Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, first, let me thank Chairman Visclosky for the time and for his efforts here, as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham), for offering this very important amendment to the bill. Madam Chair, it is pretty jarring when you stand in your district at a major piece of America's military infrastructure, Offutt Air Force Base, and it is a third underwater. Offutt Air Force Base is also home to Strategic Command, which is the command that is in charge of our nuclear enterprise here and around the world. In March of this year, a furious slurry of soil and water and ice rushed down the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers. It crossed over the Missouri, hit the Iowa levee, blew it out, dug a 62-foot hole, and then water began to come back up the Missouri River. Offutt Air Force Base sits at the confluence of the Platte and Missouri Rivers, and this is what forced the flooding. I am very grateful, again, to my colleagues for recognizing that this is a disaster that needs national attention, along with the other natural disasters that have hit our country, particularly Tyndall Air Force Base, as well. This amendment provides the funds to the Air Force operations and maintenance accounts to rebuild essential military infrastructure in my district and around the country. It will help us rebuild hangars and other buildings at Offutt, and this is in dire need. I am pleased that my colleagues have recognized that this package, $120 million of which could potentially go to Offutt, is also essential for helping our Nation rebound from the various natural disasters that have hit us.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I would like to first recognize and thank my good friend, the chair of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, my leader, Mr. Bishop from Georgia, for yielding me time. I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Axne from Iowa, for working in partnership together on this important amendment. Madam Chair, this is tough stuff. This was one of the most destructive weather events in our lifetimes. It was a perfect storm of factors that enabled and caused the dislocation and distress across many States and multiple communities where I live. In Nebraska and in Iowa, lands that were soaked by autumn rains were frozen solid, and then they were covered in snow. Then this bomb cyclone hit us with a lethal mix of blizzard, rain, and an enormous quantity of water, ice, and collected topsoil. It all sped down our rivers, creeks, and reservoirs, bursting through dams, levees, and other structures designed to hold the torrent back. As I said in our previous debate, it is pretty jarring to stand on a ridge and look at an Air Force base one-third under water which, again, sits at the confluence of the Missouri and Platte Rivers overlooking Iowa and Nebraska. The Corps of Engineers said to me that our levee system looks like Swiss cheese. Now, Madam Chair, while our Midwest constituents are known for their hardiness, individuals in our communities can't solve the problem alone through just State or local resources. We need a partner with the Federal Government to repair badly damaged watersheds so vital to our Nation's environmental security. The amendment adds $310 million to the $125 million in the bill. Approximately 60 percent of the funds will go to the damage caused in the Midwest floods as well as communities impacted by Hurricanes Florence, Harvey, and Michael. On the ground, Madam Chair, in both of our States this program will help restore the scarred lands. This important relief will repair and reshape eroded stream banks, repair water control structures, repair levees, and restore conservation priorities. Our communities are getting back on their feet, but we need this program quickly to address serious and long-term damages to the infrastructure and our land. Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for their consideration.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Dunn for hosting this very important discussion. As we have visited on several different occasions, I want to publicly commend the gentleman for his dedication for fighting for the right thing to do, for his deep compassion for the people he represents and the tireless effort that he is making to explain the consequences of Hurricane Michael as it hit him, the floods that have hit us, and the wildfires that have hit others. I thank the gentleman so much for the time and for his leadership. Madam Speaker, when spring approaches in Nebraska, we expect our rivers and streams to peacefully rise as snow from the nearby Rockies gently melts. We are the Cornhusker State, but we actually could be called the River State. Here is why: We have more miles of rivers than any other State in the Union. The Missouri, the Platte, the Republican, the Elkhorn, and the Niobrara are our most famous rivers, but we really don't think of them as threatening--until they are. So as General Bacon just said, this was the most destructive storm in most Nebraskans' lifetimes. A perfect storm of factors caused the pain and destruction now all around us. Lands that were soaked from earlier autumn rains were frozen solid and then covered in snow. When the bomb cyclone's lethal mix of blizzard and rain did hit our State, an enormous quantity of water, ice, and collected topsoil sped down the hard land like a furious slurry, into rivers, creeks, and reservoirs bursting through dams, levees, and other structures that normally would hold this back. Madam Speaker, it is pretty hard to get the mind around what a 500- year event actually means. But as I was standing at the ridge on Offutt Air Force Base, which is located right south of Omaha near the confluence of the Platte and Missouri Rivers, I could see how the unprecedented force of water covered one-third of that entire base and many communities in eastern Nebraska. As the rushing water hit the bank on the other side of the river, on the Iowa side, it blew it out and created a 62-foot deep hole. As a member of the Appropriations Committee here in Congress, I turned to the commander of the Corps of Engineers who was with me. I looked at him, and I said: What is the number? He immediately shot back without hesitation and said: It is going to be a lot. Now, a little bit down the road to the west is the town of Fremont. Mayor Scotty Getzschman is a dedicated local public servant who is in the heating and air-conditioning business as his main job. He brought out a 1940 map of the old river channel of the Platte River. The problem for this town of Fremont began when the river got a bit nostalgic and sought to go back to its old ways. In a place now named ground zero near the Rod and Gun Club west of town, massive chunks of ice and the pressure of the Platte blew the levee. Water began to find its own channels in multiple breaches, and the southern part of the town of Fremont endured serious flooding. We surveyed the damage from a freshly patched hole made from remnants of an old hog confinement lot and riprap from the old Scribner Air Base. An initial call for help in the community brought 250 people out. Shortly thereafter, 1,000 people showed up to sandbag. One man moved his car to higher ground because he could see what was coming, but then it was later swept away by the raging river, and he spent the next few days at the intersection directing traffic as a volunteer. Madam Speaker, a bit west of the town of Fremont is the small town of North Bend, and that is where a ditch dike could not contain itself and made its own channel, creating fingers of water flowing throughout the city, and the vast majority of homes in this small community were hit. The paved streets looked like mud streets by the time I got there, but even with 6 inches of water inside of it, the North Bend Eagle, the local newspaper, figured out a way to get that edition out. Realizing that he was in a critical spot, the North Bend school superintendent transformed the entire school, really one of the newer buildings, into a center of gravity for emergency operations. Though school was canceled, it didn't mean the kids weren't busy. Initially they sandbagged, then they began to volunteer for days on end with the cleanup effort. The people of North Bend organized themselves, and word spread. Goods poured in from all over the country. And as the superintendent told me, he said that what was happening there could make a good country song, they would have so much more appreciation for Nebraska. Areas south of the town of Columbus, a little bit further to the west also were particularly hard hit with very large and mounting ag losses, the most visible sign of which were dead cattle. In fact, this past Saturday I went to a high school fundraiser in Columbus, and along Highway 81 the speed signs were still bent over with grass attached to them showing the magnitude and the volume of water that rushed over that area. There is a truck stop there named T-Bone, Madam Speaker. It greets passersby with two enormous cowboy boots on poles embedded in concrete. One was found 300 yards away at Matulka's garage. The other one was across the highway about a half mile away. They will probably be put back up to greet passersby once again. By the time I got there, the 4 feet of mud and water had receded, and a lot had been cleaned up. I looked at Fred, and I said: How did this happen? He said: At T-Bone's, we don't mess around. We are Nebraskans. We get it done. On a more positive note, Madam Speaker, a Federal project initiated after the last flood of 2011 saved the little town of Schuyler, Nebraska, and a couple of other things positively have happened. Nebraska's congressional delegation asked for expedited federal disaster assistance, and the President granted it. Even in the midst of this trauma, Nebraskans found a way to get a few laughs. Along the fence across from that truck stop of T-Bone's, there was a hand-painted sign that said, ``Mud Wrestling Tomorrow.'' Back at Offutt Air Force Base, it is a pretty jarring scene when you see a large fuel tank lifted up and turned on its side. It shows you the powerful force of this water. As many of the Members of Congress who have experienced this have had the same outpouring of support from family and friends around the country, I want to tell you just a quick few things that happened to me. A nun from Rome wrote to me and offered her prayers. A Congressman from another area of the country texted me and said: ``I'll send my staff. Whatever you need.'' The Jordanian Ambassador to the United States contacted me with her concerns. Madam Speaker, as you and I have seen firsthand, a natural disaster can create certain blessings in disguise. It is a time when we can come together and put aside any political differences and lend a helping hand to our fellow citizens. I think that is exactly what America wants Congress to do right now: put our differences aside, find consensus, quickly pass a supplemental to simply help my constituents and the others who have been so devastated by these unpredictable, unforeseen events. Many have waited and waited, and I think this is the time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx and Congressman David Price, for their beautiful, moving tributes to our colleague, Walter Jones. I wasn't an intimate friend of Walter's, but we did have a friendship. Each encounter that I had with him was special because he always had an eye toward that which was higher, noble, and good. I heard some of the sentiments Members expressed, heartfelt sentiments of loss, but also a great tribute and honor to this extraordinary man who did try to rise above the difficulties and the tensions here. I think both his life and his death taught us invaluable lessons, and frankly, I think it is what the American people are longing for from this body as well. So I thank the gentlewoman very much for doing this. Madam Speaker, tonight, I would like to talk about two women, two women from very different places, two women from very different cultures and different religions, two women with very different stories. Together, these two women, differently and separately, are reinterpreting in light of what was so that they can imagine what will be. The first woman's name is Nadia Murad. Nadia won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018. I know Nadia. She is a Yazidi from northern Iraq. The Yazidis are a people bound by an ancient faith tradition, and they have sought to live in peace in very harsh surroundings through the centuries. Along with the Christians of the area, they have endured many persecutions for a very long time. But nothing could have prepared Nadia for what happened on August 15, 2014. Nadia lived in a little village called Kawju in an area called Sinjar, again, in northern Iraq. The town's residents were mostly farmers and shepherds. At 21 years old, Nadia dreamed of owning her own hair salon and becoming a history teacher. But then the unthinkable happened. The Islamic State, ISIS, invaded her village. ISIS rounded up everyone and forced them into the schoolyard. The men were then separated from women. As Nadia told us, she said that she never realized how small her village was until she saw all of them in that schoolyard. They stood huddled on the dry grass. Some whispered to one another, wondering what was going on. Others were silent, in shock. No one understood what was happening, as Nadia said to us. Nadia was then forced to watch as six of her brothers were massacred. Her mother was executed along with 80 other older women. The bodies of the men and women were then thrown into mass graves. The rest of the women, including Nadia, were taken to Mosul, the largest city held by ISIS at that time, and they were sold. They were sold as sex slaves. The depravity of ISIS further unfolded as they sought to carry out a genocide, a complete extermination of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minority traditions in that area. The Yazidis were singled out for persecution by ISIS because they were part of a Kurdish- speaking religion without a holy book. Using that background as justification, what was called the ISIS Research and Fatwa Department targeted women for sexual slavery in an effort to lure young men into joining their cause. ISIS' twisted bureaucracy of barbarity even prepared a document on this, and it was called ``Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves.'' True to the dictates of the ISIS document, Nadia was bought and sold several times, with Facebook used as one of the prime ISIS marketing tools. She was repeatedly raped, burned with cigarettes, and beaten. At one point, she attempted to escape, but she was caught. The vicious gang rape that then ensued left her unconscious. She decided not to try to escape again. After months of unspeakable agony, one day, Nadia discovered that a door had been left unlocked, and she fled. She found refuge with a Muslim family who willingly helped her. In fact, the eldest son, at great personal risk, took her in his car and got her to the Kurdish lines where she was safe. I was first introduced to Nadia by some friends in Lincoln's Yazidi community. Through an interesting convergence of things, Lincoln, Nebraska, which is my home, has the largest Yazidi population in America. Many of the young men had served as our translators during the height of the Iraq war. Interestingly, one of the first pieces of legislation that I worked on was to give special visas accommodating people to come to America who had risked their lives alongside our troops, some of whom died, and they were given special status to come here. Many have made their home in Nebraska, and I am very proud of that. When Nadia came to see me, I could sense the trauma in her face and the wounds in her soul, so I tried to gently ask Nadia if she would be willing to share her full story with those of us there in my office. I told her that I thought it was important that we hear, in order to try to understand, but only if she wanted to. She again gently answered back that, yes, she would share her story. She walked us through her nightmare. At one point, I looked over at her Yazidi translator. Tears streamed down his face. My own chief of staff sobbed. It was just too much to bear. But in a real moment of pride for me, Madam Speaker, 1 month ago today, Nadia Murad was my guest right here in the House Chamber for the State of the Union. I was happy to see her again, and she gave me a copy of her book called ``The Last Girl.'' Her fiance was with her, Abid Shamdeen. What a gentle young man. He had served as well as a translator at the height of the Iraq war and had earned his citizenship to America. Before the State of the Union event, Nadia and I spent about an hour with a reporter from The Washington Post. The beautiful gift of watching her interact with this reporter was this: She answered the questions clearly, with great grace and purposeful resolve, as Abid lovingly stood by her and translated her words and the full meaning of them. She was in Washington to raise awareness of the Yazidi genocide and join us in the call for a new type of security settlement in northern Iraq that would protect the ancient mosaic, the ancient tapestry of religious pluralism that once existed there, including Christians and Yazidis, as well as certain Islamic minority traditions. While that was her primary motive before that reporter and us, again, she gently and profoundly articulated the need to respect human dignity. She used that pain in her soul to project healing on our broken world. Madam Speaker, when I first came to Congress, an older