Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment primarily to engage in a discussion with the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, first let me say, I do understand the concerns of the gentleman from Arizona. Here is the issue: The Food and Drug Administration is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that persons seeking to be healed have both the right to try innovative products as well as the right to be protected from harm or any false claims. So let me say to my friend, Mr. Biggs, we would like to offer this: Chairman Bishop and I would seek the opportunity to have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, meet with us to dialogue on the very important issues that you are raising and to relay your concerns. I will commit to you that your objections will be conveyed to their leadership before they move forward on this guidance. So, in light of that consideration, I kindly, respectfully request that the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding the time and for his eloquent remarks. I just want to rise, even though we are under the guise of opposition, to actually thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We have had substantive, thoughtful, lengthy discussions about broadband and its importance to rural revitalization, as the gentleman well put, and it is more than just wires laid. It is about creating an ecosystem of livability. In his words, the gentleman touched on those very points. I think the gentleman would be proud to see the underlying work here in that regard, but he has made it better.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, trying to control what words USDA officials use to describe changing weather conditions should not really be our focus. For one, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. USDA has plenty of materials on their website or elsewhere with the term ``climate change'' embedded in them. If the USDA were going to completely wipe away this terminology for political purposes, which was implied, they would have done so over the past 2\1/2\ years. Secondly, the amendment attempts to politicize an issue that does not need further politicization. For example, Chairman Bishop and I were able to have a civil discussion on changing climate in a subcommittee hearing this year without dragging controversy into it. In addition to outside witnesses, USDA actually sent up a subject matter expert on the very topic. We had a hearing where we talked about how to deal with changing weather and how our farmers and ranchers could adjust to such changes. Instead of spending time on this type of messaging, let's spend our time on actually helping our farmers and ranchers and building a more secure and sustainable energy future that benefits all of America. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, first of all, let me say how much I appreciate the counsel, guidance, and partnership of Chairman Bishop of the Agriculture Committee, as well as Chair Lowey and Ranking Member Granger, as well as the entire staff for crafting what is substantially a very important and good bill for all of America. Agriculture is essential to America's well-being, and I want to commend, again, Chairman Bishop not only for his earlier generous comments, but for his willingness to work hard to find a reasonable path forward to accommodate as many bipartisan requests as were feasible. Chairman Bishop and I had a number of very lengthy and considered conversations in crafting this bill, and I am grateful for his leadership. Before I delve into the substantial pluses and a few minuses of this bill, Madam Chair, I want to provide a little bit of additional context of the bigger agricultural picture across America. Where I live in Nebraska--and I am sure it is safe to say where Chairman Bishop lives in Georgia--agriculture is essential to our way of life and essential to our culture. It really does define who we are as a people, and production agriculture--corn, soybeans, and livestock--cover much of our landscape. These products are an important driver of America's export prowess. The efficiency, quality, and ingenuity shown by America's farmers provide food security for hundreds of millions of people across our own country and across the entire globe, many of whom are in very vulnerable circumstances. A notable point, Madam Chair, Americans also enjoy the lowest grocery prices in the world. Agriculture, though, is more than bulk production. From the use of advanced robotics to run dairy operations to enzyme extraction from ethanol production, from the enhancement of critical wetlands, as well as improving crop yields and conservation stewardship practices, our farmers are contributing to human flourishing across our Nation. Many of the technological investments that we see today have been made possible by the types of investments that are very much a part of this agriculture bill. I want to highlight three areas in particular. First, the bill's $3.4 billion reflects a commitment to rural development in housing, utilities, and businesses. Of particular note, as the chairman mentioned, is broadband. Working with Chairman Bishop, we included language to encourage the USDA to consider the broader social benefits when the department seeks applications for the $680 million of broadband resources in this bill. It is also important that we measure the impact of broadband and how it affects the ecosystem of livability. What do we mean by that? It is not just more wires, but livability from enhanced telehealth, telecommuting, precision agriculture, and a multitude of other imaginative