Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as we think about the history of America, one of our finest hours as a country came on the shores of France on D-day--June 6, 1944. We are all familiar with the general details of that battle--the missed zone drops of the paratroopers the night before, the slaughter that met the first assault on Omaha Beach, and the heroics of our rangers at Pointe du Hoc. But, Mr. Speaker, among the lesser known facts, the troops that hit Utah Beach, under the command of General Theodore Roosevelt, actually landed in the wrong place; and while landing with his men and realizing his error, General Roosevelt responded by saying, ``The war starts here.'' Mr. Speaker, after American forces landed on that day, fought across Europe with key allies, and, ultimately, defeated the Nazis, the United States was cast into the role of the world's lone superpower. Now, not perfectly, but at great sacrifice to our country, we then began to create the space for international order. We forged the conditions for international commerce, including helping other countries develop their economies and create governing systems rooted in high, universal ideals. Mr. Speaker, as we know, times have changed. We no longer live in a unipolar world, and in the wake of last month's horrifying attacks in Paris, America's longstanding ties with the French have gained a new significance. The Islamic State, called ISIL, targeted a stadium, cafes, and a theater--an act of nihilistic destruction against innocent civilians who were just beginning to enjoy their weekend. Beyond just destroying large swaths of the Middle East and many of its inhabitants, precipitating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, again, this so-called Islamic State has now killed French secularists and Catholics, they have attacked the Russian Orthodox by blowing up a civilian airliner, and they have killed Shiite Muslims in Beirut. But now, Mr. Speaker, it has happened to us. In San Bernardino, a couple embraced this twisted religious death cult, deciding to kill innocent people in order to satisfy a bizarre, apocalyptic vision. Mr. Speaker, foreign policy is complicated, especially in the Middle East, but this new level of terrorism has brought three critical issues into focus. First, the international community has a responsibility to fight ISIL. The world constantly pushes America to the forefront of needed military action, but the entire community of responsible nations, including certain Sunni Arab countries, must engage in this conflict. It is not the United States' responsibility alone. We can lead--we will lead--but it must be in solid concert with responsible world powers. France has now properly responded with its own air campaign, backed by our intelligence. This resolve could compel more Europeans to rethink their vulnerability and take decisive action themselves. The United Kingdom has now expanded its effort as well. Second, Mr. Speaker, it is time to face a gruesome reality--that the targeted and systematic violence against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in the Middle East is genocide. ``Genocide'' is a powerful word, but the world must recognize this grim reality and work to support the most vulnerable minorities in the Middle East. No responsible approach to this tragic situation unfolding in Iraq and in Syria can ignore their plight and the plight of other innocent people. In an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to elevate the world's consciousness about this difficulty, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 75, a resolution of the House of Representatives, calling the slaughter of Christians and other ethno-religious minorities by its proper name--genocide. Similar measures are being introduced in parliaments throughout the world. Christians and other vulnerable minorities in the Middle East and elsewhere must be accorded tolerance and religious liberty--one of the cornerstones of our own society. Thankfully, the resolution now has 160 bipartisan cosponsors, and it is gaining swift and broad support throughout Congress. Hopefully, we will bring this legislation to a vote for next year, and it will serve to elevate the consciousness of the world as to this horrific problem and will, perhaps, provide a gateway for constructive policy considerations. Christianity in the Middle East is shattered. Christians, Yezidis, and others are a vibrant but an endangered spectrum of minorities, and they need our help now. In the face of ISIL's onslaught, we must help them by forming an ecumenical alliance. We cannot afford to wait. These ancient faith traditions have every right to maintain their ancient homelands and, in turn, contribute to a stabilizing diversity of voices in both culture and new forms of governance. Third, the related issue of refugees and migration points to the collapse of the nation-state order. Now, granting asylum is a responsible, humanitarian impulse, but simply accommodating more asylum to the tragedy is a reaction and not a viable, long-term policy proposition and one that has to be reconciled with both national security and capacity concerns. Attacking the injustice that leads to refugee flight must be a top priority, followed by new political structures that allow people to remain where they are in safety or to return to their ancient homelands. This is a precondition for long-term stability in the Middle East. An immediate step could be the enforcement of safe zones, especially for the vulnerable minorities in Iraq and Syria. In the country of Syria, there is an old Roman road named Straight Street. It runs through the middle of the capital of Damascus. Mr. Speaker, you might remember the road from the Biblical story. After Saint Paul was blinded and knocked from his horse, God told him to visit the house of Judas and seek out a Christian named Saul. Tradition holds that the house of Judas still stands on Straight Street even today. Syria is an ancient country made up of peoples with mixed cultural traditions. Four years ago, as we all know, a civil war broke out. The halting and gruesome conflict, which has killed hundreds of thousands and has displaced millions, is now entering a new phase with new complexities. The dictatorial leader of Syria, Bashar Assad, faces a shifting patchwork of enemies, including ISIL. He has clung to power in the coastal regions of that country, where he continues his dynasty's bloody rule. Ironically, he is a trained ophthalmologist who practiced for years in London, only to assume power after the death of his elder brother. It is hard to understand Assad's motive, except, perhaps, to protect his own religious minority tradition, called the Alawites. A couple of years ago, I predicted that Assad would not survive long, but as some uprisings descended into a winter of irrational religious extremism, causing more destabilization and helping to create the conditions for terror groups like ISIL to metastasize, Assad has tenaciously maintained control over much of western Syria. In his battle for control, his murderous regime has contested armed opposition groups, some of them also murderous, and it has all worsened the conflict. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here is a very conflicted reality: The preservation of some stability in certain Syrian zones has offered safety to other religious and ethnic minorities. Two years ago, the House of Representatives confronted a choice. The President called for military action against Assad after Assad's use of chemical weapons. I voted against the President's proposed intervention, as did a vast majority of my colleagues. We felt that the United States did not need to enter into another military entanglement in the Middle East, and many people expressed justifiable fears that, if Assad were overthrown, something even worse might replace his government. Events since then have given that fear additional credibility. Had the United States succeeded in toppling Assad, ISIL might have seized even more of that country, perhaps threatening Lebanon and gaining proximity to Israel's borders. Now enter Russia into the equation. During the debate over whether to strike Assad, Russia brokered a deal to help facilitate the acquisition and destruction of the government's chemical weapons, voiding the immediate possibility of a military confrontation between Washington and Damascus. Now, 2 years later, Russia has, once again, taken an active role in the Syrian civil war, enhancing and building military bases in Assad's territory and launching air strikes against Syrian opposition groups, including ISIL. Several factors are influencing Putin's latest gambit to empower Assad. First, Putin wants to revive a Russian sense of nationalism--an almost metaphysical understanding of a Russian realm of influence. Look back at his recent speech at the U.N. He rejects a unipolar world wherein the United States sets the rules for commerce and governance and values. Furthermore, he is suspicious of liberal democracy, preferring, instead, his idea of stability even if it is achieved at the hands of strongmen. Second, Russia has a longstanding diplomatic, security, and economic arrangement with the Syrian Government, enabling him to expand his country's military presence there while also bolstering his political standing at home. Third, Syria also has a rich Orthodox Christian heritage that survives as a minority faith in Assad's controlled territory. Putin sees his venture as protecting that familial alliance. Foreign policy analysis has largely overlooked this consideration as an important dimension of Putin's motives. Russia claims to be fighting the terrorists. If true, their intervention could emerge as a point of convergence for the United States, Russia, and civilized interests; but that remains somewhat hypothetical at this moment, and there are significant signs of conflict escalation. Russia could help avert humanitarian disaster by focusing more intently on attacking ISIL. Currently, Putin is also choosing to fight other Syrian opposition forces with the possibility of furthering the protracted civil war. The best scenario would be for Russia's involvement to create the space for a transition period for a new, more stable governing structure to replace Assad in the West. ISIL could be further pushed into the eastern desert, and a true international coalition could emerge to defeat this threat to civilization. Advancing this scenario is a key policy marker in what should be the overarching geopolitical strategy of the United States. Of the many possible futures for the Middle East, one must certainly be avoided: Islamic militants sweeping across places like Straight Street in Syria, continuing to destroy ancient monuments in Palmyra and Nimrod, killing all the way from Mosul to the Mediterranean, threatening to raise its black banner of death from Damascus to D.C. The prevention of peril in the 21st century requires a new cooperative strategic arrangement to fight dark ideology, twisted theology, and barbarism across the globe. ISIL represents ninth century barbarism, but with 21st-century weaponry. ISIL is battling the very essence of civilization. Beyond the bloodshed itself, ISIL attacks the underlying philosophical proposition of the West that all persons have inherent dignity, which is the source of our rights. Mr. Speaker, we stand at a solemn crossroads. The world must fight back on two fronts against ISIL and for the time-honored philosophical principles and values that sustain an orderly existence in the flourishing of any truly good society. So depends the beauty of Paris. So depends the protection of communities like San Bernardino. So depends the security of the world and the protection of innocent people everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I had an extraordinary privilege this summer on the 71st anniversary of D-day. This is a picture, a photo, of Utah Beach, one of the beaches where our troops first stormed through, where General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., came through with his men and declared, ``We'll start the war from right here.'' General Roosevelt went on 1 month later to die in battle of a heart attack. He was ill. He disguised his illness because he wanted to be in leadership with his troops. He is buried at the Omaha Beach Cemetery, which contains nearly 10,000 American troops who gave their lives. He is buried next to his little brother, Quentin Roosevelt, who was an aviator, a flier, in World War I. Here you have two sons of a President of the United States who gave their lives in the two great wars of last century. On this spot, Mr. Speaker, there is a new monument. That is a Higgins boat troop carrier with a replica of soldiers storming onto the beach. I am very proud of the fact that this monument is a replica of one that is in Columbus, Nebraska, a small town in my congressional district. It was built by the people of Columbus, shipped here, and placed for the 71st anniversary celebration of D-day. A great sacrifice financially and time-wise, many people in the community of Columbus came together to build this extraordinary monument as a gift to France, but primarily as a perpetual memory of those who fought and died. Both Quentin Roosevelt, General Roosevelt, and so many other young men and women gave their lives for a set of interlocking ideals, the beauty of liberty and the protection of human dignity, which, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in our fallen world, must sometimes be preserved by a willingness to confront darkness, by a willingness to confront that which is irrational. It is this same struggle, the same struggle that took place here, that we must engage in today. Unlike this struggle, it requires a different global effort, but it is the same struggle for the tranquility of order, for the security of the world, and for the protection of America. 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time. I would like to begin this evening by yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I walked through the airport recently, I noticed a young teenager. She was traveling and was seemingly happy to be involved in whatever activity she was going to. She wore a button on her lapel. It said: What you do matters. It caught my attention: What you do matters. I liked it. I am not sure what was motivating her, but she wanted to communicate an important value to elevate an ideal. I simply admired her willingness to take a stand. Mr. Speaker, I should say this now, though: There is a troubling statistic out there, and a recent survey highlights this. A majority of Americans do not identify with what America has become. Many people feel our country is slipping away. In reality, most want to reclaim the promise of our great Nation. Contrary to the barrage of negativity, most people hope for justifiable goals: to regain power over their own lives, to regain power over the government, and to regain power over their own economic prospects. Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of America's system of government is its capacity for constant replenishment. Opportunities sometimes present themselves unpredictably. That gives us a chance to reassess and realign in new and compelling ways, both to preserve important traditions as well as to restore the future promise of our Nation. A stronger America might be glimpsed through what I call four interlocking principles, the first of which is government decentralization; second, economic inclusion; third, foreign policy realism; and, fourth, social conservation. Let's take that first point. A return to a more decentralized government will restore an important source of America's strength. When the Federal Government grows beyond its effective purpose, it infringes upon basic liberty, it stifles innovation, it crushes creativity, and it impedes our responsibility for one another in the community. A creeping tendency to nationalize every conceivable problem and nationalizing every conceivable discussion erodes the community's input. While the Federal Government does have an important central role in maintaining the guardrails of societal stability, the rule of law, and a fair opportunity economy, America's governing system is designed to operate most effectively at varying levels. Those close to an opportunity or those close to a problem ought to have the first authority to seize the opportunity or to solve the problem. Second: economic inclusion. Economic inclusion should help America recover from an