[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2059-H2062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM IS SPREADING ACROSS THE GLOBE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, upon visiting some of our wounded
[[Page H2060]]
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.
{time} 1930
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.
[[Page H2061]]
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?
{time} 1945
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
[[Page H2062]]
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.
____________________