Member warned me about something. He called it the tyranny of the urgent. He said to be careful of the tyranny of the urgent, because what that will do is subsume you into emergency after emergency without leaving any time for reflection, for thought, for dialogue, for relationship. We see that played out day after day, and, of course, the media begs this as issues switch and controversies arise, and we are all summoned to give various opinions on whatever negative thing just happened. The tyranny of the urgent, we have to be careful of that because it robs us of the chance to sit with a heroic woman like Nadia and listen carefully to what she has to say. This hour-by-hour D.C. and 911 fire alarm is distracting us from this essential work of reflection and authentic governance. It is true now more than ever. A lot of what goes on here is outside the glare of television. Recently, I had the chance to engage the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development who had come before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. I talked to him about a number of issues that were important to me: the country of Haiti, the prospects for reforestation around the world, conservation, the story of Nadia and so many Yazidis, and this need for the new security settlement in northern Iraq. The American people are generously helping with economic aid, under the leadership of the Agency for International Development, to help potentially create the conditions in which Yazidis and Christians could return and once again flourish. This was foremost in my mind as I spoke with the administrator in the committee hearing. But I told the administrator this, that the name-- the name itself, the United States Agency for International Development--really does not capture the fullness of the mission of what we are trying to do. Ultimately, this mission and our disposition, as reflected in policy, ought to be about one thing expressed in two words: human dignity-- protecting human dignity and, in doing so, attacking the root causes of poverty and attempting to create for the 21st century an imaginative architecture for diplomatic relations, again, rooted in authentic service to America's humanitarian impulse, creating the conditions for international stability which are inextricably intertwined with our own national security. This is a properly oriented foreign policy trajectory of our Nation, and, again, it is based on the idea that America's impulse is to be charitable, America's impulse is to help--yes, to demand responsibility but, also, to help create the conditions in which human life can flourish. This has profound meaning, Madam Speaker, where I live, particularly in Nebraska, because one of the ways in which we express, in practical terms, that humanitarian impulse is through agricultural policy. We feed ourselves, and we feed the world. Nebraska has a big role in doing just that, and this is true now more than ever in our modern age. The land has been the source of our vitality in America. Particularly where I live but, really, across the country, agriculture is so essential to our economic well-being, our life, our way of life, our culture, to who we are as a people. And again, where I live, production agriculture is so essential, in corn and soybeans and livestock that cover much of our landscape. They are an important part of America's export prowess. The farm communities' and the ranch communities' efficiency, their quality, their ingenuity allows us to provide food security for tens of millions of vulnerable people in America and abroad, while ensuring that Americans enjoy the lowest per capita grocery bills in all the world. Now, the challenge and the opportunity is to grow America's farm family. And to look to the future, we should look to the past to see, again, in this new century, a new connection starting to occur between the urban and the rural. This diversification of our farm family is happening rapidly, and so we, importantly, are no longer talking in the language of producers and consumers but, rather, in terms of connecting the farmer to the family. You can now meet your farmer at the local farmers market. That is a level of intimacy not seen since the early days of agriculture in America. What is at stake here, Madam Speaker, is this desire to bring people closer to their food and into an authentic relationship with those who grow that food. Agriculture is creating an exciting new entrepreneurial space, and we have seen a real uptick in young people entering the ag field. Young people are being drawn to agriculture through exciting new niches, including artisanal foods and crops, organics, and the farm-to-fork movement. Agricultural studies no longer sit off on the side in their own silo. They are inextricably intertwined, an intimate relationship with environmental science and conservation, as well as international development. Restaurants that focus on locally sourced foods are also growing in popularity, and with that trend comes an increased interest in the food of indigenous peoples--all exciting new spaces. Still, at the heart of Nebraska and at the heart of America is the traditional, large-scale American farm. At the beginning of this, Madam Speaker, I talked about two women. And we have heard about Nadia Murad, who is living with a deep wound yet seeking ways to rebuild what once was a thriving tradition. I want to talk about another woman I recently met now, though, a fascinating young woman who has merged the millennial sense of authentic connection with a traditional production ag operation. Hannah Esch is an agricultural student at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and a Nebraska beef ambassador. Hannah was surprised when she recently visited some young children in a classroom in one of our counties and, when asked a basic question about where food comes from, a third grader answered that eggs come from cows since they are next to the milk in the grocery store. This alarmed Hannah a bit, but it reinforced Hannah's desire to go deeper into ag education and outreach. Hannah is a specialty livestock producer with a fascinating background as an agriculture pioneer. She is a part of a growing movement of young agricultural entrepreneurs. She is a passionate advocate for production agriculture, while also seeking emerging niche opportunities. In Nebraska, the average age of the farmer is 58 years old. I don't know exactly what it is across the country, Madam Speaker, but I assume it is somewhat similar. What we have on our hands is, on the horizon, a generational transfer. But there is also an interesting convergence of amazing new opportunity on that same horizon. Two dynamics are on the verge of breaking out: small-scale farm production and the nimble, innovative use of technology in agriculture. I met Hannah at an ag pioneers event organized by the Agribusiness Entrepreneurship program at the University of Nebraska. The businesses of these cutting-edge ag leaders range from organic popcorn production to ag tech in the Internet of Things. Others were leaders in the farm-to-table movement, boutique vegetable growers, and specialty livestock sellers. Some were large grain producers experimenting with cover crops that would enhance the soil and also advance their own innovation in the precision agriculture space. Not everybody in this room was young. Not everybody came from farm families, interestingly. But what they shared was a passionate desire to add value to traditional production agriculture and create the space for a new food movement that is showing tremendous potential. Of course, at that meeting, given this body recently passed a new farm bill, an important piece of legislation that does basically one thing--provides food security in two ways: The risk management policies that protect agriculture producers from the vagaries, the ups and downs, of weather, the supply problems as well as other difficulties that arise in ensuring that a timely, good harvest is delivered, that is the purpose of the farm bill, combined with its other purpose, to help those who are in food-vulnerable circumstances through our nutrition programs. We discussed the policies embedded in the farm bill, including the value-added grants section and the assistance that we give to beginning farmers and ranchers. Another of the participants were the Brugger brothers. They were engaging young people who could honestly, Madam Speaker, star in a reality TV show. They are adding enormous value to the farm commodities they produce. These twins not only distill corn and raise cattle; they create a sequence of value across multiple agricultural products, from hops to whiskey to finished meats. Their vertical integration puts the value in the value chain--in their pocket. That is an exciting entrepreneurial place to be. These brothers, however, are about more than food. They also want to lure members of their younger generation back to the small town. They want to build community around artisanal agriculture. This connectivity around food is one of the value propositions that I wanted to highlight here that Hannah holds so dear. She has grown her own premium brand of beef through the power of story. Using Instagram and photos and video, Hannah sells her livestock product directly via the Internet to a diverse range of customers from around the country who yearn to know the provenance of their food. Hannah draws interest in her beef by showing the life cycle of her cattle, and, through compelling use of social media, she invites customers into the intimate process of livestock production. Her market, again, is to a world hungry for the authentic story behind what is for dinner. Madam Speaker, with Hannah and other ag pioneers, we are experiencing a bit--or the front end, should I say?--of an emerging set of ideas that will help shape our social and economic well-being for this century. It is the entrepreneurial drive that these young people possess to be stewards of the land, to grow the ag family, and to create the space for genuine food relationship. This millennial-driven movement signifies an embrace of the traditional human-scaled model of agriculture for which our society is yearning, while remaining firmly within and adding to the mainstream of production agriculture that feeds America and feeds the world. So what do Hannah and Nadia hold in common? I think they are connected. They are from very different lands. They speak different languages. They have different cultural mores. What they are driving for is meaning around human dignity. Whether it is Nadia, who has suffered the horrible loss of her family and her extraordinary tradition--she is being driven by a purpose to pull out of that tragedy deep meaning and projecting that on the world, speaking to our hearts clearly through her suffering about the need for human dignity. It is our only way out, to express and rebuild our systems of governance, our foreign relations, and our economics around this idea of interconnectedness with respect for human dignity. It is a very important driver, even in the life of an entrepreneur like Hannah, who seeks, again, the authenticity of food relationship. I think there is an intimate connection here between two women from two very different, faraway places. Madam Speaker, my wife was telling me recently--and I venture out here a little bit because I don't know the name of this art form. It is my understanding there is a type of porcelain that is very, very delicate and fragile; and, if it should break, it is actually repaired by gold so that, as beautiful as the original piece was, it becomes more vibrant, more offering. Its brokenness shows more beauty. In listening to Nadia and her deep woundedness and watching her young fiance lovingly escort her through the storytelling of her wounds to the world, it is that porcelain being repaired by gold, and it shines all the more beautifully. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Ms. Granger, for her indulgence in letting me speak today. Let me thank our chair, Mrs. Lowey, as well for at least the ability today to have a discussion. Mr. Speaker, no one wins in a government shutdown. No one wins if the border is not secure. That is where we are. On my way here yesterday, as I was scrambling to get to the airport-- and I live in Nebraska, a relatively small State, so we all kind of know one another or at least kind of recognize one another. As I checked in with my boarding pass and showed the TSA agent my ID, he looked at me and he said: Can you vote for the bill? Now, given it is the Senate bill that is dominating the headlines, because it is a reasoned attempt to reach some type of consensus here, I looked at the TSA agent and I said: Yes, I can. I know this has been tough. How long can you hold out? He said: It is tough. I don't want to miss another paycheck, but I can hold out about 30 days. He said please. I thanked him for his service. Right now, I would like to thank all of the people who have come back to work without pay, who have done their duty, many under some hardship, because they know it is the right thing to do. Yet, what is also the right thing to do is to get past this logjam, this impasse, and to leverage this moment and to actually get an outcome, a bipartisan outcome, that secures our border. This weekend, the President, I thought, laid out a reasoned proposal that included a spectrum of immigration issues, most of which enjoy robust bipartisan support, including border security. And what do we need there? Personnel. We need technology, and we need enhanced barriers. Now, there is the possibility of some movement on these important questions of reopening the government and getting the right type of border security that now sits in the United States Senate. But I thought Senator Lankford made a good comment as well. He said this isn't a yes or a no proposition, on that particular bill. It is the starting point, again, for a reasoned debate about how we find some consensus. Mr. Speaker, America is a just and generous Nation, and we have opened our arms to people who wish to come here and embrace the values, people who have fled political or economic persecution and want to rebuild their lives. That is the hallmark of who we are. But charity cannot flow out of chaos. When you have disorder at the border, you have an inability to have a just and humanitarian system that is beneficial to America and to people in need all around the world. And that, fundamentally, is what is at issue here today--not necessarily finding a compromise, but a consensus. A compromise implies that somebody may win and somebody may lose. Let's all win here. Let's get the government reopened with the right type of package that includes robust border security that can make America proud.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Smith, not only for his tireless leadership, but his compassionate, passionate voice on behalf of women, saying loudly and clearly, consistently, over the time he has been in Congress, that women deserve better. Madam Speaker, we live in an age of contradiction. We say that we want peace. We say that we want joy. We say that we want happiness, that we ought to be living in a good and authentic, committed community, and that we ought to uphold the noble ideal of human dignity. But we have to ask some difficult questions. We have to ask why. Why, in this age of material plenty, is life expectancy in America declining? Why, in this age of vast and accelerating scientific discovery and technological innovation, is the world still screaming for meaning? Why? Could it be that we have to be brave enough, that we have to be bold enough, to look and confront our own contradictions? We say we want community, but do we really care? We say we want justice, but with certain exceptions. We say we want liberty for all but, really, only for our own perspective. Madam Speaker, the reality is, life is hard. Life can be brutal. Life can sometimes be very unfair. The reality is we have to face this together. This is why the demands of community, the demands of justice, the demands of compassion, the demands of liberty say to the woman, no matter how hard the circumstances, what a gift you are and what a gift the unborn life is within you. What a gift. What a gift. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, first, I thank Mrs. Lowey--this is, I think, the first time that we have had a chance to dialog publicly--for her leadership and congratulate her as the new Appropriations chair. I congratulate the gentlewoman, and we look forward to working with Mrs. Lowey. I also want to thank the Republican leader, our ranking member of the committee, Ms. Granger, for her steadfast leadership and help in navigating so many essential issues that are before us today. Madam Chair, I want you to know that I support the underlying bill without the complicating amendments and urge its passage. I believe that this is a good bipartisan piece of legislation to help those negatively affected by serious and devastating weather events that have occurred throughout the previous year, and we should be working together to provide the needed disaster assistance and unite to rebuild communities damaged by these hurricanes, typhoons, and earthquakes, as well as volcanoes. But let us be honest. This bill would sail through the Congress--it would sail through this body--if we could get past the paralysis of this moment that is dividing Democrats from Republicans, the Speaker from the President, the House from the Senate, and on and on. Let's put all of those considerations aside for just a moment and provide the needed support to our agricultural communities who are hurting and those who are in need. As the new ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to speak briefly to an important number of provisions in the underlying bill. It provides financial support to farmers and producers from the Pacific Islands to California and to the Southeast States who have lost crops, trees, and livestock, and so much more. It provides funds for essential conservation efforts in our rural communities to rebuild the watersheds and funds to restore the land in order to prevent future flooding that is so devastating. The bill provides financial support to forestlands for their restoration, some of which have been wiped out by the strongest storms recorded in several parts of the United States. The bill also provides nutritional assistance to those who are vulnerable among us. These are all reasons that we need to put momentary difficulties aside and pass the underlying piece of legislation. I suggest that we move this bill as quickly as possible and keep it separate from the amendments that will delay its implementation.