possibilities from these applications. This is what will make broadband an effective investment in our Nation's infrastructure. Second, I am pleased to see an increase of $185 million for the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, with a particular emphasis on lowering the price of drugs in the generic drug program. Between investments in the year 2019 and investments in this bill, the agency will have an increase of $27 million to help expedite the approval of safe and effective generic drugs, increased competition, and lower prices. Chairman Bishop has also made marked investments in food safety by lessening the burden on our State health departments, and I think that is important. Lastly, when I met the chairman in his office a couple of weeks ago, we found common ground--as we often do--on how to grow the agricultural family. What do we mean? Well, this is a good example. There is $5.4 million in this bill for farmers markets and local food promotion programs which allow smaller local producers to provide fresh products, gain a source of revenue, and connect the rural to the urban and the farmer to the family. In addition to this program, the bill includes investments for a Tribal demonstration project, a pilot project for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and, importantly, we have a new urban agricultural office. Madam Chair, at its core, this bill is about food security. Our diverse and plentiful food supply is made possible through the hard work of our farmers and ranchers and the public policies that assist them. We support research and development to the tune of $3.3 billion. We support oversight of commodity markets. And, for those in vulnerable circumstances, this bill provides important funding for all USDA nutrition programs at levels that ensure all eligible participants will receive the assistance they need. Unfortunately, as our ranking member has consistently mentioned at every opportunity, we need a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on budget caps. With a deal like that, we could quickly get into open field running.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, as we Nebraskans continue to recover as a State from the massive flooding, so many communities hit so hard, so many examples of neighbor helping neighbor, leadership capacity and qualities coming forward, people pulling together around the ideal of ensuring that the communities have integrity, not of just response, but of recovery, one particular story of heroism has emerged that I would like to share. Mr. James Wilke, and he is pictured right here, was a farmer. He was a farmer from Columbus, Nebraska, near Columbus in Platte County. Mr. Wilke gave his life during the flood. What happened is he got a call from volunteer rescuers about someone who was stranded in a car fairly near his farm by a nearby creek. He jumped in his tractor without hesitation--and here he is pictured--and he sought to help the stranded motorists and the volunteers who were there assisting. When he got to the bridge that was over the creek, water had started to rush over it. The volunteers actually were helping guide him across the creek, and the bridge collapsed. Because he was in an enclosed cab, he couldn't escape. Frantically, the family and others helped search for him, and it wasn't until hours later that he was found a long way back up the creek, but actually near his home, near his farm. It was as though he was saying, ``It's okay. I am back.'' I wrote a letter to President Trump recently asking the President to present Mr. James Wilke the Presidential Citizen's Medal, and, Madam Speaker, I would just like to read the letter that I wrote to the President: ``Dear Mr. President, ``It is my honor to nominate Mr. James Wilke of Columbus, Nebraska, for the Presidential Citizen's Medal. The Nation's second highest civilian award recognizes persons who have performed exemplary deeds or services for their country or fellow citizens. ``A 50-year-old Platte County farmer, Mr. Wilke is rightly being heralded as a hero by family, friends, and citizens across the Cornhusker State and the Nation. A husband, father, grandfather, and community leader, James lived to help others. He died attempting to rescue those in need during the catastrophic floods that hit Nebraska in mid-March. ``It surprised no one when, on March 14, James immediately responded to a call from volunteer first responders to help rescue a motorist stranded in the rising floodwaters of Knox Creek near his home. He didn't hesitate. After receiving the call, Wilke jumped into his John Deere 8100 tractor and headed north on Monastery Road, a route he had taken thousands of times before. ``As James approached the scene of the stranded motorist, he was confronted by raging water over the bridge that he needed to cross. Emergency responders already on the site tried to guide James and the tractor over the bridge, when it suddenly collapsed. The tractor plunged into the water with James inside. ``James perished in the accident. After a desperate search by neighbors, family, and friends, Wilke's body was recovered downstream 9 hours later on a creek bed near his own farm. `` `He was generous with his time and giving,' said a friend. `. . . the kind of person that people don't think exist anymore. He would help anybody.' ``A friend of Mr. Wilke posted this tribute on social media. `James was not only a great all-around guy; he was a great family man and he was amazingly strong in his faith. . . . A true hero who wore a T- shirt, blue jeans, work boots, and drove a John Deere tractor.' ``An online petition