reward from God that said, ``Well done, well done,'' by a lot of people. These young people are now reconstructed. Their reconstructive surgery is completed, and they are on the mend. Two of the three are standing and walking and getting stronger, and each of them are taking physical therapy, and their attitudes are good. Their pain levels are down, and the projection is that, by mid to late August, they will be ready to go back to Tanzania. That is an American success story, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that I am happy to relay here on the floor of the House of Representatives and deliver the credit to so many people who did so much to make this work, particularly Dr. Steve Meyer, but all of that for three kids in Tanzania for whom it is a miracle that they survived the bus accident. Now, for their futures, the three miracle kids of Tanzania have a legacy to live up to. I expect that in years going forward, 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years from now, wherever they go in the world, especially in Tanzania, they will be known as the Tanzanian miracle kids, the ones who survived against such improbable odds. Out of them should come the kind of ambassadorship that links together Tanzania and the United States, and who knows what gets built that helps them help themselves; who knows how much of their own agriculture will be expanded so they can raise their own food; who knows how much of their educational system will be built out because of the inspiration that can come from young people whose lives have been saved by the technology and education that we have here; who knows how much of their spirit of faith is going to be bolstered by the good hearts of people that only wanted to do something good, only wanted to reach out their hand and help. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and grateful that this story is on its way to a very happy conclusion, and I can't say enough about the children, about the mothers who expressed their gratitude at the game. One of the mothers continued to always offer some little chicken strips for my granddaughter, my 10-year-old granddaughter, Rachel, to eat. Rachel couldn't quite understand why she was supposed to be eating all the time. And whenever Rachel would take a bite of it, then she would hear: ``You like? You like?'' And I said: ``Well, Rachel, it is because there are only a few words in English that this girl's mother knows, and she wants to open up a conversation with you, and so she's offering you food. That is a way of her expressing gratitude, not only to us, but to our country, and a way of having a conversation and communicating.'' And so it was a good experience for Rachel, too. But I can't say enough about Reverend Franklin Graham, Samaritan's Purse, this effort that is global, that didn't hesitate. Again, it was not a 5-minute conversation between me and Reverend Franklin Graham that was able to set up this transportation; and the conversation with Franklin Graham and Dr. Steve Meyer, not very technical. It is: ``Where are they?'' ``What do we need to do?'' ``How are we going to figure out how to get there?'' ``Can we set the plane up to be a medevac plane?'' He had expressed that also in the phone call with me. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a story that is on the way to a very, very happy conclusion, and I hope sometime, maybe in September, I can come back to the floor and report on the return of the Tanzanian miracle kids to Tanzania and, hopefully, I will have some pictures then of the crowd that is bound to be gathered together in a great celebratory event to counteract, or to be juxtaposed against the terrible, terrible tragedy of that bus accident that killed 36. It was 33 students and 2 of the teachers and the bus driver. Only these three children survived, and they survived because they were at the back of the bus when the bus landed on its nose. So 17 broken bones, 2 broken spines, 5 or 6 fractured arms, and 3 or 4 of the legs were fractured in one bone or another. Also, I should say that Dr. Quentin Durward was the neurosurgeon who did a lot of that technical work on the spines along with Dr. Steve Meyer, and he is one, also, who I know that his head and heart are in the right place. I know that I have left off many, many of the medical providers at Mercy Hospital in Sioux City who donated their time and are so dedicated to this. I regret that I didn't have a list to read into the Record, Mr. Speaker. But I also want to express my gratitude to those whom I left off the list. With that, I believe that I should conclude my presentation here on the Tanzanian miracle kids and, again, thank all of those who are involved and transition my discussion over to a few other things that are part of the current concerns here in America. Issues of the Day

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to transition over to the shooting last Wednesday at the practice ballfield in Alexandria. I want to thank everyone across this country who offered their prayers for the recovery of all of those who were injured in this shooting and especially our whip, our majority whip, Steve Scalise. His nickname for me and mine for him for years has been ``Scrapper.'' We just call each other ``Scrapper.'' Well, we know, Steve Scalise is a scrapper. He is a fighter. He took an awfully hard hit last Wednesday, and it did significant damage to him. All of the medical reports that we have been getting after the first 36 hours or so have been of improvement in his condition. I don't suppose--and I say this for Steve's benefit--I don't suppose LSU's loss in the College World Series the other night by a score of 13-to-1 improved his condition that much, but he is a baseball player and a baseball fan, and he is a very dedicated LSU fan. They are still in the College World Series, as I understand it, and it is a double- elimination tournament. So they are the leaders in the loser's bracket, so to speak. So they have got a chance to battle back and still win. But he is battling back, and he is a winner, and his strength is coming back. The day will come when he comes to this floor to cast a vote. I don't know how long that is going to be, Mr. Speaker, but I can only anticipate the cheers of joy that this House of Representatives