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, there is a twofold goal being sought by many of us right now, and it is this: to keep the government fully open and to secure our border. No one wins in a government shutdown. No one wins if the border is not safe. We ought to be able to rise above the momentary difficulty, whether it is a negotiation between the Senate and the House, the President and the House, the President and the Senate, and get to those mutually compatible goals of fully funding an operational government, as well as ensuring that Americans are safe and that we have the right type of assistance to our border personnel, the right type of barriers, the right type of technology, the right type of preventative measures to protect us all, and create the conditions in which America can have a truly just and humanitarian response to those in need. That is what is at issue this moment. With that said, Madam Speaker, though, I think it is important that, as we are at the beginning of a new Congress, as we were all sworn in last week, as this Chamber was filled with Members' children and Members' families coming from such extraordinarily diverse backgrounds, it was a celebratory atmosphere. It always tends to be that way, and then we get into the hard, hard work of governing. As President Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose wisely, and in a society divided by deep cultural and philosophical difficulties, that actually manifests itself here in the people's House. It is incumbent upon those of us who have been given this awesome responsibility to govern to undertake the awesome responsibility of deciding to govern well, to carry forth that spirit of the swearing in day with our families here, and that oath of office, where there is a common narrative around who we are as a people and where we should go as a Nation, reaching back to our most honored-in-time traditions and projecting them forward so America can have confidence that we have set up the guardrails for a successful culture, a successful economy, a successful society. That is our job. It is going to take difficult moments of prudential wrestling. It is my hope it will be done in a civil manner and that people will make their firm case and fight for those principles, but do so with an eye toward building consensus. We in Nebraska, I believe, invented the phrase ``get `er done.'' Just get `er done. Fight for what you believe and seek that which is possible. They are not mutually incompatible goals. That is our responsibility as legislators for the good, the well-being of the entire American public. With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to do something a little bit unique. I would actually like to look back for a moment at the year in review and some important things that were accomplished. We tend to be caught in what I call the tyranny of the urgent, where what is right in front of us completely occupies us. Of course, we have a 24/7, 911 media that heightens all of this intensity. It is what it is. But the reality is, we did some pretty good things last year, last term, and I want to review a few of them. In December, the House and Senate passed a new farm bill with very strong bipartisan support. For a lot of Americans, it is very easy to overlook this accomplishment. Our grocery bills are some of the lowest in the world, our food is readily available, and our safety net for those who are vulnerable is well considered. It comes down to this: it is the vastness of our land and the quality of our soil and the gritty ingenuity of our farmers and ranchers who lay the foundation for America's prosperity, stability, and economic vitality. We tend to forget this because our food comes somewhat easy to us. The farm bill provides risk management tools to maximize this natural gift, allowing farmers and ranchers to provide food security for our country, our nutrition programs, as well as food assistance to millions of others around the world and protect those who are in very vulnerable circumstances. This bill also fosters conservation practices that enhance the protection of our soil and our wildlife habitat. I am pleased by the increase in the number of acres in the Conservation Reserve Program. The farm bill ensures that America continues to lead the world in agricultural innovation, food safety, and renewable fuels. In Nebraska, agriculture is central to our well-being, our way of life, and our culture. Our land-grant universities help ensure that we maintain our tremendous productivity. The farm bill is a once-in-every-5-year piece of legislation. The birth of such legislation is neither smooth nor easy, but we got it done. It is a good lesson for what we are facing now with new challenges ahead of us. We got it done in a very strong, bipartisan vote. For Nebraskans, and many people throughout rural America, the farm bill is not just another Washington accomplishment. Like the rhythms of planting and harvesting, it is an expected rite of legislative passage essential to who we are as a people, as Americans, and to our well- being. One of the things that I am excited about, Madam Speaker, is that beginning farmers and local food producers are big winners in our farm bill. I am very encouraged by the growing interest of young people in seeking agricultural opportunity. We are witnessing a food culture awakening, with local chefs, farmers markets, and a keen interest in eating local. The farm bill helps these next generation farmers and food entrepreneurs through new resources and training, such as the Local Agriculture Market Program, called LAMP, which accelerates the farm-to-fork movement across America, connecting local farmers with families, consumers, and restaurants. This offers a big, big opportunity for us all. I am also happy, Madam Speaker, that the farm bill includes my provisions to enhance the Farmer-to-Farmer Program. For over 30 years, the Farmer-to-Farmer Program has connected volunteer American farmers, agriculture extension experts, and others with deep knowledge of the agriculture industry with the world's farmers abroad. From dairy production to seed selection to entomology, irrigation, and crop yield determination improvement, as well as farm credit, this sharing of America's agricultural expertise dramatically enhances the capacity of people elsewhere to grow their own food, contributing to worldwide food security, community well-being, and human flourishing. Food security is the key. This year, we also passed the Global Food Security Reauthorization Act. I had worked on this important piece of legislation when it first passed. It amends the Global Security Act of 2016 to enable programs that support sustainable agriculture around the world and it extends assistance for international disaster relief and rehabilitation, especially for emergency food programs. Switching topics a bit, Madam Speaker, the fundamental duty that we all have here is to keep America safe. This requires a modern and properly equipped military. In recent years, our force structure has significantly deteriorated. Planes could not fly in certain circumstances and other equipment was not available. This past year in Congress, we passed the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act and the defense appropriations bill. Again, most of the government is open and functioning. We are working toward the rest. This helps rebuild our military after years of budget cuts. Our Active Duty, National Guard, and reserve force personnel will receive a 2.6 percent pay raise, the largest in 9 years. We are going to purchase new aircraft, tanks, ships, and other military hardware to replace and upgrade worn out equipment. These bills also increase across-the-board funding for additional personnel, training, maintenance, and operations to ensure that our military is always ready to defend our Nation. Madam Speaker, while a strong military is vital, America's safety and prosperity also depends upon a skillful mix of diplomacy and development. Building authentic relationships around the world and attacking the root causes of structural poverty are equally important goals that need to work in tandem with a properly sized and prepared military. A race toward technological superiority through ever-larger weapons systems will not unilaterally resolve our most difficult security challenges. The tech gap that we enjoy is closing, and will continue to close rapidly. Then, we have to ask ourselves: Then what? I often use the phrase ``foreign policy realism'' to guide how I believe the United States should engage in global affairs. It is this: strong defense, smart diplomacy, and sustainable development. These are the three pillars. Thanks to the dedication and courage of our troops and our diplomats and the exhaustive work of many others who serve from their heart in faraway places, we ought to be very grateful that our country has been kept safe from attack. There is always a however. However, real risks remain. Northern Iraq and Syria are places where ISIS and other dark forces could regenerate. Iran meddles and frustrates peace throughout the region. The United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia is under severe scrutiny in light of our intelligence findings that implicated the Saudi Crown Prince in the murder of an American-based Saudi journalist. We also face risks from various actors to increasingly powerful, yet more nimble and mobile nuclear capabilities. Madam Speaker, I lead the Nuclear Security Working Group in Congress. We had a very important dialogue with the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration as we closed out the last Congress to discuss our coordination of nuclear nonproliferation activities. There are two core elements in preventing an attack. The first, of course, is deterrence. The second is threat reduction. Again, the dual work of our military and other government efforts in nuclear threat reduction has been successful in preventing nuclear and radiological terrorism. The challenge is to constantly reassess the changing threat environment. A single failure can lead to catastrophic consequences. These efforts must be matched with an equal effort to halt and reverse nuclear proliferation throughout the world. In a September conference, we gathered with national and nuclear security experts and former government officials across four administrations with the singular goal to improve U.S. Government oversight and coordination of nuclear counter and nonproliferation efforts. As a result, I am going to propose the creation of a nuclear nonproliferation council to enable a unified U.S. Government strategy on nuclear nonproliferation. In the National Defense Authorization Act, which we passed, there is a section also that perhaps has been overlooked, but it is important. It will speed the elimination of cesium chloride that can be used to make dirty bombs. This policy change that we were pleased to work on reduces the risk of a catastrophic radiological attack inside our borders. In the face of expanding Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals, our defense bill modernizes our nuclear deterrence capability even as we hope to reestablish a more stable and peaceful world. Only through a combination of strength and an openness to dialogue can we avert a nuclear arms race. Back in June, the first-ever meeting between leaders of the United States and North Korea took place. President Trump met face to face with Kim Jong-un in a preliminary step towards reconciliation and denuclearization. The summit that was held in Singapore was a first step to shift an escalating trajectory of missile launches and hostile rhetoric, reducing anxiety for the region, America, and the world. The summit took a new approach to a long standoff. For the first time, a U.S. President reached out directly to a North Korean leader. The meeting would not have happened, though--and this is very important, Madam Speaker--without a unified global community willing to support the preconditions needed to encourage Kim Jong-un to meet. As an initial gesture of goodwill, North Korea returned the remains of U.S. service personnel and destroyed at least one nuclear testing facility. Clearly, much more progress is needed, and a joint action plan will require North Korea to continue to earnestly engage in nonproliferation. I believe that congressional leadership should play a role here in policy developments that can help the administration reduce the nuclear threats on the Korean Peninsula. Now, Madam Speaker, where I live, Nebraska, plays a critical role in keeping America safe. Offutt Air Force Base and Strategic Command are essential to America's security, and the steady work of guiding budgets and building the necessary coalitions here in Congress resulted in dramatic improvements to both Strategic Command as well as Offutt. The new USSTRATCOM headquarters building is nearing completion. Its increased capability, beginning this summer, will add to the combatant command's charge as one of the Nation's most vital missions, and that is nuclear deterrence. A major repair of Offutt Air Force Base's runway will soon begin. Again, I am very pleased, working with the Nebraska delegation and our colleagues, to continue to advance the completion of the Strategic Command as well as the enhancement of Offutt Air Force Base. Offutt is home to the Air Force's 55th Wing. The wing conducts intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. This is very important, Madam Speaker, because, again, it is something that is overlooked in our tense times. One of the 55th Wing's important aircraft is the OC-135B. It flies in support of the 34-international-member Treaty on Open Skies, one of the last remaining functional arms control regimes that is operational between the United States and the Russian Federation. I am pleased that, working together, we were able to enhance funding for the OC-135B aircraft, again, vital to one of the last linkages of agreements with the Russians. Madam Speaker, I want to turn to another topic that really ought to be at the forefront of our discussions, but rarely is; if we are going to create a 21st century architecture for international stability, I believe it revolves around two words: human dignity. We traditionally think of diplomacy as between nation-states. Increasingly in our interconnected world, where people can reach people in faraway places in an instant or by travel in a very short period of time, it is this deeper transcendent idea that is still operational in our culture. It underlies our founding here in America. It is in our earliest documents. It is alluded to. This idea of human dignity, this sacred space of personhood from which the free exercise of conscience and right reason and other rights that we tend to take for granted, such as religious freedom, flow. Human dignity, the two words that mark the 21st century architecture for how we ought to conduct international affairs, reaching toward authentic relationships and dialogue with people with whom we may have had tremendous misunderstandings in the past, tremendous tensions, or even the grave consequences of war. Again, as I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, the tech gap is closing. We can beat anybody anywhere. We can do that and will continue to be able to do that. And, again, a strong military is absolutely essential to keeping the peace and creating the conditions for stability internationally, which protects us here at home. But what happens when, again, the miniaturization of technology is such that any bad actor or any bad nation has ready access to it; we have to ask ourselves: And then what? It is this idea of being in authentic dialogue around this fundamental principle that is operative in the way in which we conduct our affairs; human dignity, mutual respect for that sacred space of the person and their perspectives and their ability to use reason to think for what is good for themselves, their family, and their country. Human dignity. This is manifesting itself very clearly in something that, again, is really overlooked in our dialogue because we are caught in the urgency of the moment. Let me point this out, Madam Speaker. It is about the country of Iraq. America has given so much. We have lost so much in Iraq that it is hard to understand why engagement is ongoing and necessary. The thought of it is exhausting to the American people. It is exhausting to our process. But I need to point this out. Much is at stake. Iraq once had a mosaic and an ancient tapestry of religious pluralism that existed