arthritic economy. You see, Mr. Speaker, when power concentrates in a Washington Wall Street axis, where the transnational corporation is an emerging ruling entity and where small business--the source of most jobs in America--is suffocated under increasingly complex dictates, the opportunity for a strong and vibrant marketplace diminishes. A vibrant market actually expands the space for constructive interdependency and community dynamism, fighting poverty, and driving innovation. Third: foreign policy realism. Foreign policy realism should chart a new course between isolationism and over-interventionism. America has an important leadership role to play on the world stage. Today, however, many Americans are alarmed by an exhausted, drifting, and often counterproductive foreign policy. After World War II, America was cast in the role of the world's superpower and at great sacrifice. We, as a country, created the space for international order. But now we live in a multi-polar world. Other countries, which we helped empower through our generous sacrifice, must take a seat at the table of responsible nations. Leveraging America's strength through strategic international partnerships will help us navigate a 21st century that is marked by ever-shifting geopolitical frameworks. The fourth point: social conservation. What does that mean? Social conservation preserves the condition for order, for opportunity, and for happiness. We must fight back against dimming hope and diminishing opportunity and darkening shadows. A healthy society depends upon more than politics for the promotion of sustainable values. America has many mediating institutions, as we call it--important civic institutions, if you will--which uphold greater ideas. As an example, Mr. Speaker, I am a proud, long-time member of the Rotary Club in Lincoln, Nebraska. At every Rotary Club meeting across this country, in which hundreds of thousands of Americans participate, there hangs a banner at the front of the club, and it reads: ``Is it true? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?'' Perfect. Beautiful. Perhaps we ought to hang the banner right here, Mr. Speaker. That is a pretty good game plan. As new leadership emerges on the national stage, perhaps this is the moment to think critically about how we regain the high ground of purposeful government, an opportunity economy, a balanced foreign policy, and a flourishing culture in a good society. We need to play all four quarters. Ultimately, both the government and the marketplace are downstream from our culture; and with a heavy heart, I say this--everyone knows it--America's social fabric is fraying. Many people are experiencing deepening anxiety about the future direction of the country. The recent attack in San Bernardino has only intensified the feeling. A crazed couple, driven by its twisted religious ideology, murdered indiscriminately those at a social services center. It is a horrible tragedy and a grotesque irony, and our hearts feel for those who were so gravely harmed. A genuine multiculturalism--long a hallmark of the American experience--will continue to decay into discord unless two mutually supporting conditions are sustained: a genuine appreciation of organic differences and a binding substructure of universal ideals and shared values. One such value is that we do no harm to others, and a religion that teaches killing is no religion at all. Other important values include trustworthiness, thrift, citizenship, courteousness, and so on. By the way, Mr. Speaker, a helpful list of these ideals, of these virtues, is found in the Boy Scout Law. This values crisis is compounding this three-part problem of government overreach, economic exclusion, and cultural dislocation. A centralizing government seems decreasingly able to understand, much less address, the needs of its citizens it should serve. In the midst of this divisive political season, partisan dysfunction, and bureaucratic inertia, it is all hindering the proper progress toward addressing our country's most pressing problems, and it overshadows important local initiatives where certain problems can best be solved. Not everything is a Federal issue. A private sector which is consolidating corporate power, often underwritten by the State, is disenfranchising the small business sector. A loss of genuine choice and genuine competition of economic pluralism reduces the ability of people to participate, own, and innovate in a marketplace that is truly free and can deliver widespread prosperity. A culture of contrasting philosophies, more and more inflamed by caustic rhetoric, is contributing to what some believe are irreconcilable social divisions. An impoverished account of individualism, of a liberty reduced to autonomous choice and divorced of responsibility creates the conditions for social anarchy, which further creates the conditions for counterproductive government interventions, lawless overreach, and intrusive market manipulations. Then add into this mix a confusing assortment of values choices that are driven more by experimenting elites than by the stability of sound tradition, and you have the recipe for harmful disruption. No wonder there is so much sadness in the world. As politicians and the media debate policy positions, we must understand that authentic solutions involve a return to essential value propositions. The application of proper principles to these problems would enable us in Washington to better assuage widespread and justifiable angst with appropriate government policy, with appropriate government decentralization, and with dynamic economic inclusion, supported by a hope-filled culture. That is our answer. As you enter my State--I live in Nebraska--the sign reads: ``. . . the good life.'' A good life is found in freedom and responsibility. A just and orderly society is founded and sustained by persons who care. What we all do does really matter, just like my young teenage friend--I would like to call her a ``friend''--displayed in the airport recently. Mr. Speaker, late this summer, before school began, I took my younger children on a family trip to western Nebraska. Near Valentine, Nebraska, which is in an area called the Sandhills, water from the underground aquifer--it is called the Ogallala Aquifer--seeps out of the ground and falls dramatically over rock formations and into a stream that then feeds into the Niobrara River. The area is called Fort Falls, and it is a part of the Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. The stream's icy cold water flows like a river into the shallow warm water that is running in the Niobrara. What is even more interesting to ponder, as you look around, are the steep slopes on both sides of the beautiful river. On the north bank, rocky hill formations are covered with pine trees. On the south bank, the trees are much different. You see the last reach of the eastern deciduous forest, with a mixed variety of plants and hardwood trees just like you would see here in Virginia. It looks like California on one side, and across the river here in Virginia on the other. Right there, where I live in Nebraska, we are the geographic center of our country, where east meets west. As a part of that trip, we also took a drive northward into the State of South Dakota, into the Black Hills, to a place called Mount Rushmore. It happened to be the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally that weekend, so I and about 2 million other bikers were on the road. Everyone knows the four faces on Mount Rushmore. Each of the four American Presidents embodied great qualities and faced significant challenges: George Washington was a transcendent leader who purposefully walked away from power, giving our early Republic a chance to grow into a vibrant democracy; Thomas Jefferson's life was seemingly full of conflicts and contradictions, but his efforts gave rise to the Declaration of Independence, which poetically expressed an understanding of the dignity and the rights of all persons, which so beautifully still informs our culture and our government to this day; Abraham Lincoln made a midcourse correction in his life. He rejected an early snarky, political, antagonistic attitude and turned toward a vision of that which is noble and good. His reputation as a skillful