has been launched to get James Wilke the prestigious Presidential Citizen's Medal. One online commentator wrote: `While I don't know this man personally, he represents what Nebraska is all about: hard work and willingness to help, no matter the cost. To be a Nebraskan means, within your own hardships, you still give your all to help a complete stranger in need. It means coming together to help our neighbors two to three towns over because they have lost everything. James represents a Nebraskan, doing all that and more, by going above and beyond the call of civilian duty and paying the ultimate sacrifice. He shows the Nation that we can put aside our selfishness and our pride to help someone else.' ``Mr. President, I second these sentiments. I strongly support granting the Presidential Citizen's Medal to James Wilke, a good man, simply doing his duty, moved by courage, and motivated by love to help another. ``Thank you for your consideration. ``Sincerely, Jeff Fortenberry.'' Something that is not mentioned in this letter is that the online petition to the President for James has reached tens of thousands of people, ordinary people hearing about it and simply wanting to do something to commend this finest example out of what has really been an attribute of the character of our State, neighbor helping neighbor, and this neighbor giving the ultimate sacrifice. In Honor of Chief Standing Bear

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I would like to turn my attention to an opportunity I had this morning before the Natural Resources Committee to actually talk about another Nebraskan who lived long ago, a Nebraskan who will soon adorn the Halls here. His statue will be placed in Statuary Hall right outside of these Halls. He was Ponca Chief Standing Bear. I was pleased to welcome Ms. Judi Gaiashkibos, the director of the Nebraska Indian Commission, who, with me, petitioned the Natural Resources Committee to begin a process by which we study the feasibility of a trail in Standing Bear's honor and in honor of the Ponca people and the hardships which they endured I began before the committee this morning with these words: No be-t e wiuga-the eo kigo zhi: Our hands are not the same color. These were the words of Chief Standing Bear as he was on trial in 1879. And what was he accused of in that courtroom in Omaha? He was accused of leaving his reservation to bury his dead son on the Ponca homeland near Niobrara, Nebraska. Even though there were treaties with this Tribe, the Ponca had been forcefully relocated from Nebraska to Oklahoma. Along the way, his young daughter died. His son, suffering from the ill effects of this, later was very ill, and Chief Standing Bear promised him on his deathbed that he would bury him back in his homeland. So, leading a group of Ponca in a very tough winter of 1878, they began the trek back to Nebraska, and he was arrested. And through a series of things, ended up in court, and this is what he had to say: No be-t e wiuga-the eo kigo zhi: Our hands are not the same color. If I pierce mine, I will feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you will feel pain. When the blood flows, it will be the same color. Nu bthi. Wako da-ak a ekigo waxa: I am a man. God made us the same. These immortal words of the Ponca chief so deeply impacted the proceedings that the Court ruled in his favor and perhaps began a sea course of change of the history of our country. Because what did Chief Standing Bear do? He expressed the inherent dignity and rights of all people, regardless of color or ethnicity. He convinced U.S. District Court Judge Elmer Dundy in such a convicting way, he convinced the judge in an unprecedented move--now, remember, Madam Speaker, this is 1879, and this had been unprecedented. The judge ruled that ``an Indian is a person.'' An Indian is a person within the meaning of habeas corpus. And so Standing Bear had won his right and the right of all Native Americans to be recognized as persons under the law. Such a glaring injustice is almost unimaginable to us today in our time. The Ponca chief had prevailed in one of the most important civil rights court cases in the history of our Nation. And so, in Congress, we continue to recognize Standing Bear's remarkable life and achievement on behalf of his people; and, as I mentioned, Madam Speaker, in a few short months, we anticipate a ceremony here in Statuary Hall where one statue of one Nebraskan will be replaced by another Nebraskan. Each State legislature has the right to determine who is going to be in the Nation's Capitol. Currently, we are represented by William Jennings Bryan, a Member of Congress who held this congressional seat long before me, a three-time Presidential candidate who, again, is right at the entryway of Statuary Hall there. He has held that revered spot for many, many years; and yet, as we think creatively and imaginatively, as history moves forward, we think about other Nebraskans and other Americans whom we can appropriately honor. So the legislature has determined that Chief Standing Bear ought to now stand in the place of honor for Nebraskans and for all Americans, with a particularly special focal point for honoring the first Americans, the indigenous people, the Native Americans. So we look forward to that ceremony coming soon. But I reintroduced a bill, as well, Madam Speaker, that directs the Secretary of the Interior to begin a feasibility study for the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, which would basically trace the footsteps of the Ponca Tribe along their forced relocation. Again, Madam Speaker, the enshrinement of this