Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 27, 2017, I was unavoidably detained and thus missed roll call votes 430 through 435. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY Roll Call No. 430, NAY Roll Call No. 431, NAY Roll Call No. 432, NAY Roll Call No. 433, NAY Roll Call No. 434, and YEA on Roll Call No. 435.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, last week, as we are all too aware, a gunman opened fire on Members of Congress and staff assistants as they were practicing for the annual bipartisan baseball game to raise money for a Washington-based charity. Among those who were injured is my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Steve Scalise, the House majority whip. As news of this event came in right before our weekly Nebraska breakfast, a 74-year tradition--by the way, a bipartisan tradition in which the entire Nebraska delegation gets together on a weekly basis and invites anyone from our home State to gather with us. As that was about to occur, I heard the news of the shootings. I felt bewildered, shocked, and numb. As further reports came in from my colleagues throughout the morning, I heard that Steve was playing second base at the time of his shooting. He crawled from the infield, leaving a trail of blood. Mr. Speaker, this isn't a movie. These are not distant figures. These are our friends and our colleagues, people who work right here in this institution. Representative Scalise and I frequently interact on the nuances of policy, and sometimes differences of policy. No matter what our disagreements--and believe me, there are hard differences even on one side of the political aisle. No matter what the differences might be, Steve always has worked with me in a cordial, professional, constructive, and, perhaps most importantly, gentlemanly manner. That is just who he is. So regardless of what anyone may think of his policies, of his political point of view, Congress, or the GOP, he did not deserve to be shot. As noted by Senator Rand Paul, who was also at the practice, were it not for the courageous Capitol Hill Police officers who accompanied Representative Scalise to events, this would have been a massacre. Were it not for the first responders from the Alexandria Police Department and Fire and Rescue, many of those injured, for them it could have been much, much worse. My heart goes out to Steve Scalise and the others who were injured in this tragic event. However, my words cannot stop here. For years now, across multiple administrations and across party lines, we have seen accelerating political rancor in our country that goes way beyond normal partisan politics. It is hard to get your mind around some of the stuff that people write. It is awful. It goes beyond just pointed language. It is now so frequent, so violent, and so directly threatening that security personnel are working overtime to keep up with it. Madam Speaker, you know this. Many good men and women of differing political perspectives work in the United States Congress. These are people who have accomplished important things in their own home communities and decided that their heart was calling them to serve in a broader capacity. I fully recognize that Washington, D.C., can seem elitist and aloof, but as you know, Madam Speaker, Members of Congress are real people, with real families, from real places across our land. Sure, there may be a disproportionate share of lawyers in the institution, but there are also nurses, social workers, doctors, teachers, and small-business owners. In fact, one of the doctors, Representative Brad Wenstrup, a friend of mine, happened to be at the baseball practice. He is an Iraq veteran and surgeon. He attended to Steve Scalise's gunshot wound, thankfully. Above all, all of these persons are Americans. Nevertheless, there is a limit to what the human person, even a paid public servant, can absorb. We can take the violent words, but when it spills into violent action, it is too much. This country cannot continue to rip itself apart like this. Madam Speaker, there is one additional difficulty here that needs to be unpacked. There is a real risk and vulnerability in what I call regularizing this response, in making it like a ``new normal.'' In fact, within only a few hours of the shootings, certain national media had begun to routinize the tragedy, as they returned to obsessing on the latest crisis du jour in Washington, as if nothing fundamentally destructive to all that we hold dear as Americans had just occurred. And why not? As the media tells us, the assassin was a ``troubled man,'' a ``lone wolf,'' with a ``history of violence'' and ``easy access to guns,'' who was likely ``mentally ill.'' Nothing unique to see here. Madam Speaker, these were not our thoughts after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan or the shooting of Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords of Arizona. When President Kennedy was shot, I am told, it was as if the entire world came to a halt. If we are now going to move beyond words and normalize the violent targeting of people just because they choose public service, hold views that are different from our own, or speak in a style that is not to our liking, there is no country. I find it particularly jarring that the widely praised theatrical assassination of President Trump at a rendition of Julius Caesar in New York City's Central Park--underwritten, by the way, by The New York Times--continues to go on. Madam Speaker, violence is violence. When it is here and it is political, of course, it is particularly jarring. Tragically, we also may be growing used to the idea of terror abroad. Although its root causes are different than those of domestic political attacks here on our own shores, the same thing is at stake: the very principles of civilization itself. Madam Speaker, let me digress for a moment, because this is particularly notable. After 9/11, crime all but vanished from the streets of New York City. In other words, the shock and the horror caused a community to rally together above any social discord in a spirit of true unity. We glimpsed that same spirit of solidarity as a nation when Obama bin Laden was finally confronted. Just recently, a day after the terror attacks that rocked London a few weeks ago, Richard Angell, a patron in a restaurant that had been evacuated during the jihadist rampage, calmly returned to pay his bill. In explaining his generosity, Angell told a reporter, ``These people shouldn't win.'' The night before, several bartenders had risked their lives to defend patrons in that particular establishment with bottles, chairs, tables, anything they could find, as the terrorists tried to hack away their customers with large knives. More lives would have been lost were it not for their bravery. Only a few weeks before that, at a concert attended mostly by young girls, a homeless man, Stephen Jones, who slept most nights near the stadium, helped several victims of that bombing to safety, even pulling nails from the faces of young children. The resolve and courage in the face of barbaric violence harkens back to the passengers of United Flight 93 who sacrificed their own lives on 9/11 in order to take down a plane headed straight for Washington, D.C., probably for the White House. While we appropriately recognize those who act with courage, the constant repetition of these scenes appear to be resulting, sadly, in what I call ``terror fatigue.'' We go about the same tired ritual: the requisite shock and horror; the 24-hour media coverage of victims, heroes, and families; and the inevitable autopsy of what went wrong. By this exercise, I am afraid we further enable what Hannah Arendt once famously wrote, ``the banality of evil.'' Against this backdrop, I think it is important and useful to pull back and contemplate the fundamental error in our analysis and approach. In the West, we have a blind spot. We want to believe that if we can only understand how a disordered person was raised, how his parents treated him, if he was an orphan or poor or misunderstood or abandoned or a victim of some real or imagined prejudice, then we can understand what makes him kill. Armed with this soft understanding, perhaps we can prevent further tragedy by ameliorating the conditions that we think gave rise to barbaric deeds. In many discussions of unpredictable and random attacks on bystanders in Europe and America, we find a perverse unwillingness to accurately identify the true motivations of the perpetrators, lest we close the space to ``cure them'' of their zealotry. In the current, highly polarized, oversensitized, and extremely volatile climate, it is risky to call a thing for what it is. Instead, again and again, we hear that these were just a few misguided individuals--another mental health problem, another aberration, another police problem; nothing to do with dark theology to notice here. Carry on. We must just accept this as a new normal. What makes these particular vicious actors different? In a study, the Gallup organization basically finds that most people in the world want similar things. Most people in the world want a good job: to be able to take care of themselves; to be able to take care of their family; to be able to use the creative talents of their personhood, whether it be their intellect or their hands to make things for the benefit of others and, in turn, receive an income that they can support themselves with. However, as one of my Muslim friends has noted, Petro-Islam has enabled and unleashed a narrow sect of men and women who often want for nothing. Several of the terrorists on 9/11 were young men of both wealth and privilege, with world-class educations. They weren't motivated by the allures of Western secular materialism. They used those values to hide in plain sight. Rather, they were in the grip of a dark, violent theology. They were willing to die for its inherent irrationality. This cannot continue. Even the Saudis, who have lived for too long with the hyper hypocrisy of buying off Wahhabists while shopping in Paris, recognize this is an unsustainable trend. Madam Speaker, when I was in college, I remember the day when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. It was a hard day for me. Shortly before, I had lived in that country on an exchange program. I received the bountiful gift of hospitality and an invaluable source of deep and reach cultural understanding. Sadat died. Sadat gave his life because he made a reasoned choice to reach across the divide to find peace. In another courageous move, just a few years ago, in a little-known speech, the current Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, said: ``Is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants--that is, 7 billion--so that they themselves may live? Impossible.'' Quite a courageous statement. At this moment, Madam Speaker, we are on the verge of wiping out ISIS militarily. But it is only the latest brand. We will only fully resolve the thinking that leads to the embrace of dark theology through a rebirth in reason, modeled through courageous leadership. As we see in our battle against ISIS, when you call for evil to happen on social media, in Main Street media and in art, eventually someone in the real world takes it to heart. We must stop creating the rhetorical conditions and the media cover for this politically motivated violence or the grotesque twisting of mediums to encourage terror. There is no rationalization that can justify it. This is not about freedom of speech. It is about freedom from violence. Ask yourself a question: Where would you like to live? Where people lie, steal, and kill? Or where people are good, trustworthy, and free? Madam Speaker, I will close with this because it is a hint of good news. Last week, the House of Representatives, in a private session, Democrats and Republicans, had a family meeting and, with due candor, spoke about the effect of escalating rhetoric and the responsibility each of us must take in owning our share of it. Importantly, the bipartisan Congressional Baseball Game went on as planned last Thursday night. I took my younger staff. The game was energetic and patriotically bipartisan. Madam Speaker, as you are aware, my side lost, but I believe America won. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my own remarks, I want to commend my colleagues for continuing to aggressively address the deep wound that so many people have experienced with this form of abuse in our military. Our military prides itself on its clear goal of protecting our Nation and doing their duty even to the point of self- sacrifice. So to think that certain members of the military would abuse others in this manner is not only unconscionable, but demands that this body act. So I want to commend my colleagues for their leadership in this regard. Mr. Speaker, our Nation recently watched in horror as flight staff at a publicly traded airline, having failed to motivate volunteers with sufficient compensation, then called Chicago Aviation Police to forcibly remove one of the randomly selected passengers so they could seat their own employees instead. After the bloodied but unbowed victim was dragged from the flight, aircraft and airport personnel claimed they acted out of concern that they would lose their own jobs if they had not removed the passenger. The stated motive--that was later proven to be false--was that the flight was ``oversold.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, bizarrely, the airline CEO initially defended these actions. The corporation's airline personnel could have offered more money to find volunteers, but they did not choose to use that option. As a result, this airline-specific issue mushroomed into something far larger as Americans unleashed long-buried resentment against distant corporate structures that too often treat them just as incidentals. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: in technocratic bureaucracy, one size fits all. Management and optimization replace the art of human interaction. When entities grow too large and too distant from the persons they are designed to serve, when technical procedures rule over prudential judgment, when process is improperly elevated to an unyielding standard, persons are not only treated like cattle by airlines, but individuals--in this age of information--sense that they no longer matter. When you treat people as abstractions, it is easier to push them around, like data points on a spreadsheet. The broken-nosed, busted- teeth, and concussed passenger could only mutter the words: ``Just kill me, just kill me.'' One man's last stand against Leviathan. What he experienced on that airplane struck such a visceral chord with me and so many others. Indignity has its limits--even beyond the limits of the Big Money corporate public affairs teams to manage. Mr. Speaker, last year, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union; and right now, similar debates are taking place across the continent most seismically perhaps in the upcoming French election. At its core, what is at issue? It is this: whether more and more power should be consolidated in massive and detached, centralized, and technocratic bureaucratic institutions. Many people are demanding decentralized alternatives that better harmonize the needs of particular persons in their particular places with the shared goals of security, immigration stabilization, environmental stewardship, and economic well-being. That is what the deeper debate is in Europe and about the European Union. At its core, Mr. Speaker, I think the issue is this: even more deeply, economic development without a soul robs us of our capacity to fully prosper. Regular people are wondering if they have a seat at the table anymore, and home-team advantage continues to seem to go to a triumvirate class of Big Business, Big Data, and Big Government--a type of transactional aristocracy disconnected from the deeper needs of persons. That is at the core of what is being debated here. Now, Mr. Speaker, indicting large corporate and governing structures is not merely the point I am trying to make. Certain types of development that come with larger-scale entities has been very positive as goods and services and ideas freely travel at speeds across the world that were unheard of just a few years ago. Worldwide poverty has declined significantly as underdeveloped nations use their comparative advantage on costs to lift themselves to a higher economic standing. Moreover, the creative disruption that accompanies technological innovation has yielded new powerful tools for communications, for medicines; and in commerce, it has helped create the sharing economy. However, a thriving marketplace needs to work for larger swaths of America, including Nebraska, where I live, which remain distant from power centers. For more and more Americans and their families, globalized supply-side elitism has delivered downward mobility, a higher cost of living, wage stagnation, and skyrocketing inequality. When you couple this with social fragmentation, this is a recipe for disaster, and profit-driven technocracy will not be our answer. It will not solve these challenges. Economics, Mr. Speaker, is more than math, is more than efficiency, and is more than management. It is the art of living. Now, regarding the airlines, after much embarrassment, they settled with the passenger and instituted important reforms. Maybe this belated gesture signals that we have a better ticket forward. However, unless a new vision emerges of the proper relationship of governing economic and political systems to the persons that they serve, we will likely continue to be told: Just stay in your consumerist seat--unless we deign, yet again, to violently rip you from it. The Deep State