will utter when the day comes that Steve Scalise comes back to this floor to vote, to count votes. He is the vote counter for the majority in this House of Representatives. That is one of the most important jobs in this place. If you bring a bill to the floor and you can't produce the votes to get it to pass, it is a pretty heavy embarrassment, and Steve Scalise has gotten that art down pretty well. I always want to make that job as easy for him as I can, provided I agree with him on the policy, of course. But Steve Scalise, whether you agree with him on the policy or whether you don't, he has the personal support and the prayers of a vast majority of the Members here on this floor, and across this country. He is an individual who you have got to like him, you have got to like him personally. He is engaging. He is sociable. He makes sure that there is a meal back there for us on first votes of the week, and he is the host in the Lincoln room in front of the Lincoln fireplace where Lincoln used to sit back in the day as well. His two kids and his wife are also certainly near him whenever they can be and by his bedside whenever they can be. It is a time when the family is going through a fair amount of grief and stress, too. But Steve Scalise isn't the only story in this, and that would be that Matt Mika, the lobbyist for Tyson Foods, was the second-most seriously injured in the shootings last Wednesday. And without describing his wounds here in the Record, I just want to make sure the Record knows, Mr. Speaker, that it was a very serious wound that Matt Mika took, and his recovery looks positive at this point. It is also one of those things that, day by day, gets a little better. But each one of these individuals, Steve Scalise and Matt Mika, had it been a different scenario, if it had been a more remote location, without an almost immediate medevac by helicopter out of there and to the hospital, I am going to say that if they had been in a remote location, we likely would have lost them both. It is attempted murder by a fellow that we don't need to bring charges against now because he has gone to the morgue. And his death is as a result of the two officers who were there providing the security for Steve Scalise: Crystal Griner, I believe her name was, and also David Bailey. One of the most uplifting things that I have seen was at the Congressional Baseball Game last Thursday night at the Nationals Park, when I saw Joe Torre come out to the mound, and I thought he was going to throw out the first pitch, and then they introduced--it was either Roberto Clemente's son or grandson, he was also at the mound--but then this fellow came out on crutches that had one leg up off the ground. And as he went out there, I realized who it was: David Bailey; the man who had actually taken the shooter out just the day before and took a wound himself in the leg came to the ball game on crutches and went out to the mound. He handed over one of those crutches, leaned on the other one, and threw out the first pitch. It was a tremendous moment. It was the best moment of the evening, Mr. Speaker. It was the equivalent of Neil Diamond going back to the Red Sox stadium after the Boston bombing and singing ``Sweet Caroline'' at the seventh-inning stretch. Those things, when we see that, have got a lot more meaning than just throwing a ball into home plate or singing a song at the seventh-inning stretch. It is something that uplifts and motivates all of us and should unify all of us together. This ghastly attempted killing that took place by Hodgkinson was something that--we don't doubt that some of it was ginned up by the hatred and the vitriol that is part of the vernacular and part of the public arena today in politics. More examination of his Facebook page and his other communications and people who were around him will go on as we try to understand what motivated this man, but there is no question it was political. I believe that he was radicalized by the political dialogue that has been taking place in this country. And that radicalization took place in a way, in his mind, that we won't understand. I remember Speaker Pelosi saying that everybody is not as stable as we are, and that words weigh a ton on people who aren't stable, and sometimes they are motivated into violence. That doesn't mean we can prevent the violence by preventing the dialogue, but it does mean that when we clash, we should clash on policy. We should disagree on policy and the best method to bring this policy forward, but it should not be personal. We should not be demonizing the other side. There is going to be a disagreement in ideology. Our Founding Fathers understood that. They set up this competition here in this Congress to drain the stress off of the streets of America. And one of the results here is that we come to this place, on the floor of this House, and when we disagree, we don't challenge the motive of the person we disagree with. We challenge the ideas, and we try to present better ideas. And the best ideas are to prevail in the mind of the public. That is how it was designed to be. That is why every 2 years we have an election here, and why there are no appointments to the House of Representatives. Everybody that has a vote card in this place, all 435 of us, that is a vote card earned in an election; not one that has been handed by a Governor's appointment, for example, which is the case in the Senate, from time to time, when there is a vacancy. But we are elected every 2 years, and our Founding Fathers looked at this and said: We are going to be the hot cup of coffee--or hot cup of tea, perhaps, is what they were referencing at the time--so we could react quickly to the will of the people. But the saucer that it cools in is the Senate--6-year elections instead of 2--so that the hot ideas that come here to the House of Representatives can be tempered in the cooling saucer of the 6-year terms in the Senate. But it was about bringing ideas here, bringing them here quickly with the elections every 2 years for every one of us, every 2 years, and then those fresh ideas then wash across over to the Senate, and the Senate is designed to step back and take a look, and a deep breath, and then, with the judgment of both bodies, come together and conference committee, and