and humble leader extended well beyond the Civil War to many important endeavors, including the development of land grant institutions all over this country, like the University of Nebraska; Theodore Roosevelt had to rebuild his life after his wife died at a young age. His boundless energy, translating into multiple accomplishments, perhaps helped him outpace a haunting melancholy from which he suffered. As an avid hunter, he grew to recognize the importance of wildlife preservation. Beyond the natural places that he preserved, perhaps Roosevelt's greatest legacy was one of trust busting--breaking up concentrations of economic power that locked so many Americans out of a fair shot at economic opportunity. Four great Presidents. Four men who sacrificed greatly to give us what we have today. Today, Mr. Speaker, many people in the country are experiencing a serious disquiet about all of these challenges that we are facing. They feel disconnected from the ability to control their own well-being. These concentrations of power are overwhelming the capacity of individuals to shape their own environments. Political and economic and cultural cartels are growing more powerful, and, in some ways, they are more hidden and destructive than in Roosevelt's time. Of course, today, political problems are on everyone's mind. This concentration of power stifles innovation and creativity; and as money flows into the political system, it pays for the polarization which hinders the ability of our body to find constructive solutions. This transcends, by the way, the current partisan divide. Our increasingly interconnected world offers significant benefits and opportunities to us, but globalization also introduces forces that can leave so many Americans feeling helpless. Transnational corporate conglomerates, often buttressed by oligarchic political systems, are shrinking the space for genuine choice and competition in the private sphere. As I talked about earlier, the stress of small business is very real. This concentration of economic power endangers true free market principles, which should be working for the many. On a deeper level, America's political disrepair and economic malaise signal an underlying brokenness in our society, in our culture. Persons--humans--thrive in relationships with our families and communities in a healthy society, which creates the preconditions for this human flourishing. Cultural consolidation and social discord have left more and more people, again, feeling directionless and feeling alone. Weakening relationships and weakening social institutions foreshadow and prefigure political and economic problems. Ultimately, renewing America--restoring America's government and economy--requires reclaiming a vibrant civil society, which is the true source of our Nation's strength. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever driven through those Black Hills, which I spoke of earlier--the one-lane tunnels and winding hairpin turns-- they form a very beautiful but a very arduous journey, even without all the motorcycles around you. As you continue that journey, looking for something, an opening then appears in the trees, and you see it--that magnificent piece of art, carved in stone, with four of America's greatest Presidents. Their likenesses are in the rock, timeless and unchanging; but the ideals they represent must be reestablished in each generation. The renewal of America will depend, in large part, on whether or not we can grasp what these leaders stood for and whether or not we can make the sacrifices necessary to reclaim our country's potential in this time, our time. Mr. Speaker, what we all do matters. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, with great solemnity and gratitude, today I wish to honor four grace-filled women. Each of them were called to live their faith in the nation that bears their Savior's name. Each worked tirelessly to bring hope, healing, and joy to the poor of El Salvador. Each were bound together in tragedy on December 2, 1980. Maryknoll Sisters Ita Ford and Maura Clarke, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and a young woman named Jean Donovan each traveled different paths to El Salvador. In the words of Sister Dorothy, they were united by a powerful sense of responsibility to ``spread the Gospel to people who needed help.'' They sought to bring peace and comfort to vulnerable persons caught in a maelstrom of political turmoil on the cusp of a brutal 12-year civil war that followed the 1980 murder of newly beatified Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was killed by an assassin's bullet as he said Mass. Mr. Speaker, Sister Dorothy and Jean had each joined a mission team from the diocese of Cleveland, Ohio. Together they worked to ferry food and medical supplies to the sick and wounded, in whom they saw the face of Christ. Sister Dorothy had been engaged, but postponed her marriage to test a call to religious life. Jean Donovan wanted to get closer to Christ in the poor, though her friends hoped that she would leave El Salvador. Reunited with her fiance briefly to attend a friend's wedding in Ireland, Jean actually chose to stay in El Salvador a little bit longer. She was drawn by the beauty and warmth of the Salvadoran people. Sister Ita and Sister Maura, both from New York and born nearly 10 years apart, had each sought a life of service through the Maryknoll religious sisters. Their paths led through Chile and Nicaragua, respectively, and ultimately to El Salvador, where they each responded to Archbishop Romero's call, a plea for help. It has been said of Sister Ita that ``her twinkling eyes and her elfin grin would surface irrepressibly, even in the midst of poverty and sorrow.'' Sister Maura, for her part, ``was outstanding in her generosity, always saw the good in others, and could always make those whose lives she touched feel loved.'' Mr. Speaker, all of these women could have left. Instead, they remained in El Salvador to be faithful. Sister Maura said, ``There is a real peace here in spite of many frustrations and the terror around us. God is very present in His seeming absence.'' They gave all that they had to the poor and homeless, whose difficulties were compounded by the counterinsurgency that indiscriminately leveled many innocent lives in its crossfire. Mr. Speaker, while in college myself, pondering the essence and meaning of things, trying to figure out my own pathway, I heard the news of these women's deaths. The rape and murder of these selfless women greatly disturbed me. I remember going to Mass and, overcoming my own hesitancy, offered a prayer for them during the community's Prayer of the Faithful. The love that moved these four women to fly into the eye of the hurricane--because they could not bear to see vulnerable people suffer without recourse, without help--profoundly affected me and remains a part of my life today. As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to laud the example of these exceptional heroines. Having met with members of El Salvador's congress, I have witnessed firsthand now the work of reconciliation that is going on, the healing of lives haunted by painful memories. When I first learned about the decades-long outpouring of love in service, vigils, prayers, and charitable programs that were inspired by the example of these courageous women, I felt moved to actually take some small part in these celebrations, thus this talk today. In recalling their noble sacrifice, it is my fervent hope that responsible nations throughout this hemisphere will see in the lives of these martyrs of El Salvador a path to genuine prosperity. We can honor them fittingly by embracing the truly needy with integrity, peace, and justice, in genuine mutual solidarity as they live their lives.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 18, 2015, I was attending a family funeral and thus missed roll call votes Numbers 504, 505, and 506. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Number 504 and ``yea'' on Numbers 505 and 506.