there. Christians used to total 1.5 million; now only a few hundred thousand remain. The Yazidi community, another ancient faith tradition that lived in peace, in persecution off and on; but, in attempting to live out their faith tradition in northern Iraq, right now there are about 400,000 people from the Yazidi faith tradition trapped in refugee camps. They are internally displaced persons living in tent structures, distant from their northern Iraq homes, and many are children. As of this past summer, we had a statistic--and it is hard to know where this is now, given the dynamics--that about 3,500 Yazidi women remained as slaves of ISIS. In fact, Madam Speaker, we are still working through the logistics, but I am very proud that I reached out to Nadia Murad, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who was captured by someone named Salman, the Iraqi, and held in slavery. She came to my office, and I spoke with her and I said: I would like to hear the fullness of your story, but I recognize that is selfish on my part and that the horror and the pain and the tragedy are very real to you. So if you do not wish to say anything, I completely understand, but I would like to know more if you are willing. And she agreed. And she told us, moment by moment about what happened to her family, about how she was captured, sold, and how she eventually escaped, with the help of a Muslim family, by the way. I reached out to Nadia recently, and I invited her to the State of the Union. And she is going to come. We are working through it, and I am hopeful that works out. Right now she is scheduled to come, and I am proud of that. Because it is not about me giving a speech here about human dignity-- and I think Nadia would agree with me saying this--it is not even about the trauma that she went through and the need to heal. The reason that she is speaking so clearly and so courageously about the horror she went through, in the midst of her great pain, is this singular concept right here: human dignity. How can civilizations survive if we do not somehow rally ourselves around this fundamental principle of respecting the sacred space of personhood, of allowing people the liberty to live in peace and exercise their tradition as they see fit, to do good things for their family, to carry forward the wisdom of their tradition and ages, through their family life and the exercise of their faith. If we give up on that principle, where do we go? We can fight it out. We might even be able to win. But the deeper answer lies in the message that Nadia and so many others are telling us, crying out for justice and humanitarian relief and begging for a new way to think, a new way to order ourselves. And because we have the philosophical foundation here in America, because we have been a just and generous society and we have welcomed people who have fled persecution, the world looks at us as this beautiful place of the residual, of the protection of that fundamental value that I believe every heart longs for: to be respected, to be in community, to be loved. Now, here is what I think we ought to do. We have about 5,400 American troops in Iraq. And, with the help of international partners, we have been training Iraqi national forces and nurturing their capacity to lead and finish the work of defeating the dark, twisted horror of ISIS. At the behest of the Vice President, I went to Iraq last summer, and the Iraqi forces that we have trained and the military told me directly they have fought and they have fought well. Again, the irony of the attack of ISIS and the genocide against Christians and Yazidis and other religious minorities and the killing of so many innocent Muslim people is that it has created a nationalism, if you will, among the Iraqi people. And they have fought hard and fought well and taken many, many casualties. But here is the key: An additional security footprint is still required in the Nineveh Plain and Sinjar so that it is possible--these are the areas in northern Iraq proximate to Kurdistan. A new security settlement in that area would allow the return of Christians and allow the return of Yazidis to their traditional homes and to begin to rebuild. Again, as I mentioned, in July, at the request of the Vice President, I joined Administrator Mark Green of the United States Agency for International Development and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, former Governor of Kansas, and we went to Iraq together. We were responding to reports that our initial efforts to help the religious minority communities were not having the intended effect. When we stepped into the dusty alleyways and streets and villages and camps, we gained firsthand knowledge of the broken conditions there. Our trip included intense discussions with Iraqi religious leaders, international aid workers, displaced children, U.N. personnel, as well as our military leadership. Despite the situation's fragility, there is certain progress being made, including courageous acts of ecumenical alliance and revitalization, often with international nongovernmental organizations and faith-based entities. My firsthand observation was this: The situation in Iraq can be summarized in three words: possibility, urgency, and security. Multiple levels of challenge remain. Security is weak, and the prospect of permanent refugee camps is real. If Iraq loses its minority communities, the hope for a healthy pluralism in the region will die, and a severe chain of events will occur. Iran will expand its presence. ISIS could regenerate. Out- migration will ensue, and Iraq will forever lose this extraordinary ancient tapestry of multiple faith traditions that are so vital for human dignity, mutual respect, and peace. So, working with the administration, our government, we are expanding and accelerating our humanitarian support for those who suffered genocide, and this is all good. However, the financial assistance must be combined with the proper security settlement that ensures a just return for these beleaguered minorities to the Nineveh Plain and Sinjar. So, Madam Speaker, this is what I have done. I am recently getting ready to reintroduce a resolution in the House of Representatives to develop a multinational security mission to integrate local Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities into the security forces of the central government of Iraq. Getting this right means justice for the oppressed, stability for Iraq, and the preservations of the principles necessary for civilization itself. By doing so, we will correct a fragile security situation. The religious minorities will have special autonomy for protection of their own areas, but, again, under Central Iraqi authority, under the Iraqi flag. The mission will be international in character under the Iraqi flag. I know, right now, many other nations are very willing to join this effort, to put down a new security footprint that would stabilize permanently that area and allow people to go home. Madam Speaker, there is another issue related critically to human dignity, and while it is not something that we often talk and think about, we are starting to get our mind around how big tech is controlling our lives. We are starting to worry that the surveillance of our habits and our contacts by people who shouldn't be surveilling us, these big tech companies, are creating multiple levels of difficulty. This growing problem here in America is affecting the most vulnerable persons here: our children. The CEO of Google, a few months ago, recently came before Congress, and he did receive an earful. Big tech is controlling our lives. Big tech is concentrated and dominating. Big tech is going to necessarily come under increased policy scrutiny to ensure that individual privacy is protected and competition is not stifled. But one overlooked area, problem, is protecting children online. Now, Google's YouTube is the most popular online platform for children on Earth, and 8 out of 10 U.S. children from 6 to 12 use it daily. In April of this past year, 23 child and privacy advocacy groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission arguing that Google's YouTube online video and advertising network systematically collected data on the online habits of tens of millions of YouTube- watching children under the age of 13, and that data was sold to marketers. Now, in support of this advocacy, Congressman David Cicilline, who is from Rhode Island, who sits on the other side of the aisle from me, he and I asked Google for answers on its policy regarding protection of children online. The response was weak. So our goal is to continue to try to ensure that the internet's extraordinarily beneficial technological advances square with the time- honored values essential to a humane, decent, and dignified world. We want Google to thoroughly answer our questions. We want Google to be true to its original motto: ``Don't Be Evil.'' Now, Madam Speaker, let me turn to another topic, and touch on it briefly, to talk about what is germane in this moment, given the discussions of border security, some of the things we actually worked on last year that weren't successful but, nonetheless, may provide some answers for the current dilemma that we find ourselves in. America is, again, a kind and generous nation, and we have opened our arms to persons who seek refuge and want to rebuild their own lives and accept and embrace the deeper values of our country. However, charity cannot flow from chaos. No one is entitled to enter America illegally. Law and order create the conditions for justice and compassion. Law and order create the conditions necessary for charity, for justice, and for compassion. Now, the dynamics around immigration are complex and multilayered. A Yale study came out last year that said the number of persons illegally in the United States could be as high as 30 million, but at least 40 percent of those have overstayed a visa. And over the past 30 years-- and this is what we are wrestling with right now--over the past 30 years, incomplete border control, insufficient Federal enforcement, and the cynical exploitation of the poor for economic gain here in America has created an attractiveness and led to a failing system. So, in an attempt to meet multiple immigration challenges, to align the various perspectives that are here in Congress about a humane and compassionate response about the need for additional, necessary border resources, about the need to update our immigration laws, this year we voted on legislation that would stiffen internal enforcement, modernize our immigration laws, and significantly increase border resources. The House-led legislation moved more toward a merit-based immigration system, provided new funding for more humane shelters at the border. It accelerated the judicial review process, and it made accommodations to resolve the anxious ambiguity for those who are called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA kids, children who were brought here through no fault of their own. I supported these initiatives, but, unfortunately, they failed in the House. And moving forward, I think we need to keep certain other priorities at the forefront of the immigration debate, which are, of course, an increase in border security, robust internal enforcement, and this additional priority which is now only coming to light. We have been doing this for a number of years. Of course, the policy needs to be revisited and evaluated in terms of success, but I do think it is an important one: moving the immigration debate off the 1-yard line and working with creative and imaginative foreign policy engagement with the countries in the Northern Triangle of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In that way, to help those countries build more just and humane systems both economically and politically, to create the conditions for stability, decreases the intensity of need for out- migration for either economic purposes or fleeing criminal activity. Now, immigration can seem remote and abstract for many of us, but it is important to remember that it has a human face, and I am very proud that we are doing two things at once here. We are, of course, debating the importance of immigration policy and potential changes, but also assisting many people who have gotten tangled in immigration difficulties back home. Madam Speaker, I think there are certain things in this House that transcend disagreement, and one of them is our veterans. Americans often sense what is right and good, and we instinctively recognize the nobility of self-sacrifice for another, for our country, and for our timeless ideals, and our veterans stand above the division and discord--beyond politics--to what is lasting and true. But beyond our applause and admiration, we are also duty-bound in this body to keep our promise to care for them. So, this past year, we did some important things. Back at home, we are in the process, after some long negotiations, of creating a new state-of-the-art VA facility in Lincoln, on the historic veterans' campus there. This is a victory. This is a significant victory for economic regeneration of a unique historic property, and it arrives on the heels of a very successful public-private partnership to expand and improve and innovate the Omaha VA Medical Center. I am so proud that Nebraska continues to inspire the Nation with creative partnerships to assist our veterans. Now, here in Congress, we passed a law called the VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks, the acronym is the MISSION Act. It was signed into law, and it brought the long-needed reforms in the last Congress to the VA system. It provides a replacement for the VA Choice program and consolidates community care programs for veterans who live far from a VA center or experience long wait times for care. This is going to assist many of our veterans in rural communities and help them receive the quality of care that they deserve in a reasonable amount of time. This act also expanded the veteran caregiver program, making more pre-9/11 veterans and their families eligible for assistance. Now, another bipartisan project that I hope we can pursue shortly, and we have been in dialogue in a bipartisan manner on this, is to work with the international community to create a historic center at the site of our D-day battles in Normandy. A new institute that is being envisioned by some European colleagues could reestablish, for the 21st century, a renewed understanding of the pivotal battle that happened on D-day, its consequences for the war, and the institutions that emerged afterward that have created the conditions for stability and prosperity, many of which are aging and need to be updated and challenged. The United States cannot pull the world's weight alone. We need to be in authentic partnership and in authentic dialogue when we have differences, but in partnership with those who have been given the capacity by our sacrifice, both militarily and economically, to advance their own economies and build out systems of governance. Again, the 21st century architecture of international diplomacy is going to revolve around that central idea: authentic partnerships based on the philosophical principle of human dignity that lead to burden sharing and vision sharing at the same time. Madam Speaker, I had an interesting thing happen this summer. I wasn't at home, and I regret that I wasn't there to receive him, but he stopped in my office. World War II veteran Sidney Walton stopped by, and he has a really fascinating story. You see, he told my staff and some of the young people there, the interns, he has a deep regret that when he was young, he never really took the time to visit with the last few remaining Civil War veterans. So he has taken it upon himself; he has embarked on a national No Regrets Tour, and his goal is to visit all 50 States and give young Americans a chance to meet a World War II veteran. Again, his name is Sidney Walton. We were honored to have him in Nebraska, and he will finish his tour at the White House, as I understand it, this February, on his 100th birthday. Thank you, Sidney. Great, great effort. Madam Speaker, let me also touch upon another area that is so essential to our well-being, our sense of being able to fulfill these deepest longings that we have, our healthy sense of ambition for ourselves and for our family. A lot of times around here we cite economic data, have a bunch of charts that show statistics. We do a lot of that around here. It doesn't really convey, I think, the deeper dynamics of what is happening. But let me go into it just for a bit and talk about the positive outcomes that have occurred. This year, we have seen more jobs, increased wages, and reinvestment in equipment, plants, and research and development. Our gross domestic product, one of the measures of the economy, is climbing, and median household income is rising. Unemployment is at a 50-year low, and many people who have been marginalized or on the sidelines, thankfully, have found access to meaningful work. And if we think about a holistic approach to helping our neighbor, work is dignity. When a person is able to use their gifts and talents, either their two hands or their intellect, to make things, they are not only providing for their own well-being, but they are in solidarity with the community. This benefit of exchange goes beyond just material. It creates the value of relationships. That is the beauty and dignity of work. And when people are sidelined, when entire communities have been decimated through poor planning or poor policies or become overdependent upon one industry that decides it is going to