trial into law with a new statue in the United States Capitol will set down a new marker for the remembrance of this great civil rights leader, a reminder of the ongoing need for the protection of human dignity and a celebration of the possibility brought out by one man's courage. Madam Speaker, as you are aware, shortly, we will celebrate Memorial Day, and in doing so, we honor those who gave their last full measure in service to our country. We appropriately stop the busyness and pause to observe, to reflect, to remember. The formal remembrance of our Nation's war dead is more than a nostalgic tradition. That a person would lay down his life for his friends, for another, demands that we turn our thoughts to the noblest of human ideals. When we gather together in community, when we gather together to simply say ``thank you'' and ``remember,'' we affirm our common bonds as a people. Now, it is not uncommon for any Member of this body to reflect publicly on the divisiveness, the anger, the resentment, the seeming inability to resolve conflicts and problems in a constructive, reasoned fashion that is fought out in this body, and, unfortunately, is exploited by the media, which profits off of this drama daily. This is why Memorial Day and other reflective holidays are so important to us as a people: of course, to remember our war dead, but also to affirm the common bonds that unite. Before an international gathering of public officials that I attended, someone posed a question. It is a probing question. They simply asked this: Where would you like to live, where people lie, steal, and kill, or where people are good, trustworthy, and free? And when we consider the full arc of human history, it is often marked by fighting and dying and war. Each generation must face the agonizing and harsh prospect that twisted ideology, egomaniacal ambition, or the hunt for glory will compel small minds to rape and kill and pillage and crush the innocent. Try as we might to create the conditions for good will and mutual support, sometimes good Americans must step forward; they must volunteer to bravely protect the ideals that we hold dear. We are coming up on the 75th anniversary of D-day, June 6, 1944. There will be a bilateral, two-country commemoration by both America and France at Omaha Beach in France at the cemetery there where near approximately 10,000 Americans lay at rest. The night before D-day, the day before this famous photo of the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower was taken--I happen to know President Eisenhower's granddaughter Susan, and we were chatting one day about this famous photo which occupies such an extraordinary place in our history, our folklore, our memory as a nation, and she said: Jeff, do you know what the President, the General, was speaking about in that photo? I had always made an assumption that, again, these young men who are getting ready to paratroop behind enemy lines the day before D-day were being given a last talk by the General about the need for courage and persistence, the need to think of what it means to be in the face of a barbaric aggressor, the need to fight hard and solemnly, to obey orders and to take care of their friends, the need to win the day. That is what I would have thought. That is what I would have guessed. Susan Eisenhower said: No. Do you know what the General was speaking about? Fly fishing and football. Now, why would he do that at this critical moment, this moment of tension and fear and adrenaline? Why would he do that? I think the better question is: Why wouldn't he do that? What more American thing could he do to remind these young men, many of whom may have given their life, of why they were doing this? To remind them of what they were tethered to: to home and hearth and things like fishing and football that represent the activities of community, the liberties we enjoy, the memories from childhood, the peace and tranquility that this country offers. Fight for that. I think that is what he was doing. So I was very amazed and corrected, mentally, in my impression of this pivotal moment, key moment in America's history. A group of Members of Congress will attend the 75th anniversary, and, of course, the veterans who will be there in attendance are quite old and will be few in number. France will have some awards for a few veterans as well. And it is amazing in that part of the world, the American flag flies over the French municipal buildings there because the French in that part of Europe, they do not forget. They celebrate what America gave. In fact, in August of 1944, Captain Luther Sexton Fortenberry, my grandfather, left his wife and two children, and he entered the war theater originally attached to a field hospital or to a hospital unit in England. He moved into the theater of war and was killed in November of 1944 by an explosion. He was killed near the town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise, where some of these paratroopers potentially landed. There, the paratroopers landed in the midst of a German column and had to fight it out right in the town square. To this day, a replica of one of our paratroopers hangs on the church steeple, demonstrating what happened to him. He was actually caught on the church steeple as he came down. He survived the battle. The French there very much commemorate and honor what we gave. My grandfather was initially buried in the cemetery there at Sainte- Mere-Eglise, but was later reinterred in Arlington Cemetery here in Washington, D.C., in 1948. This is how Omaha Cemetery came to be. All of the small cemeteries that were set up during the