Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my own remarks, I want to commend my colleagues for continuing to aggressively address the deep wound that so many people have experienced with this form of abuse in our military. Our military prides itself on its clear goal of protecting our Nation and doing their duty even to the point of self- sacrifice. So to think that certain members of the military would abuse others in this manner is not only unconscionable, but demands that this body act. So I want to commend my colleagues for their leadership in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation recently watched in horror as flight staff at a publicly traded airline, having failed to motivate volunteers with sufficient compensation, then called Chicago Aviation Police to forcibly remove one of the randomly selected passengers so they could seat their own employees instead. After the bloodied but unbowed victim was dragged from the flight, aircraft and airport personnel claimed they acted out of concern that they would lose their own jobs if they had not removed the passenger. The stated motive--that was later proven to be false--was that the flight was ``oversold.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, bizarrely, the airline CEO initially defended these actions. The corporation's airline personnel could have offered more money to find volunteers, but they did not choose to use that option. As a result, this airline-specific issue mushroomed into something far larger as Americans unleashed long-buried resentment against distant corporate structures that too often treat them just as incidentals.

Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: in technocratic bureaucracy, one size fits all. Management and optimization replace the art of human interaction. When entities grow too large and too distant from the persons they are designed to serve, when technical procedures rule over prudential judgment, when process is improperly elevated to an unyielding standard, persons are not only treated like cattle by airlines, but individuals--in this age of information--sense that they no longer matter.

When you treat people as abstractions, it is easier to push them around, like data points on a spreadsheet. The broken-nosed, busted- teeth, and concussed passenger could only mutter the words: ``Just kill me, just kill me.''

One man's last stand against Leviathan. What he experienced on that airplane struck such a visceral chord with me and so many others. Indignity has its limits--even beyond the limits of the Big Money corporate public affairs teams to manage.

Mr. Speaker, last year, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union; and right now, similar debates are taking place across the continent most seismically perhaps in the upcoming French election.

At its core, what is at issue?

It is this: whether more and more power should be consolidated in massive and detached, centralized, and technocratic bureaucratic institutions.

Many people are demanding decentralized alternatives that better harmonize the needs of particular persons in their particular places with the shared goals of security, immigration stabilization, environmental stewardship, and economic well-being. That is what the deeper debate is in Europe and about the European Union.

At its core, Mr. Speaker, I think the issue is this: even more deeply, economic development without a soul robs us of our capacity to fully prosper. Regular people are wondering if they have a seat at the table anymore, and home-team advantage continues to seem to go to a triumvirate class of Big Business, Big Data, and Big Government--a type of transactional aristocracy disconnected from the deeper needs of persons. That is at the core of what is being debated here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, indicting large corporate and governing structures is not merely the point I am trying to make. Certain types of development that come with larger-scale entities has been very positive as goods and services and ideas freely travel at speeds across the world that were unheard of just a few years ago.

Worldwide poverty has declined significantly as underdeveloped nations use their comparative advantage on costs to lift themselves to a higher economic standing.

Moreover, the creative disruption that accompanies technological innovation has yielded new powerful tools for communications, for medicines; and in commerce, it has helped create the sharing economy.

However, a thriving marketplace needs to work for larger swaths of America, including Nebraska, where I live, which remain distant from power centers. For more and more Americans and their families, globalized supply-side elitism has delivered downward mobility, a higher cost of living, wage stagnation, and skyrocketing inequality.

When you couple this with social fragmentation, this is a recipe for disaster, and profit-driven technocracy will not be our answer. It will not solve these challenges. Economics, Mr. Speaker, is more than math, is more than efficiency, and is more than management. It is the art of living.

Now, regarding the airlines, after much embarrassment, they settled with the passenger and instituted important reforms. Maybe this belated gesture signals that we have a better ticket forward. However, unless a new vision emerges of the proper relationship of governing economic and political systems to the persons that they serve, we will likely continue to be told: Just stay in your consumerist seat--unless we deign, yet again, to violently rip you from it.

The Deep State

Now, Mr. Speaker, a short distance from here, right through these doors, underneath the dome of our Nation's Capitol, hang eight large paintings that represent the scenes from our Nation's beginnings. In one of these paintings, George Washington is depicted. He is resigning his commission before the Continental Congress. This painting occupies a pride of place in our Nation's Capitol because it shows a profound and historic