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Now, Mr. Speaker, a short distance from here, right through these doors, underneath the dome of our Nation's Capitol, hang eight large paintings that represent the scenes from our Nation's beginnings. In one of these paintings, George Washington is depicted. He is resigning his commission before the Continental Congress. This painting occupies a pride of place in our Nation's Capitol because it shows a profound and historic shift in the understanding of power. General Washington won the Revolutionary War. He enjoyed the support of his Army, yet he was not tempted to use that power for his own glorification. Instead, he returned it to the people. Power is a tricky thing. It can be absolutely corrupting or it can be used for great good. Exceptional persons throughout history have used power to contribute to civilization. For others, power is a weapon to kill and plunder and crush others. In our country, America, we embrace the noble way. In our Constitution, in its deepest sense, it really is about one thing: it is about the proper positioning of power, the proper control of power, and the proper transfer of power. Mr. Speaker, let's now fast-forward to a recent event where a prominent Washington political insider recently wrote that he prefers ``the deep state.'' Now, what is that? Although not widely known, the term ``deep state'' refers to a group of career employees of the military, intelligence services, and other agencies of the United States Government who have inordinate but often hidden power to influence policy and society. It is posited that the deep state is particularly successful when it comes to halting or slowing implementation of government edicts deemed threatening to prudent stability or its own existence. This deep state, though, turns sinister when it operates outside of transparency and oversight. This concealed, controlling force, unfettered, can create an entirely new antidemocratic branch of our government. However, I want to propose something, Mr. Speaker. This discussion about the deep state is bigger than the government itself. A broader understanding of the deep state requires insight into the network of institutions that attempt to manage society in multiple ways. Some in the media, for instance, academia, and corporations orchestrate self-reinforcing narratives of technocratic or expert superiority. Frankly, again, this is why so many people in our country feel forgotten and are suspicious of what might be called the government-corporate-cultural complex. The notion that elites supersede the decision of voters and their elected Representatives is contrary to our democratic tradition. It is also deeply offensive to the American understanding of the source of proper governance. On the other hand, maintaining some consistency for the sake of order has merit. Retaining career civil servants, for instance, with strong institutional knowledge and experience is necessary for the uniquely smooth and peaceful transition of power that we enjoy in this country. Those who have committed themselves to a career of government service and risen in the ranks, those in the media who have taken a long view of civic responsibility, those in business who have achieved outcomes and wish to share them for the betterment of society, ensuring the stability and proper functioning of our Nation's core operating systems during times of disruptive change, are the persons who make up another type of body in our culture who are taking responsibility for the systems that we enjoy. The point is any analysis of the deep state is complex. A deep state that is mysterious and enigmatic, unidentified, that effectively triumphs over the will of the people, marginalizes our voices. At the same time, political transitions without the backup of those who maintain a continuity of service can both be volatile and destabilizing. There lies the tension. President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. Perhaps the challenge of today's government-corporate-cultural complex is broader: a self-affirming, closed society that says there is only one way--our way--and you have to follow. Just plug into the technocracy and know your place. Mr. Speaker, it could easily be said that George Washington was an elite of his day. Nevertheless, Americans celebrate him along with other great leaders because they attained their status through selfless service to our country and its founding ideals to a genuine civic state. Mr. Speaker, on my desk there is a pile of letters. At one point, it approached about a foot high. It is a little smaller now, as I am digging out. I have to be honest. I am behind because I take the time to review the content of each letter that my constituents send me. Lately, the mail has tripled, perhaps quadrupled in size due to, frankly, the present philosophical divide that is all over our country and manifested in this body in the breakneck pace of governmental action and the important questions about what Congress is doing in key policy areas such as health care and immigration. This is no complaint. I stand in the seat formerly held by the great Midwestern populist William Jennings Bryan, and it is my duty, responsibility--all of our responsibility--to hear and read what our constituents are telling us. It is also my duty to make judgments on their behalf. I have an obligation to read and study and analyze the facts of any situation, to listen to the people who are effective, and ultimately to make a decision. I think that the irony of this great moment, of great tension in our country, Mr. Speaker, interestingly, has brought a renewed and refreshing attentiveness to this body, to the legislative branch. There is now a very impassioned and healthy engagement with the centers of government about the very nature of power and its purpose. As Americans, we believe that power is justly derived from the dignity and right of each person. When properly exercised, that power rightly informs the State. Vigorous interaction is beneficial to our Republic when it is cordial and constructive, when all parties in an authentic attempt seek workable consensus. This can be harmful to our Republic when interactions descend into shouting matches, rude interruptions, orchestrated ambushes, or worse, violence toward people or property. Mr. Speaker, I have a new friend who is an ambassador here in the United States from an African country. It is a fascinating nation that rebuilt after a difficult civil war. He was kind enough to have me over for dinner recently with one of my colleagues. My colleague is a brand- new Member of Congress, and he happens to be in the other political party. On the ride over, we talked about the very real prospect that, if we could just have a conversation, if we just had the time or disposition to have a conversation, a genuine dialogue, then perhaps things would get a bit better in Washington. Mr. Speaker, most of us crave dialogue. Our country needs dialogue more than ever. We have multiple new technological ways to conduct dialogue. However, we have lost touch with what genuine dialogue is. If we are racing to score points or impatiently, loudly bludgeoning each other, we are not engaging in authentic dialogue. We are engaging in monologue. Clearly, there are many differences that cannot easily be solved here throughout America. We have to be sober about that. The tough arena of politics occupies a unique space in our country in the quest for answers, but holding it together depends upon a commitment to this ideal of the civic state, a broad attempt at friendship and goodwill to hold together the good that should be common for everyone. Mr. Speaker, on a visit to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, I noticed that, among its many noteworthy qualities, the beautiful, bucolic campus reflected a dignity, a call, if you will, to something higher. This special place creates a sense of place as a message for the ages, and that used to be reflected in the great tradition of American public architecture. In one of the Academy's halls, a United States submarine commander named Howard W. Gilmore is honored. During World War II, Gilmore ordered his submarine to the surface of the ocean. The crew came out onto the deck. Unbeknownst to them, enemy planes were in the area and they spotted the vessel and began a strafing run. The crew of the submarine scrambled back inside to go into dive mode, but as one crew member looked back, he saw Commander Gilmore lying on the deck, wounded. Looking at his commander in the eye, he heard him say, ``Take her down.'' The commander knew he would be left behind to drown, but everyone else was saved. Stories like this one appear repeatedly throughout our Nation's history, particularly among those who have served in the military. They detail the brave actions of honorable men and women who have served an ideal far greater than any superficial distinctions in the political debate that might separate them, the ideal that the sacrifice for just and enduring principles is a noble thing. In this age of anxiety and petty strife, it is worth reflecting on why we now find this so hard. In the wake of World War I, poet-politician W.B. Yeats wrote this: Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Mr. Speaker, present-day Washington, as a microcosm of the Nation, routinely exhibits a lack of political community. Partisan discord and dysfunction do reflect the larger philosophical divides across America: market fundamentalists versus government fundamentalists, protectionists versus globalists, elites versus the common man--on and on and on. We lack a unifying spirit. Part of this fracture is driven by monied interests in politics. Part of it is driven by competing world views that are earnestly derived about the core of what it means to be an American and about the core of what it means to have a functioning government for America. Part of it results from the lack of will and courage among lawmakers to move beyond these dispiriting constraints and find some higher ground. But, Mr. Speaker, I will add this. Perhaps there is a silver lining. Let's think about this. On a deeper level, the vehement animosity in the Capitol and across our country could, ironically, point to something good. Washington's inability to rally around big and meaningful ideas, reflecting longstanding, again, cultural and political divides in America, it might actually signal a desire for resolution. After all, if no one cared, our situation would be far more dire. If we can stretch to see that all of this negativity is actually a search for solidarity, then perhaps we have a shot. Indeed, there might be a chance to recapture our democratic narrative, our special American identity by embracing something larger than the insistent demands of self, party, or narrowly focused advocacy groups. We are a country whose proper aim and purpose, whose very foundation is built upon that which is good and that which is eternal: fairness, self-determination, the rule of law. Perhaps this combustible moment is actually a yearning to reconnect. Or maybe not. Perhaps it is too far gone. We have to decide. Mr. Speaker, yet, with all these attempts at lofty sentiments here, to successfully govern requires some type of consensus around core values. And, yes, it requires sacrifice for our ideals, for each other, and for America. So that the center might hold. Right before Commander Gilmore died, he looked at his crew and said, ``Take her down.'' Perhaps the commander's advice to us today to America would be: ``Lift her up. Lift her up.'' Mr. Speaker, I had an incredible opportunity yesterday to meet hundreds of Vietnam veterans who came to our Nation's Capital on one of the honor flights from all over the State of Nebraska. I saw some people I knew, saw constituents, met many of the former troops who I had no idea they served. Isn't that the hallmark of many of our troops, doing so with a quiet selflessness, not needing to have anyone know? But the Honor Flight actually gave them an opportunity to be welcomed home because particularly after enduring the Vietnam conflict, so many of our soldiers, so many of our troops came home to either no welcome or to, in an odd way, being blamed for the situation that they were trying to resolve. They never got a proper welcoming home. So we spent a little time together yesterday at the Iwo Jima memorial. After a long day, they had visited the various monuments, including the Vietnam Memorial, the wall. Of course, it was a tiring day for them, but many were, I would think it is safe to say, exhilarated by the chance to come, to be in solidarity as a community, to reconnect with the purpose of their service and perhaps, most importantly, to be welcomed home because when they got back to the Lincoln airport where I live, thousands of people were there waiting for them, chanting ``USA, USA, USA.'' Mr. Speaker, especially in times of significant duress like we are living in, I think it is particularly important to remind ourselves that America has tremendous capacity for replenishment. Unexpected opportunities give us a chance to reassess and realign in new and compelling ways, both to preserve our most valued traditions and to restore the promise of our Nation. This understanding is especially important as we confront dysfunctional government, economic stagnation, global violence, and the social fallout from the fractures and the pain in our culture. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one way to lift America up in this age of anxiety might be glimpsed through four mutually supporting principles: government decentralization, economic inclusion, foreign policy realism, and social conservation. Now, what do I mean by this? First, we should consider that a more decentralized government will restore the local source of America's strength. I am not a person who is antigovernment, but what we have done in our society is we have federalized every conceivable level of problem, and this institution ought to be about doing a couple of big things well. We ought to respect the authority and the institutions that are closer to the people that have jurisdiction over things that they can better provide. Those closest to an opportunity or a problem ought to be the first to be empowered to seize the opportunity or solve the problem. Economic inclusion, as well, should help America recover from a concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This primarily happens through a restoration of the small business sector, giving rise to entrepreneurial momentum once again. Mr. Speaker, we are in an entrepreneurial winter. This is where most jobs come from. I am not talking about even larger small businesses. I am talking about small, microbusinesses that employ one to five persons. For the first time in America's history, the number of small businesses dying is greater than those being born. So if you want to restore a vibrancy and create the conditions for economic inclusion, a turn of focus to the small business sector, that great gift where people are using their talents of intellect and the gift of their two hands to make things, an imprint of their own dignity, to give rise to the ability to take care of themselves and those under their authority, their employees, to create benefits for others through exchange, that reinforces a community narrative of the longing and commitment and interdependence. Third point, foreign policy realism. Based upon authentic relationships and genuine friendships, a foreign policy realism should chart a course between passivity and ad hoc intervention. In other words, we are a globalized society. We are interconnected in extraordinary ways. We are not going to turn the clock back. We couldn't if we tried here. So isolationism is not an option. And yet, just entering into relationships that are transactional without having any authentic basis has led to the collapse of relationships and the conditions for them not to be long lasting. Finally, social and environmental conservation preserves family life, faith life, civic life, and natural life. The ecosystem, which we all value and live, that is not a partisan issue. That is not even a bipartisan issue. These are transpartisan issues because they create the conditions in which the human heart, the human person can thrive. These are the institutions that give rise to a continuity of our great tradition, give a meaning to life and create sustainability for ourselves and our children. We know we are confronting intensifying struggles about the direction of our country, the direction of our world. The fault lines can widen, they may widen, but we also can choose to lean into these serious challenges. We can still choose to rediscover commonsense governance, right-sized economic models, a proper foreign policy, and universal and foundational values that create the binding narrative of our country that so many persons have sacrificed for. It is time to rediscover our purpose as a people and reclaim this sense of solidarity and to reempower our communities. As the military says: One team, one fight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Adrian Smith, for yielding, and I thank him, more importantly, for honoring the life and memory of our mutual good friend Clayton Yeutter. In my desk in my office there is a letter, and it was written to me by Clayton Yeutter, former Secretary of Agriculture, a couple of years ago. Of course, we all receive a lot of letters, but sometimes you get one that you just want to keep close to you. Clayton Yeutter was a gentleman, he was a farmer from Nebraska, and he was a true statesman. In that letter, he basically kindly and gently encouraged me in public service. He was the ideal public servant. He expressed his sentiments to me personally, but in his public life, with a great nobility, a great yearning and care for our country, he committed himself in multiple ways to serving our institutions of governance. But he never forgot his humble roots back in Nebraska. So I simply want to say: Well done, good, faithful servant Clayton Yeutter, my friend. I thank the gentleman for honoring Ambassador Yeutter's life.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 186.