pick up and leave--and we have seen that happen over and over in America--it is not fair to people; it is not fair to communities. But when we can see a return of entrepreneurial momentum, especially in small business--and again, people who have had real difficulty, for whatever reason, finding access to meaningful work restores individuals' vitality, of course, helps them to help themselves and creates solidarity and community. That is what, when we go into all these charts and graphs and economic figures, we really ought to be talking about, what I just said: the dignity and beauty and meaning of work, the gift of work, the ability to create the conditions necessary for societal flourishing. So last year, we passed an important, what was called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and we are seeing this enhanced economic growth and more take-home pay for families. In addition to those important benefits, there is another little- known provision in here that I want to touch on for a moment, and it is called Opportunity Zones. It provides powerful tax incentives to encourage revitalization of some of the newest, most economically distressed areas of the country. It has been overlooked in terms of our understanding of that law. This investment opportunity will foster job regeneration and make better use of taxpayer dollars already spent, and it forges stronger communities. Madam Speaker, I used to be on our city council back home, and most of city council works is public works. When you see an area that is no longer functioning well, it is not just a blight on the community; it is not just that buildings are run down. We already made an investment there. We already paid for streets. We already paid for streetlights. We already paid for utilities, and they are being underutilized. That minimizes the return on an investment already made. We also have to provide police and fire protection for these areas. Again, those are real costs to the taxpayer. They are not on an accounting balance sheet, but they are real costs. It is called opportunity cost and underutilized investment. It is already there. So this idea of regenerating places across America that have the infrastructure already creates the conditions in which we get a better return on the tax dollar for money already spent. We are not chewing up additional land and resources. We are recycling, regenerating, rethinking possibility in some of the hardest hit areas of our country. I am excited. In my own congressional district, there are 14 of these Opportunity Zones that have been designated. Now, here are some hard realities, and I should point them out because they are real. Let's just be honest. Our deficit is high, and it is stubbornly high, and there are real disparities between those at the top and those who struggle to make a living. And while we hear policymakers tend to take too much credit for economic booms and too little blame for the crashes, most analysts do conclude that the actions taken by Congress over the last year have improved our economic outlook--again, a good accomplishment. We got the farm bill done. We got the right type of tax reform done. We strengthened our military, and we are looking forward to the debates around where we go as a nation now. Something that continues to be difficult for all of us, though, is the right type of healthcare reform. And I am going to venture out here and say that I would assume that everybody in this body holds to these same three principles. I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but this is what I believe. I think we ought to be striving for three things in the right type of healthcare reform: lower cost, improved well-being, and the protection of vulnerable persons. So let's just start there. Let's not create another proxy fight over the Affordable Care Act. Let's just start there. How do we get to lower cost, particularly for people in rural communities who are priced out of the individual market and have incomes that they don't get a subsidy? Some of the farmers in my community are paying as high as $40,000 for healthcare. You can't do it unless you are very wealthy. So what happens? A member of the family has to leave and go get a job in order to get the benefit. We don't even know how to calculate the economic lost potential of forcing somebody to go do a job they don't want to do simply to get health insurance. We don't even know how to calculate that. So I proposed something in the farm bill. Unfortunately, the Senate didn't take it up, but it is the Rural Health Insurance Act, which would have subsidized the startup of new risk pools to provide for better health insurance options in areas of rural communities, primarily, where this market has been decimated, where people have had to change the way they reorder their economic lives in order to have some access to health insurance. I thought it was a good idea. The startup costs for risk pool sharing, the sharing burden that is necessary to create an insurance product for smaller businesses, are high, so I wanted to provide, just like we do in markets that don't function efficiently, like crop insurance, a subsidy that would help the startup of these new risk pools in order to give more competition to the health insurance market in rural communities. That is one idea I had. We didn't get it all the way through, but I am glad it passed the House. I look forward to working with colleagues on the other side of the aisle again who are looking toward those three goals. How do we think creatively and imaginatively about reducing costs, improving well- being? We are right around the corner from amazing breakthroughs in innovation and technology in both managing and preventing and curing disease, and we have significantly increased our funding on a bipartisan basis for the National Institutes of Health for disease research. So we have done a number of things that are important for the American people. Of course, it tends to get overshadowed by some of the more philosophical fights that have occurred, but I would ask my colleagues, let's embrace the concept that we might be able to find some policies that everybody could potentially agree on around three goals: reducing cost, improving well-being, and protecting vulnerable persons. I think that is pretty reasonable. There is another idea out there that I will be introducing this year. I already have a cosponsor from the other side of the aisle. Here is the problem: For 3 years in a row now, America's life expectancy has declined. We are consuming more healthcare and dying younger. Rates of asthma and diabetes have skyrocketed in some populations, and it is really hard to see whether or not we are making progress on certain preventable illnesses. We can do better than that. That is not a necessary condition that we have to settle on. So, to start an effective new conversation, I am introducing the Community Health Improvement Leadership and Development Act. It is called the CHILD Act. My cosponsor is from a large urban area, and this allows communities across America to fully participate in improving their own health. How does it work? When community members find an innovative way to improve health and save money in their State Medicaid program, the legislation allows the verified savings to be shared back to that very community and State. It is a virtual cycle of assuring access to care and more creative prevention. I like it. It is a win-win for taxpayers and people in communities and towns across Nebraska and America. As we go on, I hope this is one of those ideas that fits into the three sets of principles as to how we are going to reduce cost, improve outcomes, and protect vulnerable persons. Madam Speaker, I know our time is getting ready to run short, and can you give me an idea of how much time is left.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I want to introduce a new topic in the time that we have remaining, again speaking to that which might be able to unite us in a very divided time, that which is a fundamental principle that is operative in most of our hearts, that which, again, transcends these temporary and urgent moments of policy division. It is what I call natural security. We talked about national security. We talked about economic security. We talked about human dignity, family security. Now I want to talk about natural security, and here is an example. Nebraska is one of the only States where you can find three distinct subspecies of the turkey. Madam Speaker, are you with me on this? It is really very fascinating. In the southeast corner of Nebraska, you can find the Eastern turkey. In the southwest corner, you can see a Rio, and out west, you can find a Merriam. This unique trifecta exists right there in my home. Now, why am I raising this? Why would you be raising this? Of course, I find it interesting, and I hope you do as well, Madam Speaker. This newfound abundance of turkeys is an amazing story because, due to urban pressures and habitat loss and improperly regulated hunting, not too long ago, wild turkeys were in decline across the Nation. But they have since rebounded through basic conservation efforts. With innovative thinking and proactive policy, we can conserve and restore other wildlife and natural habitats, while bringing social, cultural, and economic multipliers to our rural communities. Nebraska has been at the forefront of such conservation efforts, and we will continue to lead this charge at home as well as here, so I have introduced the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. Now, Madam Speaker, we weren't able to get it through Congress last year, but I think by the end of the session, we had 120--it was probably a little bit higher--bipartisan cosponsors. So what does it do? It takes an upstream approach to habitat protection through robust funding of State wildlife action plans so that we don't have the downstream effect of habitat loss. In Nebraska, we do this through means of voluntary landowner agreements. This is why this is important. As we approach the renewal of the Endangered Species Act, RAWA, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, actually gets in front of the problem by preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in the first place, and it moves us from costly regulation and litigation to collaboration. I am very excited about this because I think it is another way in which we can use moneys from lands in Federal trust and plow it back into another form of trust that creates a widespread benefit for those interested in environmental policy, those interested in conservation policy, and those interested in enhanced recreational sporting and hunting opportunity. That is why so many people have gotten on this bill. It transcends our divide. It is a creative mechanism by which we use certain moneys that are already being gathered into the Treasury and apply them in innovative and creative ways. Madam Speaker, I, again, am grateful for the opportunity to have had time to present to this body an overview of last year's work. It is important because, ultimately, it is not just about policy; it is about persons. A woman named Mary came into my office this past year, and she was with two men who had made their living as truckers. Their pensions were in danger. Mary just began to tear up as she explained the dire circumstances in which they found themselves, because multiemployer pension plans--this is a little bit in the weeds, but multiemployer pension plans, some are in dire condition. So what does that mean? Somebody who said, ``I am going to work for this set of benefits and, in turn, I am going to be guaranteed an income of this level in my older years,'' all of that promise, all that work and those promises are now under real threat. So, again, working in a bipartisan fashion, that is an area which is in severe need that we worked to try to fix last year and will do so again, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, my intention tonight was to give an overview of the last year because so often, again, in the dynamics of the moment, we lose sight of the good things that were accomplished for our economic security, for our national security, for family security, for the well- being of our land and water. By taking a little bit of a look back, maybe this gives us some prospect for unity, consensus, while fighting on principle, but unity and consensus for good. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, when I learned of the death of my very close friend, Dr. James Billington, the 13th Librarian of Congress, it hit me pretty hard. That was about 3 weeks ago. Dr. Billington's passion for the institution that he led for 28 years, his scholarly nature, and his gentlemanly demeanor were a tremendous inspiration to me and to so many Members of this body. I so admired him. First, I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to Marjorie and the entire family. May God grant him peace. During his 28 years at the Library of Congress, from 1987 to 2015, Dr. James Billington led the institution in a remarkable period of accomplishment. He once referred to the Library of Congress--I like to call it America's Library--as the largest, most wide-ranging collection of world-recorded knowledge ever assembled on our planet. He strove mightily to preserve the Nation's cultural patrimony and open the Library's collections to the American people and to people around the world. Dr. Billington doubled the size of the Library's holdings to more than 160 million items, including books, manuscripts, newspapers, maps, music and film recordings, and prints and photographs. Simultaneously, he also created a massive online library, digitizing materials so that the historic and cultural resources of the Library-- being historic and cultural resources of the world, I might add--which were once only available to persons visiting the Library now would be instantaneously accessible to anyone anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Billington also looked to the future, but he never lost sight of our connectedness and the treasures of the past. During his tenure, he acquired the only copy of the 1507 Waldseemuller world map, which is known as America's birth certificate. He reconstructed Thomas Jefferson's original library for permanent display, and he obtained the papers of hundreds of great Americans ranging from jurist Thurgood Marshall to the songwriter Irving Berlin. Mr. Speaker, I can't emphasize enough that he was a remarkable man--a Russian scholar with a brilliant mind. He accompanied 10 congressional delegations to Russia and the former Soviet Union. In 1988, he was invited to join President Reagan in traveling to the Soviet Summit in Moscow. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the House Appropriations Committee's Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and now I am its chairman. I got to know Dr. Billington from his regular appearances before the Appropriations Committee to talk about the budget. I often enjoyed the many events he held at the Library, the dialogues, the displays, and the exhibits he organized to engage Members of Congress in their Library. Dr. Billington went out of his way to accommodate our needs. He once graciously hosted a small British delegation on my behalf that included a member of the royal family and a member of the House of Lords, both with an interest in Charles Carroll, one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence. Despite the government shutdown at that moment a little while back, which forced us to move the forum into this building, the Capitol, Dr. Billington ensured that the Library's prized displays were in place and were on time, and that he was present to deliver welcoming remarks. With his retirement, leaving the great institution he served faithfully for nearly three decades, Dr. Billington left an indelible imprint, having created programs and services that continue to benefit Congress and the American public. In fact, Mr. Speaker, before he retired, in a conversation with his wife, Marjorie--and I knew his retirement was imminent--I told him: Dr. Billington, now it is time to write two books, the book that you want to write that is in your mind, and the book for the rest of us to read to make accessible your life story and your brilliant insights. Long live his memory. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say, may God comfort Dr. Billington's wife, Marjorie, their four children, and their 12 grandchildren in their moment of grief. I extend to them, as well as the entire Library of Congress community, my heartfelt condolences. Jim Billington, well done, my friend. Well done, good and faithful public servant. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and pay tribute to the Honorable Stephen T. Ayers, the 11th Architect of the Capitol, on his retirement after 21 years of service to the United States Congress. Stephen started his career as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. In 1997, Mr. Ayers joined the Architect of the Capitol as an Assistant Superintendent for the Senate Office Buildings. He served in several capacities over the next decade before his appointment as Architect of the Capitol in May 2010. As Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Ayers is responsible for overseeing the well-being of the buildings and structures that Americans understand as icons of American history including: the House and Senate Congressional Office Buildings, the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building and the crown jewel of the portfolio the United States Capitol. Additionally, the care and improvement of more than 570 acres of grounds are under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol. During his tenure, Mr. Ayers oversaw the restoration of the U.S. Capitol Dome, a major undertaking that repaired and restored the most recognizable symbol of liberty and democracy in the world. The dome was completed under budget and ahead of schedule. Other notable projects under Mr. Ayer's tenure include the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial project, as well as the launch of the Cannon House Office Building renewal. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee has come to depend on Stephen and his team for their hard work and professionalism. As Mr. Ayers departs his post; the leadership, dedication, and bright smile he brought to work day in and day out will be missed. I wish Stephen and his wife Jennifer, all the best in this next phase of their lives.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for all of his dedicated, hard work on this bill and his leadership through many years of service. We are really grateful for the gentleman's mentorship and all of his exhaustive efforts to make America truly a much better place. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, while I was on my way over here, I was reflecting on something. The dome of the Capitol that connects our two bodies here continued to be constructed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was encouraged to stop it, given all the other demands of the crises all around him. He refused. He said that, one day, that dome will unify our Nation once again. Here we are with the legislative branch bill. Even though it is the smallest of the appropriations bills, I believe it does capture the richness of the American experience and captures the heart of the narrative of our Nation. In that regard, we have worked very closely, of course, with the former chairman, Kevin Yoder, as well Ranking Member Tim Ryan, as well as the United States Senate to develop a very good bill here. The final product, I believe, is solid and reasonable. The legislative branch division provides about $4.8 billion in funding, and that is a 2.8 percent increase over last year. But the priorities, Mr. Speaker, were placed on security, transparency, and maintaining fiscal responsibility. The bill provides about $1.2 billion for the House of Representatives, which is a 2.7 percent increase. However, it needs to be noted that this is still below funding levels from the year 2010. As the chairman mentioned, this includes $8.8 million for a new account for the compensation of interns, which is a widely agreed upon new initiative, allowing each Member to spend up to $20,000 a year. In the areas of security, about $30 million is going to our Capitol Police to enhance the safety and security of this campus, as well as to protect Members when they are offsite. About $733 million is going to the Architect of the Capitol to ensure safety and security improvements to our historic buildings and to address a growing deferred maintenance list that we have. A particularly new initiative is that we are directing the Architect to design plans for a more welcoming arrival area around the Capitol South Metro Station. Regarding the issue of transparency, there is about $589 million for the Government Accountability Office, which will enable them to hire 130 new persons to assist with GAO's critical oversight work that provides us in Congress accurate, nonpartisan reporting of how taxpayer dollars are being appropriately used. The Congressional Budget Office will also receive a slight increase to be better responsive to Members of Congress. Regarding fiscal responsibility and new initiatives, we have included language supporting the Library of Congress' visitor experience project, which has the potential to transform how our Library, the Library of America, welcomes the millions of visitors that it receives each year. We expect that this will become a model of public-private partnership in the years to come. Finally, I would like to draw attention to the expansion of the popular House Wounded Warrior Program that will now offer 110 2-year fellowships for those who have already sacrificed so much for our country and wish to pursue public service here among us. Mr. Speaker, a lot goes on in our Capitol, from the dedicated Capitol Police officers who stand guard around the clock, to the employees of the Architect of the Capitol who work to preserve and maintain this important physical infrastructure, to the IT professionals who have successfully defended our networks from 4.5 billion attempted cyber attacks last year alone, and to the committed staff that is a part of this legislative process. We owe them all. We also, again, are thankful to Chairman Frelinghuysen for his dedicated leadership. I would personally like to wish the gentleman all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is very good timing. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his thoughtful and important words because I wanted to speak to the same topic. This week, a dedicated group of Nebraskans with disabilities visited my office. And what was their mission? To remind us all here in Washington of the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the importance of continuing to work toward progress in its implementation. Where did this come from? It was fueled by a chorus of voices many years ago who refused to accept a second-class status in our country. And it was driven by a moment in our country when we recognized that we are stronger and more vibrant when we draw on the talents of all people. The ADA enshrined into law the notion that Americans living with disabilities deserve to participate in our society free from discrimination, and have access to integrated, community-based services. Mr. Speaker, the ADA helped open up schools and workplaces, stadiums, parks, trolleys, and buses regardless of a person's disability. It also ensured that healthcare providers offer reasonable accommodations and effective communication for their patients with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, there is still more work to do.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me thank Chairman Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for his extraordinary leadership, not only on this bill, but on a whole array of conservation and security initiatives. I thank the gentleman for his chairmanship and for his long service in Congress. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Ranking Member Engel for his support of this legislation and Congressman Sherman for his kind and generous remarks. They are very much appreciated. Mr. Speaker, the greater Okavango River Basin is the largest freshwater wetland in southern Africa. Not only is it the main source of water and livelihood for more than 1 million people, as we have heard, it is home to the largest remaining elephant population in the entire world. The pathway for habitat along the three-country waterway is essential for sustaining this majestic animal and other species. As a creative approach to conservation, to foster an ecosystem of well-being for communities and for the purpose of international stability and security, as so well stated by Chairman Royce, given the scourge of wildlife trafficking and the nexus that it creates to terrorist network financing, we introduced this bipartisan bill, a transnational conservation initiative linking the natural habitat of the three nations, Angola, Namibia, and Botswana, to ensure the survival of this pristine ecosystem that is essential for the future of conservation, species, as well as the communities and people who live there. When we consider past conflicts that existed in parts of this region, it is truly heartwarming to work with the leaders of these countries to support their vision for the flourishing of animals and people, for the sake of the environment, and for the sake of their economies. This is imaginative foreign policy. It moves us from a singular, traditional type of solution to addressing challenges in a comprehensive, multinational, multisectoral strategy that mirrors the complexity of nature itself, beyond human-defined borders. This bill is a unique opportunity to help save and enhance one of the most beautiful and delicate ecosystems in the entire world before other international actors ruin it. As a co-chair of the International Conservation Caucus with Chairman Royce and with my good friends Congressman Cuellar from Texas and Congresswoman McCollum from Minnesota, I am very grateful for their hard work to help ensure the proper stewardship of natural resources in our own great country, as well as around the world. This bill offers the opportunity to continue to build authentic relations with the countries of Angola, Botswana, and Namibia, as well as local communities and the private sector, to develop effective strategies to promote sustainable resource management, combat wildlife trafficking, and stimulate economic regeneration in this part of the world. Mr. Speaker, again, I greatly appreciate Chairman Royce's cosponsorship, active support, and leadership in moving the DELTA Act through the committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative, imaginative, and important initiative.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank my good friend Chairman Conaway for working with us on this very important amendment. Mr. Chair, I would like to share a story with you. I just got off the phone with Archie Devoor from Lincoln, Nebraska. Archie grew up as a dairy farmer. He started milking cows at 12 and, up at 12 a.m., got slapped in the face quite a lot with a wet tail. He put himself through college doing that and went on and earned a Ph.D. in dairy science. He did agricultural extension work for 20 years and became involved with a very important United States Government program called Farmer- to-Farmer. One of Archie's experiences was in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has as many dairy cows as we do in the United States, and we have 12 times the production capacity as they do. Through Archie's work, through the techniques that he has provided them, particularly nutrition guidance, he has helped solve one of those problems that exists around the world with structural poverty and not enough to eat. In fact, the Bangladeshis wanted to name him ``Father of modern dairy.'' He is a humble man, my constituent, and I am proud of his work. And, of course, he refuses that title. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today addresses this very important program. This program has connected volunteer American farmers, agriculture extension experts, and others with deep knowledge of agriculture production with farmers abroad as well as agricultural experts from American universities to other countries around the globe. The sharing of America's agricultural expertise dramatically enhances the capacity of people elsewhere to grow their own food. Really, Mr. Chairman, this initiative is about three things. It is about the richness of America's farm experience. It is about an engine of economic regeneration in the fight against structural global poverty. And it also, I believe, will enhance our 21st century architecture of emerging diplomatic relations. This program was initially authorized in 1985, and it has been in subsequent farm bills and, again, has promoted sustainable economic growth, food security, and agricultural development worldwide. All 50 States have been represented in volunteer trips overseas to assist farmers, and specialists from a variety of agricultural disciplines have taught host-country farmers in over 100 nations through coordination with 12,000 different local host organizations. The growth of the program has fostered community ecosystems of sustainable agriculture. It has enhanced the ability to access new markets and conserved environmental and natural resources. The work of our American farmers has borne great fruit overseas, and, with some innovative rethinking, I think we can help fully realize this program's potential. This amendment serves three critical objectives. First, it elevates the role of the United States Department of Agriculture in coordinating sequencing and prioritizing farmer visits to host countries. Second, it establishes geographically defined crop yield metrics, a system to assess whether improvements in crop yields in countries receiving our assistance are actually occurring. Third, the data generated through this new metric will be available publicly. It is important to note that the amendment enhances outreach to identify and prioritize new implementing partners, increases the diversity of program participants, and serves to expand recruitment of new volunteers from diverse agricultural knowledge and skill backgrounds. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment will also better support our work in global food security programs that already exist and have wide congressional backing. We have an important moment here to renew, innovate, and modernize a very good program. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to join the Lincoln Vietnamese community in the celebration of the Vietnamese New Year, the Year of the Dog. I celebrated this special occasion at St. Andrew Dung-Lac and Companions Catholic Church in Lincoln, where I live, and I participated in the Catholic mass, followed by a community festival complete with traditional dragon dancers. I would like to thank Father Joseph Nguyen and the parish community for their generosity and hospitality. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 2 million persons of Vietnamese descent living in America. My hometown of Lincoln has become home for nearly 10,000 Vietnamese Americans, some of whom faced the trauma of persecution, escape, open seas, refugee camps, and, finally, resettlement in a new home. Our vibrant, well-respected Vietnamese community has become an integral part of Lincoln's cultural traditions and adds to our capital city's vibrant tapestry. Vietnamese is the third most commonly spoken language in the Cornhusker State, and I have actively encouraged the youth to keep the great tradition alive. Mr. Speaker, it is not advisable to try a language that you don't speak, but to my Vietnamese friends, I would like to try: ``thank you,'' ``cam o'n ban.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, you may remember this around the holidays. It was a television commercial that played quite frequently. It may still be on. But it shows a shelter for the poor and homeless around Christmastime, and men and women are entering from the cold wintry streets, and they are gathering under bright lights and sharing good cheer, and they are clearly benefitting from the holiday outpouring of charity and compassion and fellowship. But then the commercial shifts and the environment changes. It is a dreary downtrodden affair at this point. The new year has begun and the shelter is left darker and less full than its former ambient light, and laughter has dimmed into somber tones. All the while, a man is sitting at the piano in this emptying place singing, ``Don't You Forget About Me.'' The scene concludes with the adage: ``The season of giving ends, but the need remains.'' Mr. Speaker, as our economy begins to recharge, giving more and more hope with more and more Americans gaining jobs, it is important, though, to continue to reflect on this still early stage of the new year. After some important budget battles here and a major tax reform piece of legislation, it is important to reflect on the proper balance between responsibility and charity, as well as those who continue to be left behind or forgotten. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and they also deeply value responsibility, and they know that a fulfilled life requires rewarding work. Unfortunately, unemployment and underemployment continue to hinder a faster economic recovery, causing much anxiety for persons and their families. According to a new survey from CareerBuilder, nearly eight out of ten Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and our improving economic indices should not obscure this difficult reality. So to better help persons support themselves and one another in the full dignity of work, our next phase of economic regeneration must be an attempt to find the proper balance between right-sized government, responsibility to one another, and reasonable expectations that everyone can contribute something according to their means and their capacity. Everyone has something to give. As this recognition and economic regeneration kindles a new policy discussion, several guideposts should be kept in mind, such as ensuring enhanced opportunity and the erasure of what I call entrepreneurial impediments, along with efforts to address and mend a deep societal sense of brokenness. When persons are unemployed or underemployed, they can enter a downward spiral in their lives. Mr. Speaker, as we well know, Washington alone cannot create a humane economy that works for the many. Americans living together in community form the cornerstone of a vibrant market. A fuller answer to unemployment, underemployment, and this widespread lack of financial assets, along with the resulting loss of social capital, might be found in the idea that government and society should join in a movement for national solidarity, seeing work as a common endeavor for us all. After all, economics, in its essence, is not just a transaction; it is profoundly relational. A rightful discussion about the profound meaning of work also requires the right words. The overreliance in this body, particularly, on depersonalizing economic language, I think, is one reason that Washington can seem so disconnected and aloof from real communities and real people. At the end of the month, if a person can't pay their gas or a grocery bill, they are unlikely to care about GDP growth or arguments for the efficiency of globalized trade. In a similar way, recent news cycles are tracking the skyrocketing stock market valuations with some ups and downs of late. And this is all exceeding most expectations, particularly from the beginning of the year, but glowing green numbers and signals provide little reassurance to millions of Americans who are priced out of owning stock. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, a lack of work, as well as a lack of assurance in the security of government guardrails and earned benefits, can take a life-diminishing toll. Mr. Speaker, I have many seniors who write to me and suggest to us in pretty clear terms that they aren't entitled to their own money. We throw the language around of entitlements, referring to programs where people set aside money into government savings programs or were given guarantee of healthcare. That is not an entitlement. That is something people worked for. Many persons with difficult jobs deserving of both dignity and earned benefits sometimes are those who are forgotten. I approached my door recently, Mr. Speaker, here in D.C. at my office, and there was a large crowd of men who had gathered, and they were all in camouflaged T- shirts waiting outside. All of us here experience a number of visitors from our home States. Sometimes, in my office, people have to stack up outside in the hallway, as we are trying to accommodate people. But as I got closer, I noticed that the front of these T-shirts that these men had on read, ``United Mine Workers.'' I thought, that is unusual to see Nebraskans wearing United Mine Workers T-shirts. But it turns out they were actually waiting for my neighbor, who is from the State of Kentucky. Nevertheless, I greeted these men, and we began a meaningful conversation about work and security and fairness. These men had spent their lives in hard jobs. I am sure they toiled, very proudly, to make a reasonable living for their families, but they all now showed real signs of physical fatigue. They were in Washington making a plea for their pensions, which are facing dramatic reductions. A similar situation does exist in Nebraska for another group of workers. These people worked for a guarantee: that they would be provided for--when they could work no more. But, given a confluence of factors, their pensions face a dramatic shortfall, and, frankly, it is not fair. I lived for several years as a younger man in the area where these gentlemen had come from, in a town that had lost half of its population in 20 years, in what is called the old industrial Rust Belt, where the post-World War II economic boom built a thriving, stable community, but now where globalized supply-side theory has had its most dramatic degenerating economic effect. I said to one of these men, ``You know, I know where you come from,'' and one of the men and I hugged. Mr. Speaker, our country is in pain. Epic hurricanes and floods; escalating urban violence; an opioid epidemic among those self- medicating their own mental, physical, and financial anguish; combine this with a broken healthcare construct, and the lingering after- effects of a bitterly fought last electoral season have torn America's heart. In a vibrantly healthy society, though, there should be space for what I call marketplace fluidity and creativity and innovation. A person who has an idea and the drive should be able to pursue it. The benefits accrue, of course, to this person as the inventor, but also the buyer of those services, the community, and those who gave the effort in the building of this product or service. So a healthy economy is two things at once: it is individualistic and it is community-oriented at the same time. Innovation and competition can be disruptive, but they must be set within a fair set of rules. When a system stacks to the wealthiest, or is outsourced by faceless corporations in the name of advancing quarterly profits, exploiting the poor elsewhere and damaging the environment elsewhere, where there is a lax legal foundation and, therefore, an indirect subsidy to the means of production, and the externality costs are borne by persons elsewhere in the forms of shorter lives and the effects of pollution, it sets in motion not only difficulties in other places, but here--a loss of jobs, lost community cohesion, and a breakdown of life's stability. Tie this to the loss of the formative institutions of family life, faith life, and civic life, and we drift. We drift without a national narrative. It makes it much more difficult to respond holistically in the midst of tragedy to our greater challenges and problems. For a moment, I want to speak about a person who participated in one of my telephone townhalls. She told me she is an architect, her husband is an architect, and they were very interested in starting an architectural firm on their own, but they can't. Why can't they? They have the education, they have the drive, they want to be innovative and disruptive, they want to do creative work with their own two hands and take the risk necessary to provide something new and novel in the marketplace. They have a sick child. So by the time they go onto the individual insurance market and try to obtain insurance for themselves, knowing that they are going to have to pay the full deductibles and copays, that bill--and this was a little while back, I suspect it is higher now--the bill was going to be close to $30,000. So before they even open their door, they have an upfront cost of $30,000, just for a little bit of personal protection. So what happens? They stay put. They are tethered to institutions that may not be as gratifying to them. Society loses from their inability to take that risk and provide that product out in the market, because they are tethered, they are handcuffed, to a benefit called healthcare that a large institution can provide, but the small entrepreneur can't. This makes no sense. We have some specific ideas on this, and we are working to grow a bipartisan working group to make proper changes potentially in that individual insurance market, whereby people can pool together more easily, where there is a better type of major medical product out there that would be a lot less expensive, and, perhaps, using an idea that was embedded in the healthcare debate earlier this year, where the government provides a stabilizing reinsurance model so that the market can actually work within a certain bandwidth where the sickest person pays the same rate, but is protected from excess expense by a more direct government subsidy. This makes sense. Think about the entrepreneurial potential that then would be released, creating opportunity, more jobs, better products. We are constraining ourselves for no reason here. I hope that this chapter can unfold in the coming weeks, as some people of goodwill are trying to work through this, and there is significant interest, I feel, on both sides of the aisle. You just have to break through it. Mr. Speaker, we are also, from my perspective, living in a paradoxical age where we are more and more dependent upon big business for information flow and consumer goods, and, at the same time, we are more and more skeptical of this model. I was trained in an era where economic language was cast in terms of efficiency and optimization, economies of scale, production capacity, inputs, the free flow of capital and labor, and on and on, all the vocabulary of economic academic theory. These are analytical and mechanical terms necessary for understanding market function, but they lack a connection to any deeper purpose. Ultimately, a properly functioning market is a connector of community, a delivery mechanism for material well-being, and an opportunity enhancer for individual initiative and rewarding work. These classical economic expressions lack a deeper understanding of the ultimate purpose of production. I once asked a professor when I was young: Who does a normative analysis? Who asked the question, ``What ought to be?'' What institution is doing that? He said: No one. Mr. Speaker, you are a fairly young man. You know this as well. We are long past the age when working one's entire career in the same large corporation guaranteed security and well-being is finished. The current corporate construct is desperately driven and hopelessly fragmented by quarterly profit mandates. Short-term decisions overrule long-term strategy. While this is occasionally brought to heel by scandal and malfeasance, most multinationals are no longer tethered to a face or a place, so they pitch us on TV and print with caring images, and kindly deem us worthy to help with their chosen causes, and then major cities with major airports become the hub, and the rest of us have to just buy it. Now, lest I sound too critical, large businesses certainly retain a necessary space in producing certain types of goods and large-scale industrial products, and can provide exciting opportunity. That is all true and necessary. But I also think we are on the front end of something, Mr. Speaker. There is a hunger for the next economic trend to reorient around the revitalization of Main Street, including local foods, sustainable energy production, smarter services, and smaller scale manufacturing, recreating that long lost sense of place in our communities. Imagine a new urbanism of an economic ecosystem with friendly neighborhoods, nearby centers of smaller scale, microbusinesses, contextually appropriate architecture, and a burgeoning supply of easily accessible public space. We see this trend developing, and, frankly, it is very exciting. Now, we had a bill recently in which we took an important vote here on tax reform, and I believe this is going to help. I believe that tax reform legislation will help rebalance a number of business inequities, particularly for small business where most jobs come from. It is estimated that the average Nebraska family of four will receive more than a $2,000 extra benefit in their pocket from the immediate impact of the tax bill and the relief that they will get. And then over time, due to increased wages, that will translate into about a $4,000 benefit. I think this is important because Americans need a break, especially working men and women trying to get a bit ahead and trying to provide for their family well. But for many, it is also harder and harder. As we said, many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That is not fully a Tax Code problem. It is the harsh reality of social fragmentation, downward mobility, the rising cost of living, and skyrocketing income disparity driven by inequitable globalization and concentrations of economic power. These forces have not fundamentally benefited us fully, and they have left millions of people behind. I think this tax reform measure is important because it particularly rebalances the perverse incentive to offshore. In addition to putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, it does support the revitalization of Main Street and the return of the ``Made in America'' label. This legislation also provided a reasoned progress in an attempt to make the Tax Code simpler and fairer and to resolve this convoluted set of problems that overburdened people, families, and small businesses across the Nation. I think this is important because we are living in an age where we can't keep pushing the same policies over and over and expect them to fit into a 21st century architecture of well-being and successful living. Moving forward, I believe the source and the strength of the American economy will be in this new urbanism of small business in which entrepreneurs from village to city add value through small-scale manufacturing, innovative new products, or brokering in repair services. Now, we do anticipate a spike in the initial deficit from the tax bill, but we are already seeing a surge of revitalization and possibility of economic opportunity. Given this reorientation of the tax policy around the family, hopefully, with the entrepreneurial momentum, we will generate more jobs, earnings, and reverse this downward trend in small business formation. Less tax, more taxpayers, more revenue over time, that is the calculation. As more opportunity appears, more persons should also be able to transition from important support mechanisms and systems into meaningful work. Now, this tax reform attempts to be sensitive to the needs of all Americans as it begins to push for a modernized revenue construct that no longer enables the complex, lawyered-up, quarterly-driven multinationals to unjustly benefit from low taxes abroad while taking advantage of tax loopholes here. It rebalances the perverse incentives to offshore. At the same time, it uses the carrot of lower corporate rates to bring foreign profits back to America, and we are already seeing the effect. So, on balance, this was a massive, historic, and necessary overhaul of our antiquated, harsh, and complicated tax system so that families cannot only get by, but maybe they can start getting ahead. And if we can combine this with a small business ecosystem of revived entrepreneurial momentum--and a part of that is the next set of policies, hopefully, that will be empowering with a new type of healthcare product that is stable for persons who do want to enter into the formation of their own small business now but are not empowered to do so--this will only strengthen this entrepreneurial revitalization. There is no way to calculate the held, pent-up benefit of unleashing this potential. Again, because we have tethered people to a benefit package based upon institutions that are able to afford it, we have drained ourselves, made ourselves weary from being able to unleash the fullness of the potential to create things with your own hands or your own intellect that are good for you, good for your family, and good for others. That is what we mean by a new small business ecosystem that has revived entrepreneurial momentum. Mr. Speaker, in the Middle East, the Jordan River flows into both the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. There is a difference between the two bodies of seas. One of them is devoid of life. Water flows in but nothing flows out. It is dead. Abundant life requires both giving and receiving, both charity and responsibility. An economy that is founded upon these strengths which we have discussed tonight, supported by a right-sized government and a dedicated, hardworking people, can only keep growing stronger. Then, maybe--maybe--we can say, don't you forget about me and that we will never forget about you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on August 16, 2017, Reverend Larry Dunham, O.F.M., observed his 50th anniversary of the profession as a member of the Order of Friars Minor commonly known as the Roman Catholic Order of the Franciscans. Since 2013, Father Dunham has served the people of Washington, D.C. as Guardian and Commissary of the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in America with devotion and dignity. In this capacity, he has provided for the spiritual, pastoral and temporal assistance of residents of the city, including the development of a volunteer-run city farm that provided over 13,000 pounds of fresh produce for the city's low-income residents. Prior to his current role, Father Dunham served his nation selflessly as a chaplain in the United States Navy during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, as Provincial Minister of the Our Lady of Guadalupe Province from 2000 to 2009 and as President of the English Speaking Conference of the Order from 2003 to 2005. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and applaud Reverend Larry Dunham, O.F.M. for his 50 years of dedicated, spiritual service.