course of the war as things were moving so fast were consolidated in the various large cemeteries--again, Omaha Beach being one of our more notable--and families were given a choice: Do you want to leave your loved one in Europe or would you like to bring them home? Because my own father died when I was young, the direct memories of what happened to my own grandfather are a bit lost in the family tradition, so I have had to do a lot of record searching. I found out, though, that it was interesting. In 1948, when my grandfather was reinterred from this area of France, Sainte-Mere-Eglise, his remains were transported through the Port of Cherbourg. When I visited Omaha Beach Cemetery, the French civilians who work for us tending to the cemetery remembering our war dead, telling the stories of who they are, one young woman told me that it was her grandfather who started to work for the Americans in burying our war dead and that he used to work in the Port of Cherbourg preparing the remains of our war dead to come home. I thought to myself, what an amazing confluence of history, that maybe it was this young French woman's grandfather who prepared my grandfather to be returned home. So on the 75th anniversary, we will again remember that great battle, that turning point in the war in which so many lives were lost and so many young Americans came forward to say, ``I will serve.'' Memorial Day is a beautiful time of remembrance, and communities all across America will recognize this special day. They will memorialize the fallen heroes of battle who gave us the chance to remain good, trustworthy, and free. It is a precious moment where we unite, where we are unified, where we hold things in common in gratitude for those who gave their life in service to these ideals. Beyond this special day, perhaps the greatest memorial we can offer is to do exactly what they did: to think in sacrificial terms about what is nobler and higher, even in the midst of this body, where we have to debate with intensity the philosophical differences in order to find, to construct, a reasoned way forward for good public policy and the good of all Americans. Sometimes young people ask me: How do you make a decision? It is a great question. It is a beautiful question, because they are wrestling with how do you reconcile, as a representative of the people, what you may believe to be right with what the people are saying. Madam Speaker, I tell young people that I walk through a threefold process: The first is let's look at the evidence here. What is the analysis, the statistics, and what does other evidence say about what might be the right pathway here; Second, let's listen to the experts, or those who are affected, potentially, by this policy; and Third is you must consult your conscience, what you believe in your heart of hearts. Sometimes it is hard for young people to reconcile this because sometimes we have a misappropriation of the nature of representative government. The Representative, of course, is a reflection of the people who sent him there. And what does he or she owe those people? Right judgment, which means hard work and intellectual discipline around looking at the objective analysis of what can be determined as the outcome of a particular policy. Care, compassion, and fairness demands that we listen to people who are affected or who have expertise in the policy. But, ultimately, each one of us has to consult their conscience, always, hopefully, rightfully formed, to make a judgment about what is right, what is good, what is just. The beautiful gift of where I come from is, even if people may disagree and you give them an answer based upon those three dynamics, they will tell you they respect that. And that is the core of our system. That is what men and women continue to fight and die for, this gift of America, this gift of these ideals that somehow, with distinct differences and different backgrounds, we find a way to harmonize that which we ought to do--not just what we can do, but what we ought to do. Systems are not perfect. They can be messy and difficult. They can be ugly. But I always believe that public service is an honorable and high calling, and it is only made possible by sacrifice, sometimes the ultimate sacrifice by those who have been willing to give their all. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for conducting this Special Order. I appreciate the gentleman inviting me to come down here. Just a few observations, if you will. As I have watched the speeches tonight, there has been a litany of concerns about China's aggression, China's positioning, China's covert activities, China's willingness to engage in intellectual theft, China's pervasive influence all around the world. I have been to China once. I found it to be highly engaging. I found the people that we were with to be very welcoming and warm. I am very grateful and try to be attentive to China's long-suffering and rich cultural history. And as China tells us, there is room enough in the Pacific for two superpowers, and I want to return to that point. When I looked out of the window of the place where I was staying in Beijing, it looked as though fog had set in. But it wasn't fog; it was pollution. The air was so thick, you could hardly see maybe 20 feet. If you live in Beijing, it takes 5 years off your life because of the pollution. In fact, I had one Chinese person whisper to me: ``What is the point of all this economic development if it kills you?'' And I really wanted to tell him: ``Please, don't say that too loudly.'' The point is that China has engaged in a series of unfair subsidies that create