The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM IS SPREADING ACROSS THE GLOBE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2059-H2062 on April 27, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 in confronting havoc throughout the world. We will continue to lead the fight against extremism, but we will not do so alone. A general assumption that we will maintain the majority of heavy lifting in combating regional terror, coupled with the lack of will amongst some of our allies, has created a status quo that is no longer sustainable.
As we recover from the shock of the bombings in Brussels, we must reclaim a central principal. Europe must fight. Complacency is no longer possible. The combined effects of a drifting European identity and a lack of appropriate enculturation among certain migrant populations, further compounded by this new migrant crisis, must be confronted with reason and resolve in order to keep Europe and the world safe. Only through this approach will Europe stabilize, regain a sense of vision, and remain a great and important source of a welcoming and cultural strength.
Mr. Speaker, as the world has focused on the death cult created by ISIS, our focus has drifted away from an equally grave threat: the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although the Iran agreement has, understandably, dominated headlines on this issue of late, North Korea's dynastic and despotic leadership continues its provocations. The country's young, insecure, ego-driven ruler seeks to consolidate his power and standing through destabilizing bravado, and he is backing it up with nuclear weapons development. In a region already roiled by increased Chinese military posturing, particularly in the South China Sea, North Korea's ongoing threats linger as one of the most complicated international dilemmas.
The possibility of nuclear weapon devastation is one of the most serious threats to civilization, itself. Unfortunately, the gravity of this challenge has not received ongoing critical attention in this body as a first order of priority. New intellectual rigor, strategic projection, and next generation ownership are necessary for nuclear security in the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I recall an incident when I was in graduate school. A prominent philosophy professor was visiting the campus, and he was known for a particular expertise.
I asked him: Would you give me a concise summary of the philosophical argument for immortality?
He was very excited by my request, and he actually invited me to his lectures on the topic. I did consider this a great privilege as, again, he was a very renowned professor. He was very kind to eagerly invite me to his class, but I could not really manage the 4 hours necessary to sit through his lectures, so I politely declined.
He then looked at me, and said: Ah, you have asked me a question about immortality, but you do not have the time.
We cannot afford to make the same mistake here on nuclear security--
not having the time. We are distracted by all types of considerations, but if we are to bring the probability of a nuclear catastrophe to as near zero as possible, we must make the time. Understanding how nuclear threats have evolved and how to resolve them most effectively is an urgent national priority.
Imagine, just for a moment, one of several scenarios. A terrorist organization collects enough radiological material to set off what is called a dirty bomb in the stadium, perhaps, of a major city. This would trigger widespread harm and panic. A smuggled package on a containership, with no need for a sophisticated weapons delivery system, explodes in a major U.S. harbor, causing widespread destruction and a loss of life. Worse yet, a reckless nation-state actor, such as North Korea's autocratic strongman, launches a missile attack against Seoul or even Los Angeles. Each future scenario is alarmingly feasible. No one enjoys thinking about this, nor do I, but ignoring this problem only amplifies the ongoing threat.
Americans deserve the assurance that our best and brightest minds are fervently engaged in their defense. They should be able to trust that policymakers on both sides of the aisle are working together for innovative and sustainable solutions to nuclear security concerns. In this age of anxiety and sound bite foreign policy, constituents should know, should believe, should have trust that Congress is leading where it matters most.
The leaders who courageously helmed our formidable nuclear enterprise through World War II and the cold war have now passed the baton to a new generation of policymakers and scientists. Now, as our world grows more complex, the challenges of nuclear proliferation have multiplied. The binary concept of mutually assured destruction is no longer relevant in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment. Nonstate actors play havoc with global treaties and normative rules, seeking to do horrifying harm. Rational responses to deterrence are no longer a guarantee.
Despite all of these challenges and the important issues that come before Congress, nuclear security, ironically, seldom surfaces in our national conversation outside highly specialized forums. The problem is real. The United States and our allies face a stark deficiency: nuclear security as a multidimensional issue with no longstanding constituency supportive of initiatives in Congress. That constituency must be built. This is of grave concern to us all. The constituency must be built.
In light of this problem, the Nuclear Security Working Group in Congress was founded to advance this discussion and help prevent the unthinkable. While the analytical and tactical expertise rightly should remain embedded in the Department of Defense, in the Department of Energy, in the Department of State, and in other executive branch entities, Congress must create an agile policy environment in this age of globalization and swiftly advancing technologies. We also need to awaken citizen concern in order to give momentum and consideration of the time necessary in this body with so many other distractions. Unfortunately, there is very little. The need for broader involvement, I believe, particularly extends to the millennial generation, the coming stewards of our nuclear security.
The community of responsible nations has much work ahead to achieve an ideal nuclear security settlement. Advances in reprocessing technology, nuclear power, and weapons infrastructure, once the exclusive domain of the nation-state, now pose serious proliferation concerns. Although many countries, thankfully, have altogether renounced the pursuit of nuclear weapons, turbulent situations in the Middle East and elsewhere are worsening an already hazardous global nuclear dynamic. A new architecture for nuclear security demands an ongoing effort by the responsible nations of the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit, hosted by President Obama recently in Washington, represented another important step in securing loose nuclear materials and in heightening collaboration. We need to sustain this in more international gatherings and multinational efforts to achieve an effective 21st century nuclear security strategy, one that prioritizes common ground on important strategic and nonproliferation priorities in a cooperative campaign to make our world safer.
Looking ahead, Mr. Speaker, in this regard, I anticipate an augmented role for the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as the IAEA, as a primary implementing agency of future verification initiatives. A revitalized spirit of unity, common purpose, and renewed dedication is essential to nuclear security in the 21st century, and we need robust platforms to do so, multilateral ones. Our challenge is that we cannot react to a nuclear crisis. We must act to prevent one--if we have the time.
Given the collapse of the nation-state order in the Middle East, as well as the technological advances and the potential for highly destructive weaponry to evolve in short order, what will our national security challenges look like in the next 20 to 30 years? It is quite serious. The answer lies in as much a values proposition as a military one. On a fundamental level, the question is whether the world can embrace, enculturate, and institutionalize the belief in human dignity and, from there, build out the governing and economic systems consistent with protecting innocent persons. That is the key.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we owe so much to the young men and women who are willing to risk everything in military service to take this integrated approach to international security. Put simply, I believe in the three Ds: strong defense, smart diplomacy, and sustainable development. All are necessary components for international stability and, thereby, our own national security. Closer to home, in order to have a stable society here, we also depend upon economic security.
We need to reexamine some fundamental questions as to what is causing such anxiety in our American culture. Our security problems are compounded by globalization trends that have left millions of Americans in dire need and dire straits of financial vulnerability. I recently saw a presentation by a CEO of a major company. I thought we were getting ready for a PowerPoint with charts and graphs of financials. Instead, this CEO put a picture up of a father with his daughter, a bride on his arm, as they were walking down the aisle on her wedding day. He said this to us: Everyone is someone's daughter. Every person is someone's son.
The point was powerfully made. The understanding of work and the workplace are essential to human dignity and happiness.
I learned a little more about this company. During the financial crisis of 2008, the business lost about a third of its contracts. Reeling from the economic pressure, this CEO pulled all of his employees together and asked: Team, what are we going to do?
{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.
____________________