conference report, and send those results to the President of the United States--elected every 4 years--who is, of course, the Commander in Chief, commands our military, has a full authority to do all kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. But the point I want to make is this: During the ObamaCare debate in 2010, in that March period of time, when this Capitol was surrounded by the American people, and encircled, and they were six to eight people deep in a human doughnut around the Capitol--not just a human chain where you touched people and reached out as far as you could--six or eight deep, packed together all the way around the Capitol. By the way, there are no pictures of that human doughnut around the Capitol, because there was no airspace allowed for anything to fly up there and take pictures of us standing around in that fashion. But during that period of time, I had walked from the Judiciary Committee over here to the House of Representatives. And on the way, I came by a lady who I had seen in the gallery of the Judiciary Committee quite a number of times, and I had never talked to her. But as I walked by her, I felt compelled to speak to her, Mr. Speaker. And as I did, she said: You have got to stop arguing. You have got to stop debating. You have got to get to a compromise. You have got to get to a compromise and move on. We can't have these arguments in our country. We can't have this kind of stress, this kind of pressure. And I hadn't answered a question of anybody the same as I did that day. I answered her differently, Mr. Speaker. And it just kind of clicked in my mind, and I said to her: Did you ever think that because we come to this city together, and we debate our disagreements here in open debate, and we air out our beliefs and our convictions, and we weigh our options, and we bring new ideas in, and we churn those ideas, did you ever think that because we do that this way in America, that it keeps us from being at each other's throats and fighting each other in the streets of America? And I know that was how it was designed to be, to drain off that hot- bloodedness that comes through debate, and by public--not only by debate but by legitimate elections that reflect the voices and the will of the people. It is the biggest thing that keeps us from having revolutions in America. We have them. We have them every 2 years when we have an election. They are, in a way, a revolution. New ideas come here. We weigh those ideas. We cast our votes. We change the policy. We adjust to the will of the American people, and that keeps us from having revolutions in the street of America. But how long will that last, Mr. Speaker? How long can that last in a country where we had a legitimate election last November 8, and there is that ever-growing group of people who seem to be denying the very results of our legitimate election? The constitutionally elected President of the United States is Donald J. Trump, and it is not an arguable or refutable point. You can say that Hillary Clinton won more popular vote than Donald Trump. Well, that is like saying, the Packers beat the Bears, but the Bears ran up more yards than the Packers, so they don't have a legitimate win. They are not playing by the rules on the football field of who runs up the most total yards. It is who has the most points on the scoreboard. You can run the ball up and down the field, but if you can't get across the goal line, or kick it through the uprights, or if you can't score a safety, you don't score. And if you don't score and the other team does, you lose. If they score more than you do, you still lose. And that is how this constitutional election takes place, Mr. Speaker, is by the rules; the rules that are written into our Constitution and have been barely altered over more than 200 years because they were so wisely put in place. The electoral college decides the President of the United States, and the ballots are cast here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is the official tally that rings up who is the President of the United States. There is no part of this process that is legitimately refuted by the other side. Yet, they say, we are the resistance. And the loser in the last Presidential election wants to be the leader of the resistance-- the leader of the resistance, and one who has looked for a lot of reasons why she is not the President of the United States. And I would quote Chuck Grassley on how you define that. In one of his elections years ago--this is a back-channel story about him, but he is a person I admire and have a great affection for, a senior Senator from Iowa, now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--they continually asked him when he was first elected to the Federal office here: ``Why did you win? Why did you win?'' And he didn't want to say anything anymore. He was just happy enough with the victory. And finally, as he walked away from the press, they said: ``But, Mr. Grassley, why did you win?'' And he turned, and he said: ``I got more votes than the other guy.'' And he walked away. Well, that is a pretty good point, Chuck Grassley. And in this case, Donald Trump got more electoral votes than his opponent. That is why he won. But he earned those legitimately by elections within the States that converted those electoral votes to his side. That is how it is supposed to be. And to deny that then subverts the constitutional results of an elected President. It subverts the mandate that comes with the election of a President. It diminishes the credibility of our constitutionally structured government that is there, and it bogs down our process. So when I see demonstrations in the streets, Mr. Speaker, that say ``the resistance'' in the front, and then there is another big banner up there that says, ``be ungovernable,'' we don't want to be an ungovernable people, Mr. Speaker. We want to be a governable people. And when we elect a President, and when we elect Senators and House Members, and our offices in the States for our State representatives and our State senators, when we elect our Governors, when we elect our other constitutional officers who are there, we need to respect the results of that, and give them their respect, and let them do their jobs. I especially want to encourage them, keep your