an unlevel playing field for trade. China's very system, a capitalistic-communist hybrid system is very different than ours. They are state players that receive direct subsidies that we don't have. The indirect cost of not having environmental regulation is a form of subsidy to industry. Low labor standards, the exploitation of persons, is another, and on and on. So we can walk through the financial balance sheet as to who has what tariff and who doesn't, and who subsidized this and who doesn't, but, fundamentally, there are things in that equation that we, perhaps, haven't counted. Another reality here is China has as their reason for being, it seems now, an economic nationalism. Now, we do, too, in America. Economics is important to us, but it stands alongside a spectrum of values of personal liberty, the exercise of opportunity, and the ability to engage in communal activity, free associations. We don't even think about these things. These are very, very different propositions in China. One places himself at the service of the larger idea of the state. The person is subservient to the larger idea of the state.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. And the person can operate within a certain band of liberties. I saw it. People can move around. People can visit things. But it is a certain band of liberties that, if you violate that, step beyond it, you contradict the nature of the system and could pay a very heavy price. We see this in human rights violations, the lack of certain freedoms that we enjoy that we think are consistent with human dignity. And this is how it manifests itself. I know you, Mr. Yoho, are very attentive to the issue of development, sustainable economic development, particularly for the world's poor, to conserve our resources, to use the best of the market systems for empowerment of space, for the flourishing of the individual. That then creates the opportunity for just governance and a healthy nationalism, and that is our ideal. So, before the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, recently, Secretary Pompeo appeared, and I asked him a question. I said: Mr. Secretary, how much does China give in foreign assistance? He had one of those moments where he didn't exactly know how to answer. I wasn't asking a question in order for him to give an answer, because we all know the answer: It is pretty minimal.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. The United States gives away about $25 billion a year, and that is in non-security assistance alone: trying to help the poor, to feed the poor, trying to create a space for food security, sustainable agriculture, conservation, medical care for the sickest around the world. We do this because it is our impulse, our humanitarian impulse. We just don't sit around while other people die. We also do it because it facilitates relationships, economical and cultural. And, finally, when you have the factors that lead to stable societies, it is in our own security interest and the security of the world. So, for these reasons, we do these things. So I asked the Secretary: How much does China give? It might be a sprinkling here or there. I don't exactly know the number. But for a country with this size of an economy, with this amount of power, with this amount of growth, with this amount of pervasive activity all around the world, particularly in the developing nations, there comes a set of responsibilities along with that. I think that is really part of the attention here, underlying this current trade dispute. What are we both vying for? I agree with the Chinese that there should be room enough for two superpowers in the Pacific, but you have got to come to some alignment about what it means to be in a fair, reciprocal relationship. We have to do a better job of respecting the space of other people's history and tradition in the way they want to organize themselves around governance while, at the same time, upholding this fundamental principle of human dignity, without which things just collapse into transactional relations that can come and go, or worse, when they are gone, lead to potential conflict. We need a healthy relationship with China. We have gone through a litany of complaints about China tonight, but there are a couple other complaints I want to have, and it is looking inward at ourselves. I think it is time for American businesses to do business in America.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. There is a small manufacturing facility in my district. They make a fairly generic, standardized product. I was a little surprised that they didn't have a relationship with the Chinese, and they said: ``Oh, no. That R&D is rip-off and duplicate.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY. ``That is why we won't deal with them.'' That is a sad reality, because we ought to be able to deal, using a fair set of rules, with people who may be doing something better than we are and we do something better than they do, and we can benefit in reciprocal fashion. But it has gotten so disordered because we shifted manufacturing there, and a lot of big businesses around this country make a lot of money off of poor environmental standards and poor labor standards imposed on other people.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Sure.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So ask ourselves why. What are the incentives around here to change this?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, why do we allow this to continue?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, could it be that there are a lot of big-time transactions going on in our system itself that benefit a few big multinationals that have taken their manufacturing and planted it over there? They make the stuff, and we buy the stuff. And this is the third point I want to make to you, which is, again, a little bit of self-reflection on our own role in this. They make the stuff; we buy the stuff. We run up debt; they have the cash; they buy the debt. So here we find ourselves in this very dysfunctional marriage of having shifted vast amounts of productive resources there because, supposedly, we can't make this more efficiently--supposedly. Really?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So we run up the debt, and they hold the debt. And what is debt? Well, none of us around here really wants to face it--on our side of the aisle either, Republicans. It is a form of taxation.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It is just hidden from everyone. And the manifestation of it is a wealth shift of our country's assets into the hands of other people. So we are talking about the military buildup. We are talking about the exploitation of resources, particularly in Africa, with no consideration of the environmental impact and no attacking of the subsequent problem of structural poverty that existed in a lot of places. It is just taking things out and leaving not much behind, and that is not fair to the world's poor. The problem, again, is one of self- reflection that we have to have both in terms of the responsibility that America's business has because we have provided the infrastructure and the systems, through very large public subsidies, so they can thrive. It is incumbent upon them to take responsibility. Maybe it is time for American businesses to do business in America. Secondly, is this issue of debt. Now, if this tension prolongs and the reality that China has a stick, and they start to refuse or dump treasuries, what is that going to do? Interest rates will go up.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, that is an impact on us, but it is one we are going to have to live with because we have done it to ourselves. There are a couple of lessons here: fair trade, mutual respect, smart trade, both people benefit. Secondly, America's businesses will not get this public subsidy from us any longer through unfair trade practices that we allow. The third lesson is: an honest confrontation about what debt really is. It is a hidden form of taxes, shifting the wealth assets of this country elsewhere into places like China, which we are complaining about are not using those assets in a way that we would like to see in a productive manner. There is lots of blame to go around here, but I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to at least start to unpack this in an honest way.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, the reckoning is here.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It has been hidden, but the consequences have been real. It is now on the surface. The day of reckoning is here.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on a concept that I talked about earlier is this idea of human dignity, and where does culture, ideals, learning, and the pursuit of truth come from? It comes from this sacred space, if you will. And when that is subsumed to the larger interest of the state where you are compelled to act only within certain parameters, where you have to submit yourself to this bigger idea of economic nationalism, it can't define itself because it doesn't know where it is going, so it just churns and churns. It has to be more and more and more with environmental effects, effects on culture, and effects on relationships around the world. One final point before I leave you. The head of the United States Agency for International Development, Mark Green, a former Member of Congress, former Ambassador to Tanzania, had this to say before us recently: China, they are predatory lenders.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. They are acting, again, with their superpower status around the world, basically convicting leaders in tougher places around the world that are desperate for the right types of build-out and infrastructure to attack structural poverty and to help stop the types of injustice that are there when people simply do not have a system that allows them to reach their full potentiality. They are being forced to mortgage off various assets they have, rather than being in a robust partnership and alignment with a superpower who is interested in perhaps the right type of development, sustainability and conservation, and to build out a just governance. So countries are having to mortgage off ports and other pieces of infrastructure in order to get Chinese money. Again, there is a resource movement out of these places into the Chinese hands in order to feed, just continue to feed this economic nationalism which has no broader purpose.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. And that is the issue. So China, maybe they will see this. Our charge here is to try to do some self-reflection ourselves about the nature of our system and what we have done. But also, with the hand of friendship extended, say to the Chinese: A transactional relationship is not an architecture for the 21st century, for the thriving of civilization as the world gets smaller and smaller and more and more integrated. This predatory lending in the world's toughest places is a disastrous policy and completely inconsistent and contradictory to what a leader in the world, because of superpower status and economic power status, ought to be pursuing.