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, in just a few moments, we will hear from a number of colleagues who are all here gathered in great sadness and with heavy hearts to denounce, once again, another revelation of another gruesome practice by the organization--the taxpayer-funded organization--called Planned Parenthood. Madam Speaker, it is important to note that Planned Parenthood was founded in racism. It profits from the pain of abortion, and now it traffics in baby parts. How much more do we have to know to awaken us, awaken our conscience as a nation, to the gruesome realities again of this taxpayer-funded organization? So I am pleased that my colleagues have gathered tonight to talk more in depth about this, but also to highlight the fact that we are all interested in ongoing congressional investigations to determine what efforts, what laws, or what new steps need to be taken to ban the unethical and dehumanizing practice undertaken by Planned Parenthood. We must challenge this assault on human dignity, especially to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. I find it very interesting, Madam Speaker, that the early feminist movement was dedicated to protecting women from abortion.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Mr. Huizenga and Mrs. Maloney for their very thoughtful reflections on the history and importance of Boys Town. I greatly appreciate the sentiments offered. I am very happy and proud to stand here in support of the centennial commemorative coin. As was mentioned, Boys Town was founded in 1917 by Father Edward Flanagan and has since grown from a small local home for children who found themselves in difficult circumstances in Omaha to one of the largest nonprofit, nonsectarian child and family service organizations in America. Boys Town offers a remarkable model of academic and spiritual engagement. Students learn more than math and grammar, as important as that is. Their teachers and caregivers provide them with solid formation. Graduates are equipped to succeed not only professionally, but are also given the life skills to stay on the right path. Boys Town is so impactful that about 90 percent of the children who come there integrate successfully back into their communities; and historically, many, over time, have joined the military. What is this extraordinary model of intervention? It starts with a family. Each child is placed into a family with a caring, nurturing mother and a protective, giving father, where there are rules and expectations, discipline, and love. The success of Nebraska's Boys Town has recently been duplicated across many, many communities in our country. Their network of 11 national sites and national hotlines touches the lives of more than 2 million Americans each year. On December 2, 2017, Boys Town will celebrate 100 years of saving children and helping to heal families. In honor of this 100-year anniversary, this legislation, again, would authorize the U.S. Mint to produce a series of commemorative coins with a design emblematic of Boys Town's 100-year history. These coins, of course, will be available to the general public for sale and will more than offset the cost of minting by the Treasury. As was mentioned earlier, there will be no cost to the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, Boys Town is a quiet institution nestled in the heartland, my home. It does great service to America by helping to heal wounds during this socially fractured time. A quick story, Mr. Speaker: last year, I had the privilege of participating as a commencement speaker at Boys Town. After I finished my address, the young people were called forward to receive their diplomas in a ceremony marked with great dignity and formality and even lightheartedness. Even though family and friends and those visiting were told to please hold their applause, the excitement couldn't be contained. As each graduate crossed the stage, shouts of joy and encouragement and clapping continued throughout the whole event. Prior to the graduation, students had gathered for a retreat, giving them the opportunity for reflection and recommitment. During their last time together, the seniors discussed what they had to say. Here are quotes from a few of them. I ran in the wrong crowd, hated my family, kept running away from home, and inflicted self-harm. At Boys Town, I am a member of the Junior ROTC and learned to like myself and my family. I look forward to returning home and being a good example to my younger brother. Another said: I lived on the streets from age 10 to 13 and stole to eat. I ended up in prison, and my cousin got shot in the face. I never played sports, let alone attended school, but at Boys Town, I just finished playing baseball this year and signed on with a college to study business. Another child said this: My mom and dad were both in prison, and I had trouble since kindergarten. In junior high, I was locked up myself for 2 years, and when I got out, my mom died. My dad was still in prison. Since I have lived at Boys Town, I chose to get myself on the right track and graduate and made a promise to myself that I would never do anything that would land me in prison. Boys Town saved my life. Mr. Speaker, fortunately, most children do not experience such trauma in their lives, but some do. These are the kids who bear the scars of fraying social and familial bonds, destructive choices, and legal difficulty. Through no fault of their own, the great problems of our time fall most heavily on our young people. Economic hardship and broken families destroy the sense of safety and possibility that is a necessary antidote to social alienation. Every child needs a nurturing environment of compassionate challenge and genuine promise. Education should cultivate that creativity, as well as dignity, allowing all boys and girls to realize their full potential. Today, we have an opportunity to celebrate the lives of remarkable young men and women and the extraordinary institution that is serving them so well. By authorizing this Boys Town commemorative coin, we are investing in the future of our children in a simple but I think really impactful way. I want to thank the nearly 300 bipartisan Members of this Congress who have signed on as cosponsors of this bill. I think that is an important statement. I would also like to thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters as well for their leadership on the committee.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the time. I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Graves, for the gentlemanly way in which we have conducted this debate. This is a transpartisan issue. We have got Democrats and Republicans divided on each side of the aisle, which is a bit unusual, but nonetheless, this is important. I support the Open World Leadership Center. I am on its board. It has been mentioned that this is better nested within the State Department. The State Department does have a myriad of programs. However, this is a legislative branch program, and we should not outsource our responsibility there. This program was formed in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union in order to give a chance for the development of legal structures, stabilized civil society, and the opportunity for democracy to evolve. While the primary focus was on Russia, that component has been suspended, and this program has taken a very substantial cut down from $10 million to about $6 million now. To jettison it gets rid of very important deliverables. Over 23,000 judges, politicians, emerging civil society leaders, and young people have participated in this program, including 15 members of Ukraine's parliament, 15 members of Moldova's parliament, 8 Russian governors; 51 percent of the participants are women. Mr. Chairman, the military tells me: Send us in last. We will send billions and billions of dollars of lethal military aid to a country, but the military says: Do everything you can to build up good will and trust and relationships in stable societies so that we do not have to resort to what none of us wants to resort to. The Open World Leadership Center fulfills that role in an effective way. There are changes that I hope will be forthcoming to make it more effective in the future. I hope we will preserve this important legislative priority which cannot be replicated, essentially, by the State Department.