campaign promises. Follow through on those campaign promises. But when we have masses of people in the streets who go out to demonstrate against the results of a legitimate election, we start to look like the Third World. Can't we have, on both sides of the aisle--can't we have Republicans over here and Democrats over here, and leftists over on the extreme there, and some Conservatives over here--that I think are as constitutional as myself--can't we have them respect the system enough to respect the duly elected Representatives who are there, including, and especially, the President of the United States so that there are not demonstrations in the streets? In this city the next day, Mr. Speaker, 600,000 to 700,000 people swarmed the streets of this city in equal or greater numbers than those who came to witness the inauguration, to protest against the inauguration against the newly inaugurated President Trump. Six to 700,000, the majority of them, were women wearing these knitted pink hats, carrying around some of the most vulgar signs I have seen anywhere--in fact, the most vulgar signs I have seen anywhere-- protesting against the inauguration of the President of the United States. Why? I talked to a lot of them--more of them than it was probably wise, Mr. Speaker--but I did take them down to this: that you are obstructing and subverting the constitutional results of this election, and if you want to live in a free country, if you want to live in a constitutional Republic, and if you want to be able to receive and earn the benefits of the free enterprise system that we have, the rule of law that we have, the constitutional government that we have, this American spirit that is a can-do spirit that brings the vigor of the planet here to America and that employs their industriousness, grows our GDP, and contributes to the living standard in America, if you want all that to happen, then you can't be obstructing the results of elections because we will end up in the Third World. If you destroy the rule of law in America by protesting in the streets and being ungovernable and if you are an ungovernable people, then we are not going to be a constitutional Republic forever. Remember what Ben Franklin said when they came out of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and a woman asked him: What have you given us? His answer was: A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it. Well, we have kept it for a long time, and we need to continue to keep it. Ronald Reagan told us that freedom doesn't last more than a generation. It has to be fought for and it has to be defended. We have fought for it and we have defended it. We also now have to defend it in the minds and in the hearts of the American people. If we fail to teach our young people the value of this constitutional Republic, if we fail to teach them the continuation of the history of this great Nation that we are blessed to be part of, then eventually they will build a disrespect. They are already building it in many of the colleges and universities across the land. That disrespect turns into contempt, and that contempt turns into, sometimes, violence in the streets that shuts down freedom of speech in America. Charles Murray got drummed off the stage, and he couldn't give a speech because they disagreed with what they think he is going to say. That happens also to others along the way who aren't able to deliver the speeches they want to deliver. Brigitte Gabriel is a proud Americanized citizen who lived in a bunker in Lebanon while they were trying to kill her because she is a Christian. She had been bombed multiple times and she was wounded in that process. As a little girl, she watched television on battery- operated black-and-white TV. She saw ``Bonanza'' and ``Dallas'' and some of the other programs that showed about the quality and the character of American life. She understood that we are a people. And she said this just last Wednesday morning, right after we learned of the shooting: that she learned as a little girl, 8 to 10 years old, watching television that Americans are people that can disagree without having that break down into violence or without hurling accusations and insults at the person we disagree with, that we are a people that have a quality of our character that we can disagree with each other and do so and still be friends and respect the opinions of the other. That is one of those things that keep this Republic going and keeps it successful. But I am watching it digress. I am watching as people more often hurl insults and throw a tantrum instead of listening to a position and then issuing the counterpoints. In fact, that happened today in the Judiciary Committee. I will let others look that up for now, Mr. Speaker, but when our emotions rule our intellect, then we start to devolve towards Third World. When our intellect controls our emotions, then the age of reason can continue to improve and achieve. We are a country that has a foundation of blessings in it. Some of that foundation is the foundation of Western civilization itself. The dominant component of Western civilization is the United States of America. If we let the rest of the world be subsumed by other sets of values that don't respect the success of Western civilization, then eventually the part that we are able to hold together here will be less because we will have fewer allies around the world. Eventually we will be surrounded by other ideologies that will want to consume or supplant us here in America. So I want our children to know, Mr. Speaker, that this gift that is America is rooted in the pillars of American exceptionalism whose roots are in Western civilization and our rule of law. It is so essential that we restore that rule of law here in America. You can trace the rule of law back to old England. One of the places that you can see that is just go down the road to Jamestown here in Virginia. Go there and look at the site where the Jamestown settlers landed. There, one of the first buildings they built was a church. But even before that, Mr. Speaker, they planted a cross there on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean where you can look across to the east to the old country, to England. There, they knelt and offered a prayer. I think it would take me