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, for 150 years now, Nebraska has held a special place in the history of America. We Nebraskans rightly pride ourselves on the values of hard work, on the values of community life, on the proper value of the good stewardship of our precious resources. The mystique of the Great Plains, the nobility of the family farm, and the vibrancy of our people create the conditions for the good life. Our story is one of strength, it is one of dignity, and I am proud to celebrate our 150th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, a gift of land donation enabled the expansion of the Homestead National Monument, which is near Beatrice, Nebraska. Run by the National Park Service, their personnel were kind enough to invite me to the dedication ceremony; and during that event, a young woman who was from a seventh-generation farm family--in high school at that time, as I recall--got up to speak. She gave a beautiful talk about our Nebraska values, our connectedness to the land, the deeper meaning of living on the plains, and the ideal of maintaining the continuity of family life. Her remarks, Mr. Speaker, moved me so much that I literally tossed my own speech aside and spoke off the cuff, and I said something like this: Perhaps it was on a day just like this where that settler family came over the hill there, and they looked at the great expansion of the plains before them. Perhaps that day they felt the warm, spring sun on their cheeks, and they heard the chirp of the western meadowlark in the air, and they watched as the beautiful bluestem prairie grass swayed in the wind. Perhaps it was then that they made their decision: We stay right here. Nebraska will be our home. Mr. Speaker, when I finished that, I was very proud of myself, so I sat down. And then the next speaker came up, another political figure, and he had this to say: Well, my family came here because they were horse thieves. We all shared a little laugh, but really, Mr. Speaker, Nebraska's colorful history and droll wit were simultaneously captured in that moment. Nebraska's official motto is ``Equality before the law,'' but our unofficial motto is ``Nebraska nice.'' It is true. Nebraskans are generally nice. But beneath that friendly veneer is an unmistakable, unvarnished realism. Nebraskans have a unique ability to look at a situation and size it up accurately, if often humorously. ``Git r done'' is an often-used phrase that I think can be safely attributable to us. Now, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, Nebraska has been pejoratively described in the popular imagination of our country, first as the ``Great American Desert'' because it was thought that nothing would grow there. Today, we have the largest amount of acreage under irrigation in the country, including the fact that we are the largest grower of popcorn in America. We are a leader in livestock production and multiple types of commodity production, as well as specialty crops. We were sometimes castigated as ``flyover country.'' I hear that around here sometimes, that is, until you come to Nebraska and realize that it is a wonderful place to live and to work and to raise a family relatively free from crime, except even horse thieves, congestion, as well as pollution. Nebraska has, routinely, the highest graduation rate in the country and the lowest unemployment rate in the country. And, though, in true Nebraska fashion, self-effacing Cornhuskers would cringe at the term, we have had our fair share of celebrities as well, including Father Ed Flanagan, who founded Boys Town, now known as Boys Town and Girls Town; Civil Rights pioneers, Chief Standing Bear being one of the most prominent; Malcolm X; authors Mari Sandoz and Willa Cather; professional athletes Bob Gibson and Gale Sayers; and entertainers, Henry Fonda, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Johnny Carson, and Dick Cavett. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, our singular, unicameral legislature is a model for bipartisanship and frugality. And I would be remiss if I didn't say our run-it-up-the-gut offense with a few option twists, it may not have been flashy, but it helped the University of Nebraska's football team win five national championships. I am proud to serve in the United States congressional seat once held by Williams Jennings Bryan, who along with Senator George Norris perhaps are the most famous, though controversial in some ways, politicians in our State's history. As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Nebraska's admission to the United States of America--by the way, the first State admitted after the Civil War--I recall Representative Bryan's words from over 100 years ago. It is a quote that actually is outside of our football stadium, known as Memorial Stadium, on Tom and Nancy Osborne Field. It says this: ``Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.'' And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can add to that quote today: And that the choice to be good makes the destiny arrive well. Happy birthday, Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Perhaps this will embarrass you, my colleague, Steve King, but as I was flying into Nebraska last week--and I do this on occasion--I am looking out of the window and looking at the rolling hills of the western edge of Iowa as it borders the Missouri River and all of that beautiful terracing that has been done, all of that extraordinarily productive farmland, in order to save the soil and increase yields, and I wonder how much of that Steve King did himself in a former life. So I am grateful not only for the opportunity but mostly for your friendship.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I was going through my mail last week, I read a publication that I receive frequently at my house from what is known as the Great Plains Trail Network. This is a dedicated group of people who enjoy, promote, and foster the growing network of hiking and biking trails in my hometown of Lincoln and the vicinity. They provide an extraordinary service to our community. Most notably, the trail systems provide an alternative means of transportation, physically linking our community in creative ways along creek beds and underpasses, through open plains and wooded areas, and beside the wooden fences between residential neighborhoods. These trails also link us in a more profound way. They link us to the values of healthy exercise, neighborliness, and the beauty of nature--even in the setting of the urban city environment. Now, Mr. Speaker, I received an unusual media request recently. New York Magazine wished to speak to me. I took the meeting because I wanted to give a broader perspective on the issue of environmental stewardship, particularly in light of policy debates about energy and the environment. Since this topic can be so toxic, I thought it was important to reframe the issues with some prairie perspective, if you will. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is time to spike the football and focus on solutions and activities that all of us can agree on and that all of us see are beneficial. Mr. Speaker, for the 21st century, we must harmonize environmental and economic security. As a different public policy approach, I am considering a new idea called the zero-emissions energy credit, or ZEEC. The more that we can do, I believe, to stop waste and pollution through conservation and innovation gives us peace of mind in regards to the proper use of our resources. This ZEEC concept would reward reduced emissions through a tax credit system. In this way, the government is not picking one technology over another or fighting over one regulation versus another, but positively valuing the diminishing externality cost of polluting emissions. Mr. Speaker, environmental initiatives can also take many other forms. I am very proud to be recently named the co-chair of the International Conservation Caucus, called the ICC. It is one of the largest bipartisan caucuses in the Congress. The ICC works to ensure the sustainability of both persons and wildlife, works to promote market innovation, as well as proper stewardship of our precious natural resources. As an example, not long ago, in the African country of Mozambique, in the midst of a civil war, the Gorongosa National Park was completely stripped of wildlife and devoid of people. A once lush microecosystem is dead, primarily due to political disagreement. Interestingly, fascinatingly, extraordinarily, a mere 10 years later, thanks to the work of a major philanthropist and a receptive government, a park system now teams with wildlife, with indigenous people reintegrated back into their homeland, who are engaged in now good and sustainable farming methodologies, engaged in park management, as well as conservation, all creating an atmosphere in which the entire ecosystem once again thrives. Mr. Speaker, I don't know anyone in this body or anywhere else who wants dirty air or dirty water. However, as another example, if you live in Beijing, polluted air alone costs you 5\1/2\ years off your life. Parts of India are perhaps worse. By the way, the Chinese Government was infuriated with the United States because we created at our embassy a pollution monitoring device, and then publicly released that data to Chinese society. It had a major effect. As one Chinese person once whispered to me: What is the point of all this economic development if it kills you? Economic development without a soul strips us of the capacity to fully prosper. On the other hand, one of the prime contributors to environmental desecration is economic underdevelopment. Persons who have diminished economic options will use the resources at hand, sometimes merely to survive. The tragedy of the commons occurs when there are fractured social linkages, a lack of access to technology and information to feed, clothe, and house in a more sustainable way. Mr. Speaker, I believe this: as new technologies emerge, we may see exciting opportunities to build our own sustainably sourced microenergy economy, one that harmonizes with the environment and creates new economic opportunities and linkages. This doesn't mean we all live on game preserves, but through proper public policy and innovation, we may be on the trail to environmental, economic, and community security, and perhaps create a new type of Great Plains Energy Network. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Congressman King, for the various aspects of leadership he has provided, particularly today, on an essential issue: a pro-life issue.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) would mind lingering in the Chamber for just a moment, I want to make a couple of comments on what he said. Because he began his talk with a commemoration of some extraordinary Americans, World War II veterans. And as I was waiting my turn to speak, I couldn't help but reflect upon perhaps one of the most extraordinary opportunities that I have been given as a Member of the House of Representatives. A bipartisan delegation went to the 70th anniversary of the D-day invasion. President Obama, of course, spoke, and dignitaries from around the world, including the Queen of England, also made an appearance. When we got to the cemetery area at Omaha Beach, we were meeting veterans who had fought there or in the vicinity. One of the first gentlemen I met, he had only a thumb, and he was sitting in a wheelchair. And I just asked him, because it was such a celebratory atmosphere and everyone was so engaged by the heroism of these men and the opportunity to be back so many years later--I just asked him: Did that happen here? He said: Yeah, right over there on the beach. Well, his daughter was with him, and she told me a moment later: Actually, what happened was we think that he was shot on the hip and one of his grenades began to go off and he was throwing it away from himself. I looked at him and I said: How are you here? And he said: I don't know. Another man had been a part of the paratroopers who dropped in behind enemy lines the night before near the town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise, and I will come to that town in a moment. And I asked him: What was your assignment? He said: Hill 60, or some number. And I said: Where is that? He said: Right over there. He said: Guard the bridge at La Fiere. I said: That is the bridge at La Fiere. An old Norman-style, arched stone bridge, maybe a car-length wide, obviously just one lane to get a horse and cart over. He said: Do not let the Germans cross that bridge, that was our assignment, and we held them. Another man looked at me and said: I haven't been here in 70 years. A much better reception this time. This great humor, this depth of character that these extraordinary men showed was so evident that day. To continue the story a little bit more, Captain Luther Sextan Fortenberry, my grandfather, left his family in August of 1944. He was a medical doctor and was initially at a hospital in England. The records are a little bit unclear; but, in November of '44, he was killed, and he left his 8-year-old son--my father--behind. He was initially buried at Sainte-Mere-Eglise, at the cemetery there. He was reinterred in Arlington National Cemetery. One of the guides that we had during that trip was a former British military officer, and he had a complete command of the details of the battle. In fact, I was so impressed by him that I invited him to come to Nebraska to speak to my veterans, and he accepted. So, later that summer, we hosted him in Nebraska. One of my little towns is called Columbus, Nebraska. Columbus is actually the place where Andrew Jackson Higgins was born--the Higgins boat inventor, which was the troop carrier that landed there on Omaha and Utah Beaches that day. President Eisenhower said of Andrew Jackson Higgins that he won the war for us. He is very much associated with Louisiana because that is where he spent his adulthood, in shipbuilding, and he would not let go of the idea that we needed this innovative type of troop carrier. He is from Columbus, Nebraska. In the front of Columbus, Nebraska--which is a small, agricultural town, a wonderful community of 25,000 people--they have built an extraordinary World War II memorial that is a replica of the Higgins boat, with beautiful bronze sculptures of the troops in their charging off that boat. When my friend, the former British military officer who now does-- again--tours and commentary on the battle, saw this, he looked at me and said: Jeff, this belongs on Utah Beach because there is nothing like that there anymore. I will make a long story short. Some of the members of the community who had worked on that project heard this. They said: Well, we can build another one. I was trying to tamp down expectations because I knew how difficult that would be; but the day before the 71st anniversary, that new World War II memorial was put in the breach where our troops first came through, where General Roosevelt led our troops through on Utah Beach. Right in the breach, a memorial that was constructed by the good people of Columbus, Nebraska, now sits as a permanent display--a replica--of the Higgins boat, right next to the World War II museum right there on Utah Beach. I understand it is extraordinarily popular as one is able to enter onto the boat and experience the life-like reality of what it must have been like to be in that moment. The French even moved one of their own monuments, by the way. This is the cooperation we had with the French Government. They moved their own monument to General Le Clerc--their general who had followed the pathway or fought, as well, into Germany. I apologize for holding the gentleman up, but he talked about a number of things. Obviously, we are going to have big, important debates about a number of the sensitive points he talked about; but where there is no debate is in the character of the men and women who served in World War II. I thank the gentleman so much. Madam Speaker, I want to give this commentary tonight, as well, on some of the dynamics of the moment. Before I begin, I would like to share with you that, outside of my office, there hangs a framed copy of a piece of legislation. In fact, it was one of the earliest pieces of legislation that I worked on here, and I am quite proud of it. The bill increased the number of Iraqi translators who could come to the United States. These persons served alongside our troops and put themselves and their families at great personal risk in service to our country. Among those who benefited from this expanded policy were members of the Yazidi faith tradition--a peaceful, ancient faith--that, very sadly, ISIS has targeted as a part of its extermination campaign against Christians and other religious minorities, including innocent Muslim communities. Madam Speaker, as we all know, America has long opened her arms to persons who flee persecution, who wish to rebuild their lives and become good citizens here. My hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, is a diverse, welcoming community with a number of first-generation Americans, and we are the better for it. However, when there is chaos and disorder at our border or if there is uncertainty in immigration policy and procedures, this problem undermines the ability of our country to be generous; or, worse, it affects our safety. There are two principles being held in the balance here: keeping America safe and keeping America generous. President Trump's executive order to protect the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States has suspended all new refugee admissions into the U.S. for 120 days. In addition, it blocks all travelers for 90 days from seven countries of concern--Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--which was a list, by the way, created by the Obama administration in 2015. Refugees from Syria are banned indefinitely, and travelers from these countries with a green card will be allowed since they are permanent United States residents. Madam Speaker, from my perspective, I believe it is reasonable to pause and review our refugee policy from dangerous parts of the world; but, clearly, the implementation of the policy has caused some confusion, difficulty, and concern, some of which has been clarified. As an example, there is a Yazidi man named Nawaf, who was one of those military translators--again, putting himself at great risk to serve alongside our troops. Nawaf visited my office last Monday. It was in the evening. He requested help for his wife, Laila. Two of his brothers live where I live--in Lincoln, Nebraska. Although I didn't recognize him at first, I remembered that a president of a university in Iraq, whom I know, once told me about a Yazidi student who had become class valedictorian of that university; so I began to piece this story together. Nawaf arrived in America just last year. Following 18 months of vetting, his wife was awarded a special visa about a week and a half ago; but as Nawaf was explaining to me both with great composure and, frankly, a certain sensitivity to our security concerns, he told me that his wife, Laila, was barred from entry. Madam Speaker, immigration and refugee policy always involves a difficult choice. A country has to consider first its absorption capacity, the possibilities of assimilation, as well as the necessity of those coming to accept the values of the host country's. I think a review of this policy or of these principles--a review of what has happened in Europe--actually sheds some light. For example, Germany recklessly threw open its borders recently, and a wave of persons--many young, single men--entered the country, sparking an uptick in crime and violence and, possibly, the conditions for more terrorist attacks. Confusion continues as to who is where, and the German Government's rapidly considered and naive refugee policy has unwittingly created an anti-immigration backlash and political turmoil. Madam Speaker, the immigration and refugee movement should always be a means of last resort. Everyone can't come to the West. Rather, it is the responsibility of governments around the world to create the conditions in which people can live securely. If that breaks down, as a first order response, robust humanitarian assistance and repositioning persons in nearby safe zones creates the possibility of a right of return and avoids the trauma of uprooting persons from their homes and their cultures. Madam Speaker, with all of the complex considerations surrounding immigration, though, it is important to remember that we are not dealing with statistics, that we are not dealing with some remote geopolitical policy, but that we are dealing with the lives of real persons. So, happily, last