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her leadership on this important issue. Madam Speaker, there is a rule in the House of Representatives that any little child who is a guest of ours can come right down here and be in the well with us. Now let's assume for a moment that one of those children tripped and fell and hurt themselves and cried out in pain. There is not a Member of this body that wouldn't rush to their side and comfort them. And that is what this bill does today. It rushes to the side of children who are feeling the pain of violence of abortion. Let's stand with them. Let's stand with women who deserve better than the aggressive tactics of the abortion industry and their profit seeking and marketing. Let's rebuild our Nation's compassion capacity so that we can understand what is right and just by protecting the little ones who are most vulnerable. Let's do something good for America today.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for trying to work with me. This is a difficult position. The chairman has a very difficult task here of balancing competing ends. I really appreciate the way in which he has artfully drawn together an important bill here. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is my understanding that our chairman, Chairman Simpson, as well as Ranking Member Kaptur actually support this amendment. I want to express my gratitude to the chairman for working with me and thinking critically as to how we make our nuclear nonproliferation architecture more robust. What this amendment does is it moves $13.8 million from the mixed oxide portion of our nonproliferation account over to the nuclear smuggling and detection account and the research and development account as well. Nuclear smuggling and detection is an important part of our nonproliferation regimen, and research and development into better techniques to detect the illicit movement of fissile material or technology has to be one of the more robust policy considerations moving forward, not only in this appropriations bill but as a body here, ensuring that we, again, are focused singularly on the nonproliferation threats that are occurring throughout the world as this technology spreads and as fissile material potentially becomes more available to those who would use it for potentially great harm. I also want, in the amendment, to point out why this money is taken from the mixed oxide program. Currently in the bill, we are spending about $345 million on this program. But MOX is expensive, and its future is unclear. We have to come to some policy decision here. We keep digging this hole and digging this hole. This policy is adrift, and it is costing taxpayers a great deal of money. It is not fair in terms of public policy. It is not fair to taxpayers. It is not fair to the people of South Carolina and Georgia because of this uncertainty. So we need a decision here. If it is, No, we are not going to proceed with MOX, then we have to develop an understanding of what we are going to do with this material, whether it is blend it down or store it or whether we need to rethink the entire public policy that led us to this point, which is about 20 years old, and whether perhaps this ought to become some sort of international consortium, for instance, to deal with this particular issue and share in the cost. If the answer is, Yes, we are going to proceed with MOX, then spending $345 million a year to sort of keep it open, with a little bit extra, and that cost to keep it open--to keep it in cold storage, as we say--is approximately $200 million, so we throw in a little more on top. It doesn't get us to final completion. It doesn't even really get us on that road. So the policy here is adrift, and we have got to come to some deeper consideration as to what we are going to do. The problem with MOX fundamentally is the initial cost was $1 billion. Now we are looking at $7 billion. The lifecycle costs are skyrocketing. So some clear, deliberate decision. And if it is ``yes,'' we need to expedite this, and we need to do so in a cost-conscious manner. If it is ``no,'' let's turn to other alternatives quickly so that we can move more of these funds into the robust portions of our nonproliferation regimen, our architecture to ensure that we bring down the probability of a nuclear weapons explosion as close to zero as possible, ensuring as well that we are keeping this material out of others hands. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, let me just reiterate my deep thanks to the chairman for his leadership on this. This is a tough one, and he is working aggressively to try to get to the heart of a prudential and good decision. Let me thank, again, the gentleman from California for his insights and participation as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who is the ranking member on the committee, as well as the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member on the subcommittee, for their outstanding work and help to me in bringing this legislation to the floor. This is important. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study for the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail. Now, Chief Standing Bear holds a very special place in Native American and U.S. history. Establishing a trail in his name would be an outstanding way to recognize his contributions to our great land. I would like to provide some additional background on this extraordinary individual, who prevailed in one of the most important court cases for Native Americans in our country's history. Chief Standing Bear was a Ponca chief. In the 1800s, the Ponca Tribe made its home in the Niobrara River Valley area of Nebraska. In 1877, the United States Government forcibly pressured the Poncas from that homeland, compelling them to move to the Indian territory in Oklahoma. Not wanting to subject his people to a confrontation with the government, Standing Bear obliged and led them from their homes on a perilous journey to the territory of Oklahoma. That journey was harsh and the new land was inhospitable. Nearly a third of the tribe died along the way from starvation, malaria, and other diseases, including Chief Standing Bear's little girl and, later, his son, Bear Shield. Before Bear Shield died, however, Standing Bear promised his son that he would bury him in their native land in the Niobrara River Valley. So Standing Bear embarked on the trip in the winter of 1878 to return to the homeland to bury his son, leading a group of about 65 other Poncas. When they reached the Omaha reservation, the United States Army stopped Standing Bear and arrested him for leaving Oklahoma without their permission. He was taken to Fort Omaha and held there until trial. In the meantime, Standing Bear's plight attracted media attention, first in the Omaha Daily Herald, which was the forerunner of the present-day Omaha World-Herald, and the story became well-publicized nationally. At the conclusion of his 2-day trial, Standing Bear was allowed to speak for himself. And then he raised his hand and he said this: ``That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I shall feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you will feel pain. The blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as yours. I am a man. God made us both.'' With these profound words in that late spring day of 1879, I believe Chief Standing Bear expressed the most American of sentiments: the belief in the inherent dignity and rights of all persons, no matter their color, no matter their ethnicity. Judge Elmer Dundy concurred, and he ruled that Native Americans are persons within the meaning of the law. Now, this is notable. This is 1879, and, for the first time, Native Americans are recognized as persons within the full meaning of the law. The story of the Ponca chief is a story of strength and grace and determination. I think it is a story that we need to tell over and over again so that it is understood and cherished by all Americans of future generations. Mr. Speaker, establishment of the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail would honor both the courage of this man and the great contribution to the freedom and the civil liberties of our Nation that he brought about. This bill is an important first step toward establishing the trail, and I look forward to continuing to work with the committee and the National Park Service to make this a reality.