[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5245-5247]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 5246]]

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,

[[Page 5247]]

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 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.

                          ____________________