Friday morning, after my office successfully worked on the case, Laila arrived, and with open arms and flowers, Nawaf, her husband, welcomed her to America. Madam Speaker, given now that the executive order has been put on a temporary halt as the administration goes through the appeals process, I also think it is appropriate to pause and speak about the broader issues at stake here--what it means to be a nation and what it means to have a binding narrative as a people. Madam Speaker, I am quite sure our soldiers know this feeling all too well--I have experienced it. Perhaps you have experienced it, too--when you are in a far-off place, with no one familiar around you, and then you, all of a sudden, have that feeling of connection because you see it--you see an American flag. At that moment, the flag is more than a piece of cloth with stars and stripes. It is an enduring symbol that expresses a deep, unspoken narrative about who we are as a people and about the ideals that unite us as a nation. If you ask most people what America means, I would suggest that they would probably use one word: freedom. Yet I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that this word ``freedom'' is so overused that we have forgotten its essential meaning. Most properly understood, freedom is the ability to do what one ought--to take responsibility for oneself, one's family, one's community, and, by extension, one's nation. Freedom is not a detachment from responsibility to do whatever you want. That is a self- destructive idea that erodes freedom, resulting not only in the loss of oneself, but in the degradation of the entire community. Of course, we often reflect on what it means to be an American when discussing immigration. America has long offered the hope of freedom for immigrants who are yearning to work for a better future for themselves, for their families. To those tempest-tossed, to those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, America has lifted its lamp beside the golden door. Implicit in this worldwide welcome was a basic compact that those who came here, however arduous their journey, must undertake the responsibility of citizenship. Of course, many people gleefully do. In fact, America's very survival as a beacon-handed land requires those who immigrate to assimilate and adopt the values proposition that makes our country unique in the history of the world. Those values include respect for others, the acceptance of law and order as a prerequisite for the orderly functioning of society, and the desire to participate constructively as a citizen. Those who refuse to assimilate or reject these time-honored values take advantage of the sacrifices and hard-fought gains of generations of Americans who have built and often died for what we cherish and what we so eagerly share with people from around the world. That is fundamentally unfair and is an abuse of the idea of freedom itself. Madam Speaker, individual freedom is achieved most fully in the context of community. When the government or interest groups see freedom merely as a functional meeting of material needs alone, it undermines the social dimensions of freedom, which are rooted in authentic human relationships. Conversely, the proper amount of government, a government well- ordered, provides protection and creates the guardrails for individuals to flourish together, generating meaning for persons and community. The right political approach in America can restore that golden mean. Madam Speaker, there is a story I would like to tell. There is a man, and he is talking to his young son. He said: Son, you see that beautiful, lovely home there on the hill? One day, if it is your heart's desire, if you are willing to work hard and be patient, and if you do what is right, then maybe you could earn that home one day. Another man in another country took a very different approach talking to his young son. He said: See that big mansion on the hill there? If you work hard enough, if you stay focused, and if you position yourself right, one day you can get that guy. You see, Madam Speaker, our country is not based on the principle of envy. It is based on respect and responsibility. To make America flourish again, politically, economically, and culturally, a restoration of this ideal is necessary to create the conditions for a true and lasting freedom. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank my dear colleague and friend, Diane Black, for her leadership on this most essential issue. Madam Speaker, if you look behind us on this dais right here, it says, ``Peace, Liberty, Justice.'' We inscribe these words all around our Nation's Capitol and on our monuments, but in truth, we cannot find peace in a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members. We cannot find liberty when we are indifferent to one another, and we cannot claim justice when we throw away innocent life. Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that the early feminist movement was pro-life. They saw abortion for what it is: the abandonment of women. Once an abortion occurs, as Maddie Brinckerhoff, an early feminist lecturer, once said: It is evidence by either a lack of education or resources, she has been greatly wronged. At the very least, I think, Madam Speaker, we can stand with the vast majority of Americans and not use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the abortion industry and the violence against women.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the chairman for yielding, but, more importantly, for his extraordinarily hard work as chairman of the Rules Committee. I don't think a lot of people are aware just how critical his job is in shepherding and guiding order in our institution here. So I am grateful for his hard work, most grateful for his friendship, and very grateful for his leadership. I thank him so much for the time. Mr. Speaker, when Presidents give their inaugural addresses, we are very accustomed to lofty narratives, to visionary ideals, and to sweeping language. But last Friday, President Trump spoke very differently. The only sweeping thing in the President's speech was his reference to the windswept plains of Nebraska. Of course, when I heard that, I perked up. President Trump's speech was a striking and direct call for a new, healthy nationalism. He spoke to the people, about the people, and for the people. A certain awkwardness marked the beginning of his speech, not only because of the initial confrontational style from the outset, but it also began to rain as the President started, creating a bit of an uncomfortable moment. But then the rain suddenly stopped and his speech gained momentum. He discussed, in hard terms, some of the stark realities we are facing and how they might be resolved for our country. Mr. Speaker, we all know this, that defining problems is an easy task, but finding solutions is much harder. While President Trump's speech lacked specifics in that regard, nonetheless, there was extraordinary power in the attempt to articulate an America that has been lost to globalized supply-side elitism, an America that has been lost to drugs and crime, and an America that has systems that no longer seem to serve all persons. It just seems that no matter how hard individuals work, they just can't get ahead. Mr. Speaker, our President's speech was an authoritative call for a new national unity, particularly for those forgotten. The idea that America can do better, that we must do better, and that we will do better for everyone was clearly conveyed by President Trump. I recognize the tone of this speech will not have universal appeal. It was to the point, direct, and firm. It was not a delicate, textured speech. But the President was clear when he declared: ``The American carnage stops right here and stops right now.'' Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a renewed and important and essential focus on reviving America's economy. The multinational corporations of this world are on notice: they cannot play both sides of the balance sheet, being for us and against us at the same time, and the benefits of exchange will have to be fair for all. Frankly, I believe this creates possibilities, possibilities for authentic relationships with peoples around the world rather than a transactional one. If this objective can be achieved, it will be constructive indeed. A healthy American nationalism will lead to properly ordered international engagement--for our benefit and the benefit of others. Mr. Speaker, when the President spoke before the entirety of our government, he also spoke before the House of Representatives. The President's authoritative style, communicating the desire to devolve power from Washington as well as Wall Street, interestingly repositions Congress to its appropriate role in governing society through the power of the people. Mr. Speaker, it is statistically shown that the majority of Americans believe that it is the job of Congress to do whatever the President says. This is not true. Congress is an independent, coequal branch of government that makes the law, which is interpreted by the judiciary and enforced by the President. But across Democratic and across Republican executive administrations more and more power has been taken by the executive and has been ceded by Congress. This balance of power, this necessary balance of power, this original idea of the balance of power, has been out of balance for 100 years, and perhaps now a realignment begins. Mr. Speaker, whether you love President Trump or you loathe him, or whether you are someplace in between with certain apprehensions but hoping that President Trump succeeds, Friday, Inauguration Day, was an extraordinary American day. What we saw was the successful and peaceful transfer of power. Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to thank, again, my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding to me.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, given that last week I took the oath of office as a Member of the new 115th Congress of the United States and given that next week we will watch President-elect Trump also take the oath of office, I want to share a few thoughts on the deep importance of this constitutional duty that we share. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, last week on Capitol Hill was marked by a day of celebration. It was a day of renewal of friendships, even between people who have deep, deep disagreements in this body. Families and guests all gathered to share in the moment's excitement and meaning, and Members of Congress congratulated one another on their recent victories. We all took a reprieve from the intensity of the policy debate for just a moment. But amidst all of that swirl of activity, the day was set apart by the oath of office. Mr. Speaker, the oath lays down a clear marker of the serious obligations ahead for all of us. In our day and time, we no longer are deeply connected to this concept of oath. We see it in the courtroom when somebody is required to tell the truth. We will see it again next week when President-elect Trump is sworn in. But we rarely take the time to reflect on its deeper meaning. We see it more like an old tradition, a nostalgic option that we exercise out of deference to our history. However, the oath is much, much more. It is a solemn declaration. It is a pause, the start of sacred duty. By taking an oath, you effectively hold your very self at ransom. You commit, at the deepest levels, that you will perform the tasks ahead of you to the best of your ability. The oath is the ultimate test and measure of integrity. If you violate it, you tear at the center of your being, to the detriment of not only yourself but to the community, to those you are sworn to serve. This is a very high bar, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am reminded of the words of Sir Thomas More, who was the Lord High Chancellor of England during the 16th century. He strove to live a life worthy of excellence in public service. But in the end, he was put to death by the very state that he sought to so nobly serve. In an earlier reflection on the idea of oath, Sir Thomas More had this to say: ``When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.'' Mr. Speaker, throughout that wonderful day last week of our swearing in here in the body, I was reflecting personally on a singular word. That word is replenishment. Our American system of governance has an extraordinary capacity to replenish itself with new ideas, new people, and refreshed perspectives. Our political system starts with the belief that political power is derived from each person's dignity. By voting, citizens invest that very power in the Representatives that are sent here to make judgments on their behalf. But, of course, to earn that right in the first place, the Representative must make his case to the people. In spite of the drama, in spite of the raucous nature of elections--and we have just come through one--the fact that America goes through this cycle of constant replenishment is truly an extraordinary gift. Mr. Speaker, as I stood in the center aisle right here last week, I raised my right hand. I raised it right along with everyone else who is a Member of this new 115th Congress, and I took that oath of office. Mr. Speaker, I just think it is worthwhile to read these powerful words: ``I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.'' Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a very high bar. This is a sacred duty. This is a solemn task. It sets this body and our system of governance apart by forcing each of us who have been given this extraordinary privilege of taking on the heavy mantel and weighty responsibility of making decisions on behalf of this great country, and to do so to the best of our ability, having put our very self, the integrity of what it means to be a person, on the line to uphold that commitment. 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 rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of Kazakhstan's independence and the establishment of diplomatic relations between Kazakhstan and the United States of America. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Kazakhstan on the tremendous progress achieved by their country during the past quarter century. The U.S. is the first country to have recognized Kazakhstan's independence and since then we have significantly increased our areas of cooperation. However, the cornerstone of the U.S.--Kazakhstan relations has always been cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation and security. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan inherited the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world and the world's largest nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk. In the first years of Kazakhstan's independence, President Nazarbayev renounced nuclear weapons and closed the Semipalatinsk Test Site. The United States provided Kazakhstan with comprehensive assistance in the removal of nuclear warheads, weapons- grade materials, and their supporting infrastructure. Five years after gaining its independence, Kazakhstan signed the Comprehensive-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and ratified it in May of 2002. The CTBT bans any nuclear weapon test explosion above or below ground or any other contained environment. Ratifying the CTBT was a milestone toward creating a safer world. However, as a universally recognized leader in nuclear non-proliferation, Kazakhstan understands that it is time to move from a nuclear test ban to a nuclear-weapons free world. This is why Kazakhstan and its neighbors--Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan--created the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons- Free Zone. We should acknowledge that Kazakhstan has continued to show its commitment expanding its cooperation with the United States on matters of nuclear non-proliferation. As an important example, our two countries are collaborating in building the Nuclear Security Training Center (NSTC). The NSTC will provide training of personnel on security and safeguards essential for safe operation of nuclear facilities in Kazakhstan. Twenty-five years of close cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States are the foundation of an important strategic partnership focused on creating a world without nuclear weapons and ultimately a more stable peace around the globe. It is important that we recognize Kazakhstan's leadership in nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Kazakhstan continues to serve as an example to the international community, and the United States must remain committed to supporting Kazakhstan's efforts to further prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials toward a goal of global security. Mr. Speaker, it is a true pleasure to celebrate the quarter century of Kazakhstan's independence. I would like to extend my warm wishes to the people of Kazakhstan and President Nazarbayev.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as we are about to conclude this legislative session, I hope everyone here realizes the magnitude of what this bill before us does. Yes, we have got a lot going on. We are distracted. We are eager to finish up business and start a transition period. But, as Congressman Takano just said, this is transformative. This creates a blueprint of the architecture for a 21st century VA. And why? As Congressman Roe pointed out, we have had extreme difficulties and complexities and problems in the VA with service delivery as well as budgetary cost overruns. We have had for a very long time an aging hospital in Omaha. We have had a community that is very eager to find a new innovative way out of this problem. We have a pot of money that has been sitting here for a very long time and will continue to sit here for a very long time unless we become innovative, unless we do something different. That is what Congressman Ashford has done with the rest of the Federal delegation from Nebraska, including Senator Fischer. He has come up with an innovative transformative model that will create a new center of excellence based on a public-private partnership, using existing Federal moneys, using a base of community support that has already come forward looking to help the VA better integrate with the private facilities that already exist in the community of Omaha, which are quite extraordinary. As Congressman Takano said, this is a win-win- win. I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, Congressman Ashford, for his extraordinary leadership and vision in this regard as well as the integrity to stay with it until the very end. We have had some complexities along the way, but it is my hope, Mr. Chairman, particularly as you take over the reins of the entire committee, that you will help us implement this rapidly, as I know you will, because it is a transformative mechanism by which we are going to deliver the highest and best possible care for our veterans back home.