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, the international campaign to defeat ISIL depends in great part on the strength and effectiveness of trusted partners in the Middle East--trusted partners such as the Kurds. The Kurdish Peshmerga is a moderate and capable force. They are showing determined courage in fighting ISIL, and they are winning a number of strategic victories. The Kurds are also defending the values of tolerance and pluralism, sheltering hundreds of thousands of Christians, Yazidis, and innocent Muslim people who have fled ISIL's onslaught. They deserve robust support. Driven by a twisted form of Islam, ISIL's militants are eighth century barbarians using 21st century weaponry. The recent videotaped immolation of a caged Jordanian pilot is a horrific reminder of their brutality. They are now responsible for the deaths of four American hostages, including Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old humanitarian worker who was captured while assisting refugees in Syria. Confronted by such acts, the United States, Sunni Arab nations, and key allies, including Germany, France, and Britain, should enhance military support for the Kurds.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. We are classmates. While we are on different sides of the political aisle, nonetheless I hope that you consider me as much of a friend as I consider you.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Amen.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank you for listening to me and your commentary tonight. Let's continue our robust friendship and our collegiality as we work through differences and difficulties, which are inevitable in a body like this where there are indeed philosophical divides. There ought to be certain principles that unite us, and I have myself quoted from Dr. King's letter in the Birmingham jail in other speeches.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. A great expression. Thank you. Thank you, Judge Poe. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I deviated, I had some other thoughts that I wanted to convey tonight. Mr. Speaker, let me start out with this thought. It is a high goal, a principle, that I think across this body we all share, and it is this: Americans deserve a smart and effective government. I don't think nor do I think many of us believe that Washington should be mired in mediocrity, nor should we be divided by class or income, but I do think we have to acknowledge several difficult truths. I think our national conversation should also start here. The reality is we have a tale of two very different economic recoveries. One recovery was working pretty well for transnational corporations, many of which are subsidized indirectly by the state, but the other recovery is not working quite as well for everyone else. Too many families are facing downward mobility, stagnant wages, and an increased cost of living, and many feel abandoned by a Washington and Wall Street axis. There is an incomplete picture being given, I think, in the dynamics of the statistics that are now being promulgated about the current economy. Yes, we have some good news. Energy prices have significantly fallen, and that is taking a lot of pressure off a lot of sectors and a lot of individuals. Some recovery is happening. But as the head of the Gallup organization points out, the recent reports that the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent are really quite misleading. The Department of Labor doesn't count those who are trapped in unemployment and who have stopped looking. In fact, the further you unpack these statistics and you look at what is causing the causal relationship here is, unfortunately, we are entering into a period of what I am calling an entrepreneurial winter, where there are more small businesses dying than there are being born; in other words, the net outcome of small business creation is in a negative range for the first time in the history of our country. The reason this is significant is this is where most jobs come from. Most people in America are working hard and are looking for their opportunity in small business. We are not talking about larger entities, which have an important role in not only economic recovery and in creating employment for many, but small businesses are where the majority of jobs are created. It is also where this dynamic of an interdependent economy, a healthy economy, is really born, an opportunity economy, where the benign forces of competition create a certain interdependency between the one who is making a good with their own two hands or their intellect and selling it to another who needs that good and, in turn, reinforcing a social dynamic that is essential to personal well-being and a healthy economy. Well, how did we get into this position? I think we have to analyze this as well. Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call last spring, and the gentleman was very, very eager to talk to me, so I called him back. In fact, he was so eager to talk to me that he was actually sitting at the Nebraska spring football game where the white team versus the red team, they play it out. This is a big deal in Nebraska. Tens of thousands of people actually go to this game. He was sitting in the stands, and he took his time out from watching the Nebraska spring game to talk to me which is a high honor. He wanted to point out that he was a small business person. He owned and started a heating and air-conditioning business and, until very recently, had five employees. Because he could see what was coming-- particularly in health care--he got rid of all of his jobs, and it is just him now. If you ask the question--and analytics are showing this--as to why small businesses are not taking proper risk going out into the marketplace to create new products and hire people, there are two simple--this is a bit simplistic--but two answers are what come forward. The first is health care, and the second is regulation. You see, in the name of trying to create an orderly and just and fair economy when Washington overreaches and creates an environment that is setting up the guardrails for proper economic function, if it is too heavyhanded and it is penalizing those who don't have an army of lawyers and accountants and regulatory personnel, that means that the playing field suddenly shifts toward much bigger entities that, in many ways, can become impersonal. The more Washington imposes regulatory burdens that are affecting the outlook and expectation of small business people, the more they are hesitating to hire. The second factor is health care. Now, I think we have to have this hard conversation. We have a broken health care law. The Affordable Care Act, as it is called, could be called now the ``Unaffordable Care Act.'' The law was designed to fix some real cracks in our system that were very evident. People with preexisting conditions or people being priced out of the market were having a very difficult time finding health insurance, and that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed through Washington policy. But we need a health care system that is focused on decreasing cost and improving health care outcomes while also helping vulnerable persons. What we have gotten now is higher escalating cost, fewer choices, and a dampening effect on the entrepreneurial small business economy--again, where most jobs come from. It is not me saying this. This is what the statistics are bearing out and the research is bearing out; and it is a hard, hard reality. Instead of just saying ``no'' to the Affordable Care Act, those of us who have said ``no'' many times also have a responsibility to find a responsible replacement in public policy for us--again, one that is going to increase competition, improve health care outcomes, give additional choice, while also decreasing cost, and protecting vulnerable persons. Mr. Speaker, I think Americans deserve the best possible health care outcomes in the world. The question is how do we get there? Well, from my perspective, a new framework, a new architecture of approach is needed, but it basically expands a policy that we already have. A long time ago, I had a very significant headache. I was in my twenties. I carried my own health