a little too long to call that up on my iPhone. I don't have it committed to memory. But they understood the destiny. They understood the gift of America. They understood the destiny to spread our freedom--freedom of religion--but spread also would be evangelism for the world. That prayer is so profound that I will grab that and put that into the Congressional Record a little bit later, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the first things they did at Jamestown. Additionally, inside that church they built--and now there is a church that has been built just outside the old foundation that they laid at that time so you can walk inside of the church and stand there and see the old foundation of the church that was built maybe not in 1607, but very close to 1607--there is a poster, a sign inside. It is fitting that it is on the east wall of the inside of the church. It says: Here in this place, in 1607, English common law came to the New World. It is a profound thing to stand there and read and understand that is what that meant to the earliest settlers in America: English common law arrived, the rule of law arrived with them. That rule of law, what was it rooted in? It is rooted in--once you go back to old England, you can trace the law to the Romans who occupied. And that Roman law can be traced all the way back to the birth of Christ and before. And that Roman law also can be traced back through Greece, who shared a fair amount of that respect and rule of law that they had to be successful nations, they had to have a rule of law. It can be traced, then, from the Romans and the Greeks back to Moses himself. Mosaic law is the foundation for law in America, and it is traceable. The Greek philosophers and the leaders in Greece would talk about the rule of law. They would be sometimes teased and ridiculed by some of their competitors. They would say: ``That is not your thoughts. You borrowed that from Moses. That is Mosaic law. I can hear it in your voice. I know that is where it came from.'' Mosaic law was traced to Greece and Rome, and from Rome then on to Western Europe where the Romans occupied much of that all the way to England and beyond. That is where the rule of law came from. One of the pillars of American exceptionalism is the rule of law. If you would pull that out of the equation of the history of the United States of America, you would end up with an entirely different country, an entirely different culture, and an entirely different structure here. We respect the law. We don't have police officers that pull us over because they need money for their children and accept a bribe because they said that you were speeding. If any of that happens, we look at their badge number, and that officer is soon out of a job. We clean our society up of those kinds of things. But that is not the case in Third World countries. They know what mordida means south of the border. That happens in country after country. But here, we respect the law. We have open meetings laws where the function of government is out in the open so the public can be in and participate. That is rooted clear back in the Greek city-states. I recall going into the National Archives to take a look and stand and gaze at the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, where you can get your hand within 8 inches of that parchment where they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. As I waited to step before the Declaration, there was a display of the artifacts from the Greek city-states where they would gather together all of the eligible-age men--at that time it was only men, but, of course, now, today, we fixed that--but as they would gather them together, they would all have a voice. They had a situation where there would be what they would call demagogues. The Greek demagogues would be those who were so skillful in their oratorical skills that they could wind up the emotions of the other Greeks and sometimes get them to stampede in the wrong direction. If they consistently stampeded their fellow citizens in an ill-logical direction, eventually they would say--I don't know what the name would be of the Greek individual, but maybe it would be like: Demetrius is causing too much trouble for us, we are going to have to blackball him. So if the demagogue was too effective and caused too much damage to the public policy, then they would go through, there would be one door there that you would vote in, and the next door would be the discard door. Each voter, each citizen, would get a white and a black marble. They would cast their ballot, blackball that Greek demagogue and banish him from the city-state. There is much that is rooted as part of this country that is rooted back in this era. We need to teach it and we need to have respect for each other. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a very important day in U.S.-Taiwan relations. April 10th marks the 38th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). This important statute has been critical in defining the diplomatic, economic, and strategic relationship we have enjoyed with Taiwan over the last four decades. In 2017, Taiwan is the United States' tenth largest trading partner. The TRA has strengthened our relationship and helped encourage a particularly strong economic partnership. The growth of Taiwan is a living breathing example that trade benefits humanity, and not just economically. Particularly in light of the scheduled meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, it is important for our nation to remember and commemorate the special relationship between the United States and Taiwan, a thriving and innovative economy that most countries envy. In this new and exciting era for our two nations, one that promises to emphasize bilateral trade agreements, I impress on the administration that a strong relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan is key to sustaining peace, stability and liberty in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a continuing successful cooperation between the United States and Taiwan. I am also confident that if we continue to enhance our economic relationship, this dynamic partnership that we've built together will continue to thrive in the future.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.