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's touch upon the issue of regulation. Washington is readying to correct regulatory overreach that has constrained the ability of small business to flourish. For far too long, Washington has distorted markets and, most importantly, the imagination of people to find better solutions for themselves and for their neighbors. Government must play its role, but with constraints on its tendency to seize more power. Mr. Speaker, I recently visited a 125-year-old bank in a small town called North Bend, Nebraska. It is an agriculture community. This bank is now in its fourth generation. The family was eager to show me something they had recently discovered. There is an architectural gym that had been covered over by a ceiling. In doing some remodeling, they found a hidden stained glass panel and gorgeous ornamentation on the various beams above. The bank is, rightly, proud to showcase this history and this beautiful symbol of a flourishing past. The story began when all of the banks in the area in this town went under during the Great Depression. One of the local banks reorganized itself and came forward with a proposal to the community. It was this: If you stay with us, you stay with our bank, we will give you 50 cents on your dollar now and pay you back the rest over time. Mr. Speaker, it took the family that owned that bank 20 years, but they paid every dime back to every member of that bank, without ever taking a dividend for themselves until that money was paid back. The original owner died shortly thereafter. He gave his word, and he got it done. As a longstanding community institution, this local bank did not bring our Nation down in the financial crisis of 2008. It did not benefit from insider class privilege that enabled liar loans and high- risk collateralized debt negotiations. It did not help multinational banking conglomerates grow so large in hubris and reach that they nearly tanked our economy. At the same time, this small Nebraska bank is besieged by a regulatory overlay created by a crisis that it did not participate in. It is not fair. So rightsizing regulation does not mean doing away with it, Mr. Speaker. It means what is sensible to protect the health and safety and well-being and create a fair playing field for everyone with minimal intrusion for maximum market functionality. There is a real cost to regulation, there is a real cost to no regulation, and there is a real cost to dumb regulation. We look forward to finding that balance once again. Mr. Speaker, there are many other aspects that I could speak about regarding community revitalization and foreign policy, but I want to touch on an important debate that is under way now regarding our immigration system. Our immigration system is stretched. Laws have not been enforced, have led to chaos and dislocation, testing the natural generosity of Americans. Righting the legal system, stopping unscrupulous employers, and holding those who break the law to account are the start of restoring a humane and fair immigration policy. In another small town right north of Omaha, Blair, Nebraska, it is nestled among the beautiful, rolling, wooded hills along the Missouri River. It is a traditional hub of agricultural activity as well. I am proud to represent them in the United States Congress. There are several large manufacturing plants, and it is a very stable community, a community of very strong values, so much so that recently a Sunday school class of little children wrote to me about the need to help other impoverished children in countries across the world. Their letters were so touching and heartwarming. They demonstrated this enduring universal ideal that animates the moral imagination of Nebraska's young people and young people throughout the country. But fast forward to a jarring criminal incident that took place a few months ago when three men were arrested in Blair driving nearly 90 miles per hour, with a loaded gun, stolen in Iowa. Two of them were Somali immigrants from Lincoln and Minneapolis here on visas. Both were wanted by the Department of Homeland Security, and, between the two, had 34 previous arrests. The third man had 50 previous arrests. Even though the three have been in America long enough to have been arrested 94 times, they still requested a court interpreter. They abused their privilege. They do not belong in America. America has a great capacity to be generous. But those who have received our generosity have an obligation. If you want to come to America, you will accept American values. If you want to come to America, you will work, provide for yourself, and integrate responsibly into dutiful citizenship. If you want to come to America, it is absolutely essential, and I and many others will stand with you. Celebrate your past culture, explain it to your new community, and, at the same time, celebrate your new one, as so many good people coming to our country do. Our Nation has generally maintained a vibrant immigration system, and it has been an important part of the character and development of our country, but chaos, disorder, and crime undermine our ability to maintain that openness. Of all of our country's pressing priorities, one of the most should be ensuring that the criminal justice system, the judicial system, and the immigration system work in concert to swiftly remove persons who have seriously transgressed our laws. This will help keep America safe and protect the integrity of immigration policy for those who want to come here, rebuild their lives, contribute to this wonderful society, and sustain America's generous impulse. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to leave you tonight with some comments on the future of democracy. Some of what I talked about are ideals, but they give us a chance to envision and create a more inclusive government, economy, and society. Given that the future of democracy depends on quickly moving forward in the right direction, there is a mood of both curiosity as well as urgency here. Curiosity as to how we are going to translate this moment and urgency not to waste it. Even though the election was a proxy for many open and deep philosophical divides in our country, now there is the possibility of great change. As President-elect Trump said on the night of his election: We must now come together, and I want to be President for all Americans. President Obama very generously and graciously extended a hand of friendship to President Trump and said: President Bush was so extraordinarily helpful to me in this transition, I will work the same in any way he wants with President-elect Trump. President Clinton, admitting that this was a painful loss said: It was a fair election. We need to give the new President-elect a chance, and we must unite. I think that set an important tone, Mr. Speaker. We take it for granted, but this demonstrated the brilliance of how our democracy provides for this peaceful transition of power. In spite of some protest, we have witnessed the ongoing resiliency of America's governing traditions. In Congress, a great deal of ideological rigidity has been vaporized. Conversations among fellow Republicans and Democrats are yielding a sense of new horizons, which, if properly considered, will help shape a meaningful approach with the next White House. Mr. Speaker, the next hundred days are critical. It is time to create the architecture of a 21st century government, one that is innovative, one that is effective, restoring the trust and confidence of the people. Mr. Speaker, there is a great old movie starring Bette Davis called ``All About Eve.'' In that classic Hollywood moment, she looks around to her guest with that smoldering gaze and says: ``Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.'' Mr. Speaker, real change is always bumpy. But when done with purpose and clarity, with the intention of doing good for others, we can allow ourselves to dream big again. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I think it's only appropriate to congratulate, thank, and wish all the best to my friend, Bob Dold. Bob, you have earned a reputation around here. You may not know it, but I am going to tell it to you: I think you are the hardest working person here. I listened to a number of your accomplishments. It is not only representative of your thoughtfulness and your desire to serve the country, but it is this integrity of work ethic that has impressed me and so many other Members here. I know this departure is a bit bittersweet. Sweet in a sense that you are now free to be with your primary purpose in life: your children, your family, and your mission together as a family; and a little bit bitter in that you are going to miss us and we will miss you. I thank you for your leadership. Mr. Speaker, regarding my remarks tonight, I want to begin with a little anecdote. Vice President-elect Mike Pence was a Member of the House of Representatives. I overlapped some time and service with him. He was a friend and, in some ways, a mentor. He came to speak to a group of us recently, and Vice President-elect Pence had this to say: Buckle up. Buckle up because, Mr. Speaker, the next 100 days are going to be intense. Beginning in January, we will have a new President and a new Congress. The next 100 days not only will be intense, but it will also create possibilities. That next 100 days will set a new architecture for government and a repurposed relationship between the people and the state. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, partisan paralysis has plagued this Congress leading to stagnation in Washington. We know it and the people know it. With this historic and transformative election, the playbooks of both political parties that had been used for decades are tattered and lay in shreds; and rightfully so. This transition of Presidential administrations has unleashed the potential for a genuine reimagining of public policy, and it is time for the Nation to adopt a more inclusive model. Power that has been concentrated in Washington and on Wall Street has left millions of Americans feeling left behind and at the margins of what many regard as a corrupt and elitist world. Millions of Americans face stagnating wages, downward mobility, and an increased cost-of-living. Income inequality has risen while, at the same time, the small business sector has been seriously harmed. This must change. So what are we looking at? We are looking at this: we are looking at new healthcare horizons, new trade and tax policies aimed at restoring the decimated manufacturing sector, returning jobs and returning dignity and social cohesion to large swaths of our Nation. An economic system of inclusion and empowerment capable of generating widespread participation is now the new center ground of this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the time that we have, I would like to survey multiple public policy areas that are in need of deep replenishment, and I would like to speak about the opportunity of possibilities that lies before us. So right out of the gate, what are we going to do? Congress will launch a significant healthcare reform initiative. Mr. Speaker, we all know this, but it needs to be said once again: skyrocketing cost and diminished choice is the residue of poor policy, and we can do better. At the same time, we cannot default back to the previous arrangement which left way too many persons behind. While there might be a fierce fight in this body on the specifics of reform proposal, broad agreement will likely coalesce around two things: protecting persons from inhuman market forces while, at the same time, incentivizing the best of market innovation to bring about change. Americans with spiraling healthcare costs know that a new healthcare construct is needed. To address these concerns, the next approach must reinvigorate health insurance with the goals of lowering price, protecting the sick, and improving options. The next generation health savings account will be at the cornerstone of this effort restoring relationship, responsibility, and respect as drivers of healthcare policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, has helped some people, yet, at the same time, it has hurt others. We often speak about repealing and replacing it, but perhaps it is time to speak about repealing it and replacing the repeal-and-replace language with new language that really underlies the principles that we all ought to be embracing. They are really three-fold; the first of which is relationship, responsibility, and respect. Mr. Speaker, for persons who have had a gravely sick child, perhaps there is nothing more difficult than having to turn that child's care over to other persons. I recall when our daughter, Kathryn, was a little infant. My wife and I, with our daughter, walked to the door of the surgery room and then handed her over to the nurse. We had to let her go into the hands of people that we had to trust. She has had a long journey. She has had five major heart surgeries and nine total surgeries. But that very first moment where we turned our little baby over to the nurse was an extraordinarily poignant and deeply impactful one for my wife and me, made only better by the reality that that team of people that had been put around her genuinely cared and that we were in relationship with them. Relationship between the doctor and the patient, between a healthcare system and the person--not the commodity, but the person--is an absolutely critical first principle. Mr. Speaker, a long time ago, I had a very severe headache. I was a young man, and I had to buy my insurance privately. I did so. I tried to be responsible. But because that headache was so intense, I decided: Well, I am going to have to seek a specialist. Bypassing the family doctor in order to save myself $50, I went to the ENT, the ear, nose, and throat surgeon. She told me that, after an x-ray, she couldn't really tell what the problem was and that they were going to need to do a CAT scan. Immediately I launched into some questions. I said: Doctor, I know there is a problem with medical liability and there is an attempt by the medical establishment to create the conditions in which the potential for lawsuits is mitigated and there are a lot of tests to run. She interrupts me. She says: Why are you telling me all this? I said: Because, Doctor, I am paying for it. I have a major medical policy, what is called a catastrophic policy, with a very high deductible. This is coming out of my pocket. Do you really need the test? She said: Oh, I see. Well, yes, I need the test; but now that you said that, I am just looking at your sinuses. So why don't we call a couple of places in town and ask them if they could widen the cross section of the image and give you a discount for doing so? She had her assistant do that. In a minute, we found a facility that would actually discount the price based upon another type of test. So what happened here? I saved perhaps another $75, the doctor got the tests that she needed, and perhaps, more importantly, the community resource was more properly allocated because I had a role in the decisionmaking process. Put in economic terms, I had an incentive in the allocation of that resource because I was paying for it. That is called responsibility. Back to this idea of what we are coming to, particularly for the next generation, the younger generation, whereby we create and revitalize the whole health savings account policy apparatus. If you set a little money aside on a tax-deferred basis, then it helps you control the ordinary costs of health care, and, at the same time, if something goes wrong, you shouldn't have to be on the gurney in the hospital asking for a price list for the cheapest anesthesiologist. No, you are protected. That is the right methodology of thinking forward that will actually protect you when you are in vulnerable circumstances but empower you to take better control in relationship with your doctor and medical provider of those first-dollar costs. That is what I think we can see coming as a cornerstone of the revival of our healthcare system. That is a start of a system we can regard with respect. It is relationship, responsibility, and respect. Those are the principles and the new cornerstones of health care moving forward. Mr. Speaker, regarding infrastructure, another important policy area, broad bipartisan agreement exists around rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. From airports to roads, to bridges, to information technology, new projects are on the horizon. I would add that sustainable energy should be on that list. As a public good, properly selected infrastructure improvements are a benefit to society at large. Infrastructure can also be virtual, setting up systems for better interconnectivity. It also has implications for health care as we build out, for instance, innovative healthcare models. The challenge, of course, to all of us will be in financing and insuring the proper division between Federal, State, and local governments as well as with the private sector. Mr. Speaker, the third policy area is spending. In an unprecedented legislative development, our government is moving forward on two budgets simultaneously. Those of us serving on the House Appropriations Committee have a very heavy lift. In a parallel process, we will fix up the current budget while creating a budget for the following year. While it is easy to speak about new ideas, plans to pay for them are the test of smart government. We must remain sober about spending. Deficit spending is a form of taxation--especially on the poor and seniors--when this debt that is run up is monetized. The good news is that this peculiar set of circumstances gives lawmakers--all of us-- much more flexibility in creating genuinely creative policy outcomes. Mr. Speaker, a fourth area I want to touch on is taxes. Tax is a broad issue that, like health care, has many thorny and complex considerations. I anticipate that Congress will move to solve tax anomalies that harm America's competitive standing in the world, including giveaways to multinational corporations. The Tax Code should reposition funds captured overseas to be brought back into America, and any reform should prioritize small business--the source of new jobs and the source of local economies. This process should really be guided by a three-fold goal. First of all, fairness. Second, simplification. And the third is economic growth in order to produce revenues for the government. First of all, let's touch on this issue of fairness. President-elect Trump, our new President, has called for doing away with a provision in the Tax Code called carried interest. I agree with him. If you are wealthy enough, you can basically take income and restructure it to be paid as capital gains. That means a higher income tax becomes a much lower tax through this mechanism. The vast majority of people in America can't do it. A few can. Closing this is not a panacea, necessarily, but it is a good first step. It points to a deeper principle; one that is called fairness. When a person makes things with their own two hands, when they use the creative gifts of their intellect, this is an imprint of their own personal dignity, the dignity of work, that gift, that meaningful place where you can actually see the fruit of your own labor. So what is the first thing we do? We tax it. We call it earned income, while another category of income called unearned gets a preferential rate. This is a discussion we need to have. The second point, simplification. A few years back, we had a tax reform act here. It was controversial. A number of us voted for it, and it passed. Before doing that, I decided to run up the road and see someone who lives near where I do. His name is Warren Buffett. Now, Warren Buffett and I have different philosophical approaches on many things, but he was generous enough to welcome me to his office. We spent about an hour together. I wanted to get his particular perspective not only on that tax bill but on some other things. In an interesting exchange, Mr. Buffett turned around to his credenza, pulled out a file, an old file, pulled out a single piece of paper, and said: Jeff, just do this, just do this. Put the Tax Code on a piece of paper. Simplification. Now, a Tax Code, in reality, cannot always be cut. It has to be optimized. We have to run the government, we have to have revenues, but in a manner that does not deteriorate the ability of the economy, small business and others, to create jobs, and to provide the proper catalyst for economic growth. And that is the balance. Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the issue of regulation. But before I do, can I inquire as to the amount of time that is left.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine works part time in a hardware store. He is retired from several other careers, but he continues to enjoy helping people in a retail-service environment. Recently, he kindly gave me, as we were talking about gardening, some hosta plants that he had grown. As I drove through his neighborhood looking for his house, I suspected his home was the one flying the large American flag. I knew that Mike, my friend, had served in Vietnam, but, as we spent some time digging up the plants and visiting around his garden, I learned a lot more about his harrowing experience as a marine. You see, Mr. Speaker, Mike's squad was assigned to protect an area in the northern part of south Vietnam. They were a pesky bunch, as Mike put it, and the north Vietnamese grew tired of the constant haranguing, so they launched a counterassault. Mike's squad was outnumbered 10 to 1, and they were hit pretty hard. A call went out for help, but the first helicopter to arrive was blown apart. Mike sustained severe wounds. A bullet to the chest collapsed his lung, shrapnel tore through a foot and a leg, and another bullet grazed his head. To breathe, Mike had to keep clearing his throat with his finger to remove the gurgling blood. And at the point where he could no longer physically fight, he crawled to a slightly more secure place and propped himself up on a sack. Mike told me he remembered two things-- the wind blowing through his hair and his mother. Who would tell her that he had died? Only three Americans survived that battle. Fortunately, another helicopter quickly landed and a corpsman came to Mike's rescue, stabilized him, and helped return him to safety. A doctor performed quick and precision surgery, and the medical personnel nursed him back to health, for which Mike was always grateful. But something always nagged him. He never got a chance to thank the corpsman who risked his own life to save him. And, finally, in 2001, he went online, did some research, and found the man 30 years later. Mike wrote to him and said: I have not forgotten you. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our country's economic, political, and cultural settlement is straining under a number of very harsh realities. Concentration of economic and political power, coupled with signs of social collapse, are contributing to a growing sense of vulnerability and anxiety in our society. Amid a divisive and disorienting political season, terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Orlando, Minnesota, and New York have reminded us of the grave threats to life and our cherished liberties. Take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to notice how many Nebraskans and how many Americans like Mike fly our flag. It means something. The flag stands for an ideal, for a value, for the proposition that all persons have dignity. And when that dignity is safeguarded, a people can flourish. That is America. But I think more people need to hear, Mr. Speaker, that we have not forgotten you. The fundamental questions right now before us are, who are we as a Nation, where are we going as a people, and how will we find our greatness again? Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had an extraordinary privilege. I would like to share the story with you and the body. I was invited to attend the dedication of a new veterans memorial in a small town in the heart of the Great Plains north of Lincoln, Nebraska, where I live. This town is called Wahoo. It was actually made famous because in the old David Letterman show he named it as the hometown office. But Wahoo is more than a late night show's joke. It is a place where a community lives, works, and has a deep sense of interconnectedness and well-being. It is a place of extraordinary greatness. In this small town, about 500 people from the entire county came and gathered right there at the courthouse for the dedication of a new memorial honoring the 101 servicemembers who had been killed from the small farming community and the surrounding area--soldiers, troops, military personnel from World War I to our present day. All of their names were read in an honor roll, many having Czech and German names, who were such an important part of the original settlement of that area, as well as the Swedish. When I approached the microphone to say a few words, I recalled the old movie ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' based upon the old novel. Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, in that movie, the lawyer Atticus Finch gives a defense of a man who is unjustly accused of a crime. The community from which that man had come had to sit in the upper balcony of the courtroom because of the prejudice of that time. And as Atticus Finch was getting ready to leave the courtroom, the reverend, who was in the midst of that community in the gallery, says to his young child, the lawyer's young child: ``Stand up, your father's passing.'' At that beautiful ceremony right there in the Great Plains, it started with the public high school choir and the Catholic high school choir singing our national anthem. When that occurred, no one sat on a bench, no one took a knee. We all stood because it was not about us, it was about them, the men and women before us, living and dead, who had answered the call to service. And whether they had cooked or cleaned or computed or were in the worst conceivable firefight, nonetheless, they said: yes, I will serve, I will sacrifice, for the meaning of our Nation. We live in a time, Mr. Speaker, when our world is screaming for meaning. What we are really searching for is not an answer that can be found here in this body. We have an important role to debate the most pressing issues of the day, whether those are national security, economic security, and even cultural security. The most important answers aren't found necessarily down the street in the White House. They are not going to be answered necessarily in the great debate that is about to occur moments from now on the television. The answer is found in the debate about meaning itself. When we find things that bind us, like this extraordinary ceremony yesterday nestled in the heart of America, where people young and old came to honor our veterans, when we look back to those who came before us, giving them their due in a memorial that appropriately honors them, we bind ourselves in a noble idea that sacrifice for one another, sacrifice, even for a nation, is sometimes not only necessary, but it is worthy of the fullness of the call in the human heart. But we still have hard questions before us. So what should we do? The first pathway, Mr. Speaker, to finding solutions is to adequately identify the problem. And in one word, I believe the problem is fragmentation. What do I mean by that? It is a creeping separateness, whether in economic affairs, government affairs, foreign affairs, or our own basic exchanges in local community life. People are feeling alone, isolated. In many cases, they feel like they lack control over the most basic things, the simple things in their own life. Far remote systems seem to be the new governing order. Informative institutions that used to provide the continuity of tradition and nest people into an ongoing desire and pathway toward hope by giving them the gifts of that tradition and the responsibility nested within community, as well as the accountability, have all become fragmented. These burdens press upon our people in a most profound way, and, in particular, in regards to their own economic well-being. These days, economic measures are on everyone's mind. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety, even hopelessness, in our uncertain times. And while the stock market has certainly rebounded and corporate profits have soured, many families are facing downward mobility, stagnant wages, decreased opportunity, the feeling of disenfranchisement, and the inability to achieve financial security. Part of our problem is our country's damaged micro-enterprise sector, that entrepreneurial space where most new jobs in the country are actually created. And we are not even talking about corporations that are 100 to 500 employees. We are talking about shops that are 1 to 5 people. This morning, I made a phone call as I was getting on the plane to return here from Nebraska because, Mr. Speaker, I received this in the mail. This is a flyer announcing a doors-closing sale from a small business called Havelock Furniture. This furniture company anchors the north end of a little community called Havelock, which is now subsumed into the greater community of Lincoln, Nebraska. It distressed me when I received this. At first, I thought they might be another victim of corporate consolidation, an inability to compete as a small furniture store in a sector that might be, again, increasing the concentration into fewer and fewer hands. So I just picked up the phone, and I called Sue. Now, this is an advertisement for a closing-business sale, and it is giving me a discount if I want to come there and buy something. But Sue lays out, in very heartfelt terms, the reality of their circumstances: The family has been in business for 61 years, and now I am retiring forever. She goes on to say: And I am offering our friends and employees and preferred customers a special discount. Well, I can't ever recall if I have met Sue. And, by the way, at the top of this, Mr. Speaker--I don't know if you can see it--is a picture of the founder, Mel Everson, and it says: In loving memory. As I recall, Sue is his daughter. I called Sue just to find out what was going on, and also to express my thanks for their willingness to be in business this long, carry on an important tradition for an important part of our town, and be an integrated part of an old Main Street that still occupies a unique part of the community where I live. We talked a little bit about what happened. And, fortunately, it wasn't the result of any type of pressure coming from outside economic forces that were beyond her control, it was simply the necessary decision that had to be made for family reasons. But, nonetheless, I felt a heartfelt loss. And why? Because on a deeper level, Sue's business is the loss of a symbol of community mutuality and economic affairs, a gathering place where human interaction reinforces social vibrancy. Mr. Speaker, our country needs a 21st century vision of what economic success can look like. Benign competition with a robust small business sector creates the conditions for a sustainable dynamism, a humane economy that prioritizes personal relationships and community ties, fosters stronger entrepreneurialism, forges better consumer products, and creates more jobs for persons who need them. Just as a healthy society and the principle of self-responsibility are the preconditions for prosperity, properly ordered markets support social cohesion. Markets at their best are driven by startup innovation and sustained by widespread ownership. The return of small business, with a new participatory economy, can extend the dignity and just rewards of meaningful work. It will help us fight poverty and help us to rebuild our economy in this century. Now, what are some good examples of this economic mutuality I am referring to where no person or no thing is thrown away? I recently saw a presentation by a CEO of a major corporation. He threw up a PowerPoint on the screen, and I thought we were getting ready to look at some boring quarterly earnings projections or something like that; but instead of rolling out the PowerPoints and graphs, the CEO showed a simple picture. It was a picture of a young woman on her wedding day, a bride on her father's arm. The CEO then said this: ``Everyone is someone's daughter. Everyone is someone's son.'' In other words, persons matter--persons matter in a society; persons matter in a business; persons matter as we debate the great public policy issues before us because, ultimately, that is the purpose, the well-being of persons. The point was powerfully made. The understanding of work and the workplace--the proper understanding of work as nested within the workplace--are essential to human dignity and to human happiness; and this CEO of a very large corporation said he believed business could be the greatest force for good in the world. That is a strong and proper perspective. Mr. Speaker, as I was recently looking around my garage, looking to clean out a few things, I came upon an old, antiquated pickax. It is really a substantial piece of hardware. I bought this years ago and used it numbers of times in my yard. Then the handle finally broke, and I had a hard time throwing it away--it is a bad habit I have, I guess. But it sat there in my garage, a substantial piece of iron. So, instead of throwing it away, I took it with me to the local hardware store, and then I went to look at some new ones. I asked the clerk: ``What do you think? Do you sell handles?'' He said: ``No, we do not sell new handles.'' He said: ``You are probably better off buying a new one and putting this one on the wall in the man cave.'' So I went and looked at a new one and toyed with the idea; but then the clerk said: ``Well, look. Let me do a little research for you, and I will get back to you.'' So he did. He went out and found a company in America that made pickax handles out of hickory. He took it a little further. He went ahead and ordered the handle for me, and he replaced it himself. When I went to the store about week later, there it was--a piece of old, old hardware, ready to be put back to work with a replacement handle proudly made in America and made of hickory. If you had done a straight analysis of the cost involved in this repair project, it was not worth it. I only saved about $10 by repairing versus buying a new one. I had to wait a week or so, and I had to go to the store twice, but there are unmeasured benefits here. Let's talk about those. First of all, an old piece of iron is not in a landfill; a renewable resource of hickory wood was deployed; an American company made a little profit; and the hardware store's clerk had the satisfaction of a hand-built opportunity. I will tell you, I must say, I am pretty proud of my refreshed, repurposed pickax, and I put it right to work on some old bushes I had in the yard. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to rebuild our economy, thinking about how we manufacture, how we maintain, and how we rebuild what is still useful can unlock the benefits of a well- functioning market system. This small act of taking something old but solid and getting it back into useful service provides some insights on how to better secure economic well-being. The disposable nature of so many goods as they are now manufactured, with the intended life expectancy ever more narrowed, decreases costs in the short term--but cheaper isn't always best. The ability to repair and recycle and to repurpose--to keep the useful life of a resource as long as possible-- is smart economics. It is a fundamental principle of conservation, and it is a key to reviving the small business service sector. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is an emerging trend. I was watching the Olympics. During it, I noticed a commercial in which a major retailer gave a subtle message about cheap imports. During the commercial, as the song ``Dream On'' built up steadily in the background, the commercial featured people waking up, going about the routine of life, getting their kids to school, and making their way to a factory, where they used their hands to make things--tough and gritty work, but connected to a deeper meaning. At the end of the commercial, the company stated it will invest $250 billion in American manufacturing in the years to come. Maybe we are on the front end of a trend, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope so. An economic model that chases more and more output alone is not a valid measure of value. Our country's economic reboot requires a return to a humane economy--one focused on quality, durability, and the work of human hands and, as much as we can, made in America. Without this focus, we will forever chase that which we cannot find, and perhaps more and more people are realizing that we should shift to what is dependable, not disposable; to what is fixable, not forgettable; to what is reparable and not just replaceable. Using my repurposed hickory-handled, American-made pickax gives me a great deal of time to think about these things, Mr. Speaker. It also gives me a pretty good workout--a winner all the way around. Mr. Speaker, I want to reference something else that I happened to see. There is a show--I am not sure if it is still on--that is called ``Undercover Boss,'' and I have seen it a few times. I find the program to be quite engaging and very, very human. The premise of the show is that the CEO, the chief executive officer, of a major company goes undercover as an employee. Then, from there, he participates in the gritty work of building things, of cleaning up, of working the phones, and of performing basic administrative tasks. During this particular episode that I saw, the boss spent some time out in the field, repairing a broken sewer line. Then he was in an office, answering calls, and was at a manufacturing plant where the equipment was crafted. The CEO was assigned to one of the company's top welders for training at the manufacturing facility. As part of his disguise, he wore safety glasses and a do-rag. The first mistake that the CEO made was that of burning a hole through the metal that he was supposed to be joining. After the welder who was supervising him gently corrected his technique, they took a break, and the conversation turned to job security. The middle-aged welder, who was a long-time, dedicated employee and a team leader at that corporation, told the boss about the worry that he has and that he overhears at the manufacturing plant. Would they just show up one day and see a ``closed'' sign hanging on the cyclone fence? Given what is going on in America, no one knows for sure whether the company would just pack up and move overseas like so many others have. The simple conversation in the break room in middle America captured what so many Americans are justifiably concerned about. Although the government's aggregate statistics show an overall unemployment rate of about 5 percent, the numbers hide a disturbing reality. For too many people, the rhetoric of free markets has not translated into better opportunity or security. As I mentioned, stagnant wages and downward mobility, staggering student loan debt, job insecurity, and the increased cost of living are all real difficulties marking the new normal for an increasing number of families in our society. In another segment of the television show, the disguised CEO had to work on a home drainage system. The elderly woman who lived in the well-kept but very simple house was told that the bill to fix the problem was $1,200. She responded in a very worried voice about her many doctor bills and about how much medicine she had to buy. The employee who was supervising the CEO then paused, considered the situation, and gently spoke back to the elderly woman and said to her: ``Well, how about $500?'' The employee, as it turns out, had taken it upon himself to cut his own commission in order to help this elderly, vulnerable person, all while his undercover boss watched. After several other meaningful encounters with his employees, the show concluded with the CEO's revealing his true identity and commending everyone with whom he had interacted. He made some poignant points about his experiences--how deeply they had touched his life and how they would now impact his management style. To the welder, he said: ``I want you to take the message back: `We are staying in America.' Give them that assurance from me.'' To the man who reduced the bill at the cost of his own salary, he rewarded him for his compassion and dedication. Business can be a force for great good, Mr. Speaker. The true potential of companies depends upon their people for their greatness. In this case, the CEO was willing to do a self-evaluation of his own leadership style and of the very fundamental purpose of the company, itself. Perhaps a scorecard should be kept to feature businesses that do the right thing: trying to keep the best jobs in America, consistently innovating, and paying just salaries to persons who work hard to support themselves and their families. In order to discover--to discover, perhaps, something about himself, to discover the true meaning of work, to discover the true value of the persons under his authority--the CEO went undercover. By doing so, he found what he had not seen: a properly functioning market economy that genuinely works for both profits and persons, repairing fractures in our society, and enhancing community interdependency. That is the point, Mr. Speaker: community interdependency is the true source of our Nation's strength. When I was a much younger man, I owned a rear-wheel drive Ford Bronco II. They don't make them anymore. I loved that little truck. I sold it shortly after I was married. That little truck was great for that time in my life, but navigating winter conditions could be a bit tough. One night, while traveling on an interstate during really forboding weather, I came over the crest of a hill, and what lay before me was surreal. It must have happened just seconds before. A large 18-wheeler truck had jackknifed. Cars were spun in every direction, flung into the median. There was a clear sheet of ice that no one had expected. In an instant, my reality changed. In an instant, everything changed. I had to make a choice. I rapidly decreased my speed, gripped the wheel, and focused my total attention on the road before me only just barely navigating the treachery. Mr. Speaker, many Americans feel that they have been tossed around in a bewildering unpredictability of our current policy, economic, and political dynamics. Many Americans are looking for new leadership that offers a compelling, inspirational, and stable vision that can restore the true security of our Nation. If we so choose, one of the strengths of the American system of government is its capacity for constant replenishment. In the midst of an unpredictable government transition season, it may sound a bit peculiar to speak of opportunity. But could this moment give us the chance, as a people, to reassess and realign? Perhaps so, if we so choose. As we began this conversation, Mr. Speaker, I talked about pointing to the problems in order to understand solutions. I think a stronger America might be glimpsed through four mutually supporting principles: government decentralization, economic patriotism, foreign policy realism, and social conservation. Mr. Speaker, just like every football game has four quarters, let's think of our solutions as our four-quarter game plan: government decentralization, economic patriotism, foreign policy realism, and social conservation. What do I mean? First, a return to a more decentralized form of government will restore an important source of America's strength. I, in no way, wish to belittle the essential important debates that occur in this body and elsewhere in the Federal Government. We have a role. We have a role to create the conditions so that the rest of society can flourish. The ultimate role we have is to seek justice and the just structures that can bring about order for persons and communities to flourish. When the Federal Government grows beyond its effectiveness, it infringes upon basic liberties, it stifles innovation, it crushes creativity, and it also takes away the responsibility that we have for one another. A creeping tendency to nationalize every conceivable type of problem erodes community resolve. Now, while the Federal Government does have a central role in maintaining the guardrails for stability, the rule of law, and a fair opportunity economy, America's governing system is designed to operate most effectively at different levels. Those close to an opportunity or a problem ought to have the first authority to seize the opportunity or solve the problem. I find it notable that the veterans memorial ceremony that I went to just yesterday did not include any government funds. It was made up of community resolve and community sacrifice. As a quick civics lesson, as an aside, the Rules Committee on which the gentleman from Georgia sits is still working tonight, trying to craft the structure for the debate that will occur on certain pieces of legislation to come before us in short order. Let me return to something I said, Mr. Speaker. Just like every football game has four quarters, I believe we ought to think of our solutions as a four-quarter game plan. The first is returning to a healthy concept of decentralized government, a healthy Federalism where those closest to a responsibility or opportunity have first-order priority in taking responsibility or seizing that opportunity, again, not to denigrate the very essential role that the Federal Government plays in creating the conditions for stability and rule of law and a just playing field, particularly in the economy, as well as national security, but other levels of governance are essential to community well-being. Second, economic inclusion or economic patriotism should help America recover from an arthritic economy. As I mentioned earlier, although the government's aggregate statistics show an overall unemployment rate at about 5 percent, these numbers continue to hide certain realities. There are stagnant wages and downward mobility making life very difficult for a number of families. Mr. Speaker, it is sad to say this, but this Washington-Wall Street axis, which promotes the transnational corporation as the new ruling entity for society, cannot secure the well-being of our economy. They cannot. Instead of a globalized supply-side elitism, America needs a vibrant marketplace of her own that expands the space for constructive interdependency and community dynamism which will fight poverty and drive innovation, at the heart of which, again, is small business. Small business is the key, along with a fair regulatory environment and the right type of healthcare reform that will actually end up decreasing cost, while protecting vulnerable persons and reset the architecture so that we have a 21st century healthcare system that is truly just, that is fair, that is actually going to achieve the conditions for creativity and innovation in the marketplace. What we have now is a healthcare system that is an increasing drag on the small business sector; and, therefore, the number of jobs that we see created are going down. We are living in an entrepreneurial winter--the number of jobs being created are less from small businesses, are less than the number of small businesses that are actually dying. We are in an entrepreneurial winter. This has never happened before in the history of our country. So, focusing on the small business sector and returning to, again, a fair regulatory environment and appropriately addressing a new architecture for health care, which doesn't simply shift costs but, at its heart, protects vulnerable persons, improves healthcare outcomes and reduces cost is a key to restoring the small business sector. Third key is foreign policy realism. What do I mean? Foreign policy realism charts a course between overinterventionalism and isolationism. America has an important role to play on the global stage today. However, many Americans are alarmed at an exhausted, drifting, and often counterproductive foreign policy. The posture of foreign policy adventurism, sometimes coupled with naive assumptions about democracy promotion, requires a recalibration. Leveraging American strength through strategic international relationships and authentic friendships will help us navigate the 21st century marked by a changing geopolitical framework. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the three Ds: strong defense, smart diplomacy, sustainable development. That is the right balance in our foreign policy considerations. Fourth key is social conservation. Social conservation provides the conditions for order, opportunity, and happiness. We usually don't put those together, social and conservation. We think of conservation as the important protection of our land and water and the air we breathe, not throwing things away unnecessarily. Thinking of the ideals of the ecosystem where all things are interdependent, or looking out into the vast horizons of nature and letting it pull ourselves to a higher realm of that which is beautiful, even that which is divine, we have all had that experience. We know it in nature. We see it. Could we possibly see the idea of an ecosystem of community where we actually think that it is more than politics for the promotion of sustainable values? As society has become more fragmented, it is harder and harder for us to craft policies that meet society's needs. Washington cannot spend enough fast enough to fix the deep wounds in our culture, Mr. Speaker. Social conservation recognizes that family life, faith life, and civic life provide a continuity of tradition, giving meaning to life and creating stability, particularly for children. Those of us who have had the scarring experience of coming from broken situations, we know this intuitively. Those of us who struggled with the deep scars of having what you know and what keeps you safe torn from you, we know that the formative institutions that preserve the good are invaluable to opportunities later in life. Our sense of well-being, the strength of our Nation ultimately does depend upon the strength of the formative institutions that give rise to family life, faith life, and civic life. That is the strength of America. We are confronting intensifying struggles about the direction of our country, and the fault lines are, sadly, widened. I think there are things that still bind us. I would like to think that what I am saying speaks to every Member of Congress here, that it transcends the superficial political boundaries that we set up that are, yes, based upon the different philosophical perspectives on the nature of what Washington ought to be and not. But I would like to think, again, that this rises above, because they are binding elements of the human heart. It is what we all long for: to be nested, to be secure within a community of loving persons around us who care enough to hold us accountable, who care enough to demand that we take responsibility for them and with them. Although we are encountering rough weather in our country, we can choose to rediscover this best sense of ourselves. We can choose to rediscover commonsense governance, which will uphold these ideals and be built upon them. We can choose right-sized economic models. We can choose to rediscover universal foundational values that are consistent with the desire of all persons' hearts. This is how the greatness can be restored again. This is how we make America great again. This is how we find ourselves and find one another and find a vision that binds us together and makes us all proud to stand as America's flag is flown. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and accomplishments of my friend, Dr. Prem Paul, vice chancellor at the University of Nebraska, who recently died. Prem was an extraordinary person with an inviting personality and tireless enthusiasm. I recall seeing Prem at a speech in 2001 when I was finishing up my own work on the Lincoln City Council, and it was clear then that his vision was solid for the university. It was so different and so refreshing. Dr. Paul established a culture of excellence at our university, and he went on to establish the Nebraska Center for Energy Science Research, as well as the Center for Brain, Biology and Behavior, and the Social Sciences Behavioral Research Consortium. Prem is survived by his wife, Missi; daughter, Neena; son, Ryan; and granddaughter, Ashland, of whom Prem was very, very proud. It was a privilege to know Dr. Prem Paul. It was a privilege to work with him. It was a privilege, most importantly, to call him my friend. Well done, my friend, well done.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, we have all used this expression: ``I can't do that in good conscience.'' But we really don't think deeply about what it means. So let me take a moment from the debate here and explore that question deeper. Conscience is the sacred space of human dignity. Conscience is the place where, one, a person using the faculty of reason exercises their deeply held sincere beliefs to make a judgment in a particular circumstance about what is right or wrong, what they ought to do or not to do. When the government comes along and robs us of our right to exercise our conscience, the government contradicts the very principle of its existence, of its purpose. The government imposes a dictate and violates that sacred space, the good of the human person, and the good of community. That is unjust. That is not America. That is an exercise in power. That is an imposition of the few with power on the many who deserve protection from their government.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, Senator Mark Kirk, who used to be a Member of this body, told me a story a while back. He was a bomber pilot during the Bosnian war, and during that war he literally carried a map in his hands, and there was a red circle drawn around a particular point on that map, and it said, ``Do not bomb here.'' What was there? Loose nuclear materials, unsecured, that could have been a disaster had we inadvertently struck that target. Loose nuclear materials are all around the world. We have a very specialized program here called the global material security initiative program that helps secure these materials, brings down the risk that they will get into the wrong hands, brings down the risk of a nuclear explosion--which is an absolutely critical national security priority-- to as close to zero as possible. I know it is not the intention of the author of the amendment, my friend Mr. Westerman, to undermine this program. In fact, I support the underlying intent of enhancing the surface-to- air missile program, but this is the wrong place to take this money from. The Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy as well as other agencies are sharing in the multitasked effort to try to have a multipronged effect on reducing the probability of a nuclear weapons explosion, reducing the probability of nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands to, again, as close to zero as possible. That is why, as we move forward in looking at how to enhance important programs like my friend has raised, we should look for it in the right places and not undermine a critical aspect of our national security. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, upon visiting some of our wounded troops at Walter Reed Hospital, I entered a rehab area that was full of men and women who had wounds of varying severity. The place was really a place of tough love--men and women struggling with pain and debility, trying to walk again, recover, and learn new skills. What struck me the most, perhaps, amidst all of this suffering, was the desire, the will, to keep working, to get well, and to maintain an attitude of strength in the face of great adversity. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of speaking with one officer. He had lost an arm and an eye, and he was throwing a ball, a simple little ball, back and forth with his attendant. Now, normally, for us, this is a simple task, but this activity was necessary to retrain his brain for a new type of coordination. He had lost the dominant eye and the dominant arm. In spite of the many scars that he wore on his face and a really tough road to recovery, he had a great attitude--no bitterness, no anger, no resentments. He believed in his mission, and he believed in his duty. He was impressive and uplifting, and just to be near him was a great privilege, as well as the other men and women who have fought so vigorously and so hard to overcome their wounds at this particular place and throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, keeping you safe depends upon the men and women who are willing to put themselves on the front line for our security. We do remain the strongest country in the world militarily and economically. Unfortunately, though, I cannot report that the world is growing any calmer or more stable or more secure. Ideological extremism is spreading across the globe and, most alarmingly, is manifested in ISIS' twisted Islamic ideology. In the face of the barbaric onslaught in the Middle East, compounded by the Syrian dictator's war of attrition, Europe is now contending with its worst refugee crisis since World War II, and the Continent's leadership seems ill-equipped to understand their own plight. Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the great cities of Europe were secure places of cultural strength. Today, they are targets for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. And, of course, we stand in solidarity with the citizens of Belgium as we all continue to deal with the shock of the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Brussels. Jihadists there orchestrated coordinating bombings at the Brussels airport and the city's metro station--suicide assaults that murdered 31 people in a grim replay of the horrifying attacks in Paris. This maelstrom of violence is a consequence of reckless open border policies and naive assumptions about the potential for multicultural conversion to Western economic and political freedoms. Although these bombings, these particular ones, in Brussels were probably in retaliation for the capture of the mastermind of the suicide strikes earlier in Paris, Brussels has long contended with a seedbed of warped Islamic aggression, particularly in its Molenbeek neighborhood. The Middle East conflict and the resulting humanitarian catastrophe prompted some European leaders to embrace very well-intentioned but misguided immigration postures. Now, nations from Greece to Sweden are confronting capacity issues and deadly security risks. No immigration system can remain just and orderly without necessary and robust border protection measures. It is not fair. It is not fair to the people who are there, who have set up the political systems that are welcoming others, and it is not fair to people who do need to flee the violence and reestablish themselves in other nations. It is simply not fair. Contributing also to this problem is the decline of a European myth: a romanticized vision of cultural and political tradition. What is taking its place is a new narrative that says that particular countries, individual countries, decreasingly should matter. Supranational entities, like the European Union, are forging a new settlement of administrative conformity to deal with the pressures of globalization. Originally, the European Union arose from fears of past nationalist movements, such as fascism, that ravaged and sacrificed the Continent on the alter of ruthless ideology. The European Union, importantly and purposefully, serves to check this dark past, while also appropriately facilitating commonalities in commerce, travel, and enhanced understanding. However, the limits of this type of bureaucratic arrangement are reached when identity and self-preservation are at stake. Unfortunately, the very idea of Europe may be disintegrating. So what to do? To turn this around, the Continent should regain a healthy instinct of its respective nations that places an emphasis on the interests of peoples with shared culture, history, and political traditions. The Continent's vibrancy depends on sustaining the dynamism of longstanding local difference while maintaining proper pride in the ideals that bind and animate wider Western civilization. Nothing exists in a vacuum. The lack of a bonding identity in Europe, complicated by clashing cultural values, has created the Molenbeek neighborhood in other major European cities as well. Self-isolating Muslim communities can help perpetuate an environment of mutual misunderstanding and distrust, breeding alienation, resentment, and hostility. Genuine multiculturalism is an important goal and should be upheld by us all, but it is difficult without enculturation among immigrant populations. Thousands of Europeans have left the Continent for the battlegrounds of Syria and Iraq. These radicalized fighters, passport holders-- hardened by war and dedicated to jihadist militancy--pose a security risk to their countries of origin in the West. Even some so-called Americans have joined the ranks of terrorist organizations that are metastasizing across the Middle East and North Africa. San Bernardino demonstrated to all of us that the United States is far from immune to the cancer of ISIS' expansion. Now, Mr. Speaker, our Nation, for decades, has shouldered a great burden in confronting havoc throughout the world. We will continue to lead the fight against extremism, but we will not do so alone. A general assumption that we will maintain the majority of heavy lifting in combating regional terror, coupled with the lack of will amongst some of our allies, has created a status quo that is no longer sustainable. As we recover from the shock of the bombings in Brussels, we must reclaim a central principal. Europe must fight. Complacency is no longer possible. The combined effects of a drifting European identity and a lack of appropriate enculturation among certain migrant populations, further compounded by this new migrant crisis, must be confronted with reason and resolve in order to keep Europe and the world safe. Only through this approach will Europe stabilize, regain a sense of vision, and remain a great and important source of a welcoming and cultural strength. Mr. Speaker, as the world has focused on the death cult created by ISIS, our focus has drifted away from an equally grave threat: the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although the Iran agreement has, understandably, dominated headlines on this issue of late, North Korea's dynastic and despotic leadership continues its provocations. The country's young, insecure, ego-driven ruler seeks to consolidate his power and standing through destabilizing bravado, and he is backing it up with nuclear weapons development. In a region already roiled by increased Chinese military posturing, particularly in the South China Sea, North Korea's ongoing threats linger as one of the most complicated international dilemmas. The possibility of nuclear weapon devastation is one of the most serious threats to civilization, itself. Unfortunately, the gravity of this challenge has not received ongoing critical attention in this body as a first order of priority. New intellectual rigor, strategic projection, and next generation ownership are necessary for nuclear security in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I recall an incident when I was in graduate school. A prominent philosophy professor was visiting the campus, and he was known for a particular expertise. I asked him: Would you give me a concise summary of the philosophical argument for immortality? He was very excited by my request, and he actually invited me to his lectures on the topic. I did consider this a great privilege as, again, he was a very renowned professor. He was very kind to eagerly invite me to his class, but I could not really manage the 4 hours necessary to sit through his lectures, so I politely declined. He then looked at me, and said: Ah, you have asked me a question about immortality, but you do not have the time. We cannot afford to make the same mistake here on nuclear security-- not having the time. We are distracted by all types of considerations, but if we are to bring the probability of a nuclear catastrophe to as near zero as possible, we must make the time. Understanding how nuclear threats have evolved and how to resolve them most effectively is an urgent national priority. Imagine, just for a moment, one of several scenarios. A terrorist organization collects enough radiological material to set off what is called a dirty bomb in the stadium, perhaps, of a major city. This would trigger widespread harm and panic. A smuggled package on a containership, with no need for a sophisticated weapons delivery system, explodes in a major U.S. harbor, causing widespread destruction and a loss of life. Worse yet, a reckless nation-state actor, such as North Korea's autocratic strongman, launches a missile attack against Seoul or even Los Angeles. Each future scenario is alarmingly feasible. No one enjoys thinking about this, nor do I, but ignoring this problem only amplifies the ongoing threat. Americans deserve the assurance that our best and brightest minds are fervently engaged in their defense. They should be able to trust that policymakers on both sides of the aisle are working together for innovative and sustainable solutions to nuclear security concerns. In this age of anxiety and sound bite foreign policy, constituents should know, should believe, should have trust that Congress is leading where it matters most. The leaders who courageously helmed our formidable nuclear enterprise through World War II and the cold war have now passed the baton to a new generation of policymakers and scientists. Now, as our world grows more complex, the challenges of nuclear proliferation have multiplied. The binary concept of mutually assured destruction is no longer relevant in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment. Nonstate actors play havoc with global treaties and normative rules, seeking to do horrifying harm. Rational responses to deterrence are no longer a guarantee. Despite all of these challenges and the important issues that come before Congress, nuclear security, ironically, seldom surfaces in our national conversation outside highly specialized forums. The problem is real. The United States and our allies face a stark deficiency: nuclear security as a multidimensional issue with no longstanding constituency supportive of initiatives in Congress. That constituency must be built. This is of grave concern to us all. The constituency must be built. In light of this problem, the Nuclear Security Working Group in Congress was founded to advance this discussion and help prevent the unthinkable. While the analytical and tactical expertise rightly should remain embedded in the Department of Defense, in the Department of Energy, in the Department of State, and in other executive branch entities, Congress must create an agile policy environment in this age of globalization and swiftly advancing technologies. We also need to awaken citizen concern in order to give momentum and consideration of the time necessary in this body with so many other distractions. Unfortunately, there is very little. The need for broader involvement, I believe, particularly extends to the millennial generation, the coming stewards of our nuclear security. The community of responsible nations has much work ahead to achieve an ideal nuclear security settlement. Advances in reprocessing technology, nuclear power, and weapons infrastructure, once the exclusive domain of the nation-state, now pose serious proliferation concerns. Although many countries, thankfully, have altogether renounced the pursuit of nuclear weapons, turbulent situations in the Middle East and elsewhere are worsening an already hazardous global nuclear dynamic. A new architecture for nuclear security demands an ongoing effort by the responsible nations of the world. Now, Mr. Speaker, this fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit, hosted by President Obama recently in Washington, represented another important step in securing loose nuclear materials and in heightening collaboration. We need to sustain this in more international gatherings and multinational efforts to achieve an effective 21st century nuclear security strategy, one that prioritizes common ground on important strategic and nonproliferation priorities in a cooperative campaign to make our world safer. Looking ahead, Mr. Speaker, in this regard, I anticipate an augmented role for the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as the IAEA, as a primary implementing agency of future verification initiatives. A revitalized spirit of unity, common purpose, and renewed dedication is essential to nuclear security in the 21st century, and we need robust platforms to do so, multilateral ones. Our challenge is that we cannot react to a nuclear crisis. We must act to prevent one--if we have the time. Given the collapse of the nation-state order in the Middle East, as well as the technological advances and the potential for highly destructive weaponry to evolve in short order, what will our national security challenges look like in the next 20 to 30 years? It is quite serious. The answer lies in as much a values proposition as a military one. On a fundamental level, the question is whether the world can embrace, enculturate, and institutionalize the belief in human dignity and, from there, build out the governing and economic systems consistent with protecting innocent persons. That is the key. Again, Mr. Speaker, we owe so much to the young men and women who are willing to risk everything in military service to take this integrated approach to international security. Put simply, I believe in the three Ds: strong defense, smart diplomacy, and sustainable development. All are necessary components for international stability and, thereby, our own national security. Closer to home, in order to have a stable society here, we also depend upon economic security. We need to reexamine some fundamental questions as to what is causing such anxiety in our American culture. Our security problems are compounded by globalization trends that have left millions of Americans in dire need and dire straits of financial vulnerability. I recently saw a presentation by a CEO of a major company. I thought we were getting ready for a PowerPoint with charts and graphs of financials. Instead, this CEO put a picture up of a father with his daughter, a bride on his arm, as they were walking down the aisle on her wedding day. He said this to us: Everyone is someone's daughter. Every person is someone's son. The point was powerfully made. The understanding of work and the workplace are essential to human dignity and happiness. I learned a little more about this company. During the financial crisis of 2008, the business lost about a third of its contracts. Reeling from the economic pressure, this CEO pulled all of his employees together and asked: Team, what are we going to do? He had earned their trust. Because there was an interdependency in that workplace, because there were demands--they had to be profitable, they had to make efficiency gains in order to be competitive--because he created a culture of trust and interdependency, the entire company decided to take a 30-day furlough with no pay. No job was lost. By sharing in that sacrifice, no job was lost. No one person was laid off. Not one job either was moved overseas. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with an Indianapolis-based company that recently announced they are relocating 1,400 jobs to Mexico. The fallout from this move was captured on a video camera as worker outrage built during the condescending speech of a company executive, who channeled corporate elitism in his explanation. Basically, he said: It is nothing personal. It is just business. Seen here and elsewhere across our country, a dehumanizing, abstract, economic construct that elevates balance sheets and projected earnings over the needs of persons is not a sustainable economic model for well- being, happiness, and commitment. The economy and our society are inextricably intertwined. When this works, it works well. When it doesn't, there are problems. Social fracture leads to economic decline. Economic decline leads to social fracture. Interdependency can fray into downward mobility and decreased earning power. A market that fails to deliver for the many, improperly prioritizing only measurable efficiency gains, breaks down communities. Creative destruction should not eviscerate the social environments in which people work. More than the loss of one company, economic disruption creates aftershocks that further result in the decline of community. While the theory that globalization, including so-called free trade agreements, reduces the cost of consumer goods does have truth, people are not only consumers. A disordered economy that operates solely from the principle of profit maximization can devalue the rich texture of ecosystems that are built and shared by working families, local businesses, local institutions, and community heritage. Trust and commitment are immeasurables that do not show up on the balance sheet. Government policy here also has to bear some blame. Our convoluted and burdensome Tax Code incentivizes companies to move overseas or retain their earnings there. Escalated healthcare costs don't help either. Beyond government policy, the harsh reality is that the philosophy and the purpose of the corporation has changed, prioritizing short-term earnings, quarterly profit statements, and the stock price over the long-term viability of the business itself and the people within it who grew the business in the first place. Mix in a new class of aloof CEOs accountable for only spreadsheets and no wonder people in Indianapolis started shouting at the corporate spokesperson when he announced the jobs were moving to Mexico. It is just business. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way forward. Take the example that I gave of the CEO who called his team together and said: Team, we have got a problem. We have got a big problem. What can we do about it? The team shared in the sacrifice in order to keep the business viable, in order to maintain profitability, in order to protect the ecosystem built upon trust, shared commitment, and interdependency. The better way forward is not a compromise. It is a commonsense consensus that a proper balance between globalized business interests and the daily life of most Americans should cultivate a culture of work to benefit the business itself, employees, and customers. Injecting the value proposition that work should have meaning, that companies should strive to protect the persons under their employ, and that product development should be seen as a shared experience provides the very foundation for profitability and long-term survivability of the business itself with innovation and efficiency properly ordered. What is good for persons is good for business. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.