care policy, and it was very expensive, so I had a very high deductible. Because the headache was particularly severe, I decided: Well, I assume the family physician will probably just send me on to a specialist. So I called the ear, nose, and throat specialist directly and went and got an appointment. She did an x ray and said: I can't really tell from the x ray, so I am going to have to do a CAT scan. I said: Doctor, is that really necessary? You know, I understand the problem of liability and the need to push the boundaries on testing. Is it really necessary? She asked me directly, almost kind of indignant, she said: Why are you talking to me about this? I said: Because I am paying for this. My deductible is very, very high. I am actually paying the cost of this test. I just want to know if this is absolutely necessary. Help me to make that decision. She said: Oh, yes, of course, it is necessary. But now that you said that, I am just looking at your sinuses, so why don't we call places in town that have the machine and see if they will widen the cross section and give you a discount? I said: Great. In 3 minutes, she had her assistant call. We found a place in town that was about $75 cheaper than normal. The doctor got the test that she needed. Perhaps most importantly, in the aggregate, the resource was more properly allocated, all because I had the incentive to ask a simple question because I was actually paying for the test. Now, we have a policy that encourages health savings accounts. Some Americans have them; some Americans don't. They are not appropriate for every American, particularly Americans who are getting older and at the ending point of their professional careers, because health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic insurance are a very, very proper way, I think, to manage health care when you are younger and in middle life. We ought to be expanding this. The second point is: How do we get there? Guaranteed access to affordable, quality catastrophic health insurance with health savings accounts. What you get for that is you are protected. If something really goes wrong, if you are in the hospital in the emergency, you shouldn't be put in the position of asking: Who is the chief anesthesiologist around here? I need to compare prices. No, in those scenarios, you are protected. But in ordinary health care decisions, in partnership with your doctor--health care provider-- making prudential decisions about what is really necessary and what is not, I think this is a mechanism by which we can again significantly empower families to save money, control their first health care dollar cost, and be protected at the same time. The health savings account is a tax-preferred vehicle whereby money is set aside on a tax-preferred basis and accumulates over time. Now, most people in their lifetimes don't get significantly sick, so there is the opportunity here again for young people to begin to set aside money in this tax-deferred account that actually helps them pay for when ordinary medical expenses arise. Then again, if something really goes wrong, you have catastrophic insurance. Over time, these accounts would become larger and larger and help supplement retirement, help supplement the Medicare system, strengthening those important retirement security programs. I think this is a key to reworking our current health care model, not for everyone, but an expansion of this opportunity, I think, is the right architecture in moving forward for the next generation, particularly, so that we guarantee access to affordable, quality health care. I think we carry forward some important provisions in that no one with a preexisting condition can be denied. I think the provision whereby children can stay on their parents' health care longer, now until age 26--I actually supported that before the new health care law--is smart policy. We remove caps on insurance, but that doesn't save any money. It just penalizes those who get really sick. We carry those provisions forward, again, to protect persons in a vulnerable circumstance, but we give everyone the access to affordable, quality health insurance. There is a lot of detail that would go into how you would make that happen--whether or not you would spread that cost over the entire market through regulation or whether you would subsidize it like the government does in other insurance markets, like flood insurance and crop insurance. Nonetheless, I think that is the right framework and architecture for a robust, competitive health insurance marketplace that is going to improve health outcomes, reduce costs, and protect vulnerable persons. What will we get if we do this? What will we get if we are courageous enough as a body to step forward and say, ``Do you know what? We can do better. Americans deserve better than the current arrangement''? We will get peace of mind for ourselves and for our doctors. I think this would go a long way toward helping resolve the underlying problem here of stagnation in the economy, particularly among those who want to be entrepreneurs--small business persons who are creating jobs, those who have a gift or an idea and who want to take a little risk but who now aren't empowered to do so because of the environment that has been created that has dampened their ability to seize this opportunity. This would be the key to unlocking a healthy economy, one that is focused on opportunity for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, first, if my friend, Congressman Green, wouldn't mind staying a moment, I would like to offer a few comments on what you said. Unfortunately, I missed the larger body of your talk, but I would like to add a few things, if you don't mind.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I think it should be acknowledged that we were elected at the same time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I would like to note a couple of things you pointed out in your speech, and then you can move on with your evening. I don't want you to stay through my other comments, but nonetheless, you said a few things. You talked about the important progress that has been made in this country, and I think that is notable. You talked about that particularly difficult period in the 1960s, and you referred to Black History Month as America's history month as well. I think those are all notable comments, and I wanted to tell you that. In that tough time, something happened to me that I would like to share with you. I was not born in the State that I represent. Nebraska is my home. It is where I have decided to raise my family. It has given me a bounty of opportunity, and I am so privileged to be a Representative from Nebraska. I was born in the Deep South in a State where segregation and racial difficulties were particularly difficult. When I was in third grade, it was time for my birthday, and we had a birthday party and I invited all of my classmates. This was basically a White, middle class stable school in a stable neighborhood, but there was one African American family, either because of the beginning of desegregation that was taking place at that time or because they lived in proximity, they were at the school. One of the young boys was named Philip Brown. He was not only my classmate, but my friend. So I invited all of the boys, including Philip, to my birthday party. Philip didn't come. And I saw him on the Monday afterward and I asked him, I said: Philip, I didn't see you at my birthday party. Why didn't you come? He said: I did. They wouldn't let me in. Now this is an 8-year-old child. I remember then thinking during the party, my father had come over to me and whispered in my ear, in terms of the time, he said: Jeffrey, is Philip a Black boy? And I said: Yes, and I didn't think any more about it. He had to go outside. My father had to go outside and talk to Philip's father because the establishment there, unbeknownst to us, but the establishment didn't let in African American children. Now, I want to fast-forward, though. I told that story to my little children. I have five daughters, and they are growing up now, but I told this to them a few years ago. To your point about progress being made, they were visibly upset. They said: Daddy, you have to go find Philip. You have to go find him.