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I recently toured the newly renovated United States Capitol dome right nearby and, of course, was well aware it contains a striking fresco at the top. The title of that fresco is The Apotheosis of Washington, a bit of a peculiar image for our time, because it shows a stern, purple-clad George Washington exalted in the heavens. Now, on his right is the Goddess of Liberty symbolizing emancipation; and on his left, the Goddess Victoria, symbolizing victory. He is surrounded by 13 maidens representing the Thirteen Original Colonies; however, there is a twist. The backs of several of the maidens are turned to Washington, and those represent the colonies of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia as they had seceded from the Union prior to the work beginning the fresco in 1863. Now, Madam Speaker, the imagery continues, and around the rest of the dome are six allegorical scenes that do really project the defining ideas of America at that time. They are: war, science, marine life, commerce, mechanics, and agriculture. Now, these are perhaps old- fashioned categories to the modern mind, but then they did convey an optimism about the frontier, economic progress, and the potential of what our new Nation might be able to achieve. Although, Madam Speaker, I had seen these frescos before, something struck me differently this time. These scenes really do grasp an incomplete ideal. The Apotheosis of Washington shows a reflective and confident America, but what is missing is a fuller understanding of the nature of community, individual dignity, and freedom. The idea of progress is narrowly defined, and that narrow definition is actually still with us today, many times as it informs our debate here. We only tend to value things that we can actually measure--things like production, technology, and military victory--and they still rally us, and they are important. But, as important as these things are, there is more to life; the more we have grown economically, the more we have grown technologically, the more our Nation groans. We have to be honest, and we have to ask ourselves: Why? America is a far more complicated country than it was in Washington's time. It is not only due to our size and wealth and amazingly diverse population, but it is also due to rapidly advancing technology, a 24/7 news media cycle, and a highly competitive global marketplace that has made life more frenetic, more difficult, and, in some cases, much more alienating. Today, there is widespread anxiety in our Nation over economic inequality, declining opportunity, and the concentration of both wealth and power, as well as a new force that is expressing a loss of unity and community, and then combine that with this deep search for a sense of solidarity. Madam Speaker, while Congress spends much of its time debating numbers, financing, and budgets, a vision for America in its fullest sense goes beyond just material dimensions. Our economic vitality must not only be measured in terms of efficiency and growth, but also in how well we advance the cause of human flourishing. In spite of all of these reflective comments, this Friday, our Nation will actually pause, and we will pause for a very important reason: it is Veterans Day, and we will celebrate that tradition. So if you are starting to feel overwhelmed by our Nation's struggles, just talk to a veteran. If you see these policy battles here as impossible to resolve, talk to a vet. If you really do want to reconnect with the ties that bind us, speak to a veteran. Madam Speaker, as we are painfully aware, it is not easy to make progress in Congress. Nevertheless, there are times when both parties and the administration come together for great good, and actions for veterans represent a unique and proper American opportunity to support the men and women who have served our country. So as we approach Veterans Day and consider how to celebrate this gift of being an American, if we need a reminder, just ask a vet. Now, back to history for a moment, Madam Speaker. We rightly mark our independence from the British as the beginning of a new nation, a new experiment in government based in the ideals of freedom. However, freedom most properly expressed is the freedom to do what we ought. Unlinked to responsibility, to one another, and to higher ideals, freedom can become a meaningless wandering and a search for purpose; and progress, no matter how grand it is, is never an end in itself. Persons who are disconnected from one another, an economy that is uncaring, technology ever accelerating, these are dynamics that can actually be both beneficial, but also leave people behind. Independence from tyranny also means interdependence within community. Now, Madam Speaker, the Capitol dome is over 150 years old. Until recently, chunks of iron--in fact, I saw one; it was nearly this big-- were just falling off, and water was seeping through cracks. But now it is made whole again. The seams are repaired, and there is new, original-like glass and a fresh layer of protective coating. Why? Because we chose to do it. We didn't let it fall into ruin. We didn't lament its potential collapse. We chose to act. So, Madam Speaker, if we cling to her ideals, this gift of America allows us the freedom to preserve unity and to make genuine progress, which is the freedom to be whole. As I approached my office here recently, there was a large crowd of men who had gathered outside my door. I assumed they were waiting to see me, and they were wearing camouflage shirts. There was some language on the front of the shirt. As I got closer, I could read it, and it said ``United Mine Workers.'' I thought, well, this is a bit peculiar to see United Mine Workers from Nebraska. Nonetheless, I engaged them in a conversation outside the door thinking I would escort them inside. But they weren't there to see me. They were there to see my neighbor, who represents the State of Kentucky, and that made a little more sense. Nevertheless, I greeted these men, and we had a very meaningful conversation about work, about security, and about fairness. These men had spent their lives in very hard jobs. I am sure they proudly toiled to create reasonable livings for their families. They all now showed real signs of physical fatigue. They were in Washington to make a plea, a plea for their pensions, which are facing dramatic reductions. A similar situation does exist in Nebraska for another group of workers. These men worked for a guarantee that they would be provided for when they could work no more. But given a confluence of factors, their pensions face a dramatic shortfall, and it is not fair. I lived, Madam Speaker, for 2 years in the area where these men come from, in a town that had lost half its population in 20 years, in the old industrial Rust Belt where the post-World War II economic boom built a thriving, stable community, but now where globalized supply- side theory has had its most dramatic degenerating economic effect. I said to these men: ``You know that I know where you come from.'' One of them hugged me. Madam Speaker, our country is in pain. Epic hurricanes and floods, escalating urban violence and an opioid epidemic among those who are self-medicating their own mental or physical or financial anguish, a broken healthcare construct, the aftereffects of bitterly fought elections, and now another mass shooting have torn America's heart apart. In a vibrantly healthy society, there is space in a good, functional marketplace for fluidity, creativity, and innovation, and a person with an idea and the drive should be able to pursue it. The benefits accrue to the innovator as well as the buyer of the product, to the community as well, and those who give the effort. The point is this: a healthy economy is both individualistic and community-oriented at the same time. Innovation and competition can be disruptive, but they must be set within a fair set of rules. When the system stacks to the wealthiest or is outsourced by faceless corporations in the name of advancing quarterly profits, exploiting the poor elsewhere and damaging the environment, it sets in motion a series of things: lost jobs, lost community cohesion, and a breakdown of life's stability. Tie this to a loss of the formative institutions in our society of family life, faith life, and civic life, and we drift. We drift without a national narrative that can hold, and it makes it much more difficult to respond holistically, especially when we have tragedies such as the senseless horror in Las Vegas and now with the unthinkable at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. But, again, Madam Speaker, I just have to pause and remind myself that, in spite of these difficulties, in spite of sometimes the darkness which can seem overwhelming due to a lack of unity, we will pause on Friday as a nation, and we will remember our veterans. If it is just too much and too overwhelming, if the debates in Congress are so bothersome and annoying, go talk to a vet about that deeper sense of who we are and what we still can be. Madam Speaker, in the entryway of the municipal building in a little town of France called Sainte-Mere-Eglise, there hangs an American flag. It is the first thing you see when you walk into the mayor's municipal building. Sainte-Mere-Eglise was the site where our paratroopers landed prior to the D-day invasion. They landed in the midst of German troop formations and had to fight as they were coming down. One paratrooper got hung up on the church steeple and survived the battle. A replica of him still hangs there today. The American flag in the mayor's building, in the municipal building, is said to be the first American flag planted on the European continent during the war. It is displayed there in France in a government building proudly as a memorial in thanksgiving to America for what we did to save France and to save Europe from tyranny. Now, Madam Speaker, most of us today think of war in the traditional construct. We fought with tanks, aircraft, ships, and infantry. But, again, we are in a rapidly advancing technological new age. Even in this age of drones and asymmetrical terror threats such as improvised explosive devices, most of us still see our defense through a conventional lens. But warfare is changing fast and will continue to change. With the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, drones, and other technologies, we could see the potential for widespread destruction accelerate. We are entering an era that is unprecedented and unpredictable, born from the very technologies that heretofore ensured our own survival. What has emerged, Madam Speaker, is a tripolar world, simultaneously increasing both danger and, interestingly, opportunity. On one pole stands China. As this country ascends to economic dominance, China is trying to pair its military clout with military projection in key lanes of commerce. The Communist Party leader, President Xi, projects himself as both a man of virtue and a man of dominance. In fact, The Economist magazine recently called him the world's most powerful man. At another pole stands Russia. Though they face demographic problems, Russia has, in many ways, raced ahead of us in weapons technology superiority. It could be argued that the Soviet era was an aberration, an actual aberration, of Russia's long tradition of czarist rule. Seen in that light, Putin is a new czar type who has moved past Marxist ideology--Marxist theology, perhaps we should say--to recover Russian nationalistic poetry, purpose, and expansionistic power. The third pole is less of a geographic or ideological proposition. It is an expression of higher ideals. Now, in traditional terms, Madam Speaker, we call this the Transatlantic Alliance, but, in broader terms, it is people from around the world who are guided by a reasoned intuitive sense that all persons have dignity and rights and that the systems of governance and economics ought to be ordered around that very proposition. When a person can exercise excellence for themselves in partnership with others in community, a community of possibility exists. Because, in America, we believe these values are universal, we also believe that they are more potent than any ideology or accident of geography. That is the long arc of history--born in former ages and translated over time to our present day. Now, given our vulnerabilities, we understandably and purposefully commit to technological superiority in weaponry. But, as a singular proposition, this is illogical because it cannot hold. The technological gap is closing. There must be more, and it is found in two pathways: First, back to this idea of our own internal reflection as a country. Recently, we saw a Hollywood elite named Harvey Weinstein brought to shame for his manipulative perversions. Interestingly, this country had a flash of collective conscience. The curtain was raised on Hollywood's dark hypocrisy. Almost all Americans were aghast, which, importantly, showed our capacity to value human dignity. Second, Madam Speaker, a healthy national conscience gives us the credibility to reinvigorate and rebuild authentic relationships worldwide. By incentivizing good economic models and promoting government models that are fair, we can create the conditions for our own safety, the world's stability, and the world's security. Madam Speaker, a couple weeks ago, I was on my way home from Washington to Nebraska. Driving from the airport, I saw a big, red pickup truck. Now, that is not a very uncommon site in our State, except that on each side of the truck was a pole, and attached to each pole was an American flag blowing fiercely in the wind. Now, these flags were a bit tattered on the edges, but, nevertheless, they were proudly displayed just like at that little French town, Sainte-Mere-Eglise. It is my hope that this is the third pole that can truly hold for our good and the good of others across the world. Now, Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about the struggles, but closer to home and made in realtime policy, the House of Representatives has undertaken a sincere deliberation at the moment to assist in a structural change to our current economic construct--a new tax deal. Now, this is what Andy from Nebraska wrote me recently. He said that he is very encouraged because ``if it makes it into law, my back-of- the-napkin calculations show it could benefit my family by around $5,500. For a family of four making about $85,000 a year, that's a big deal.'' Madam Speaker, Americans do need a break, especially working men and women trying to get a bit ahead, trying to provide for their families. For many, it is harder and harder. Around 50 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That is not fully a Tax Code problem. It is also the harsh reality of social fragmentation, downward mobility, and the rising cost of living. Many forces of globalization have not benefited America, leaving millions behind and all too often forgotten. But tax reform can help, as long as it is fair and as simple as possible for the benefit of all. We are living in an age where we cannot push the same old policies over and over again and expect them to fit into our 21st century architect of living. Moving forward, I believe that the source and strength of the American economy will be in the new urbanism of small business, in which entrepreneurs from village to city will add value through small- scale manufacturing, innovative new products, or brokering in repair services. The conditions for entrepreneurial revival may be right on the horizon. Madam Speaker, though the corporate structure of the 1950s has been made temporarily beguiling by the modest show called ``Mad Men,'' but no young person I know yearns to work for a company for 25 years and celebrate at the end with a gold watch. That era is over and our Tax Code is based on old constructs of what it means to be in business. So, hopefully, as we work ourselves through this important debate, this bill will be sensitive to the needs of all Americans as it begins to push for a modernized revenue construct that no longer enables complex, lawyered-up, quarterly profit-driven multinationals to unjustly benefit, for instance, from lower taxes abroad while taking advantage of tax loopholes here. At the same time, it uses the carrot of lower rates to bring foreign profits back to America so that we can revive the Made in America label once again. Madam Speaker, I have spoken tonight about our challenges both at home and abroad, but we know a truly just and good society can only be possible if we are both strong and safe. One day, I was in the airport and something interesting happened. A number of troops were coming off an aircraft on the jetway. There was no announcement over the PA system. It just happened spontaneously. The terminal began to break out in applause. It just happened. People intuited that something was right here. Of course, many people at this moment in our country's history intuit that something is broken, but they also can sense when things are right. We can see it, like when we see our troops or we see a veteran, then our instinct emerges to recognize the nobility of self-sacrifice for one another, our country, and its timeless ideals. Our veterans have done so and our people know so. When it just gets a little too overwhelming, Madam Speaker, ask a vet. When we lose touch with the source of our strength and greatness, talk to those who have put even possibly their lives on the line for that true source of American strength. Ask a vet. When it seems as though the problems before us are intractable--how we are going to revive an economy that is good and fair to all; how we are going create the stability necessary for the proper engagement and healthy engagement and exciting engagement with people from abroad; how will we create international stability--when it just seems too hard to get the mind around it, ask a vet who stood in the small village overseas, who may have had to fight their way in, but then offers a hand up to those who have been placed in harm's way. This Friday is an important holiday. It is a gift to be able to say thank you to our veterans. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, Maddie Brinckerhoff was an early feminist author and lecturer from the Midwest, where I live, and she had this to say about abortion: ``It is evidence that either by education or circumstances that she''--the woman--``has been greatly wronged.'' In this spirit, Madam Speaker, I think there is an opportunity here to perhaps bring Congress together around a humane proposition that requires thoughtful but necessary reflection on the deepest meanings of pain. We all know pain. But pain teaches us profound lessons about suffering, sacrifice, patience, and the redemptive healing possibilities of encountering one another in our vulnerability as humans living in the interdependency of community. Pain is something from which we naturally recoil, but it also enables us to build compassion toward those who are weak, or dependent, or alone. Madam Speaker, in letting our natural impulse to respond to another who is in pain, we can grasp what it means to be truly ourselves, to be truly human, and to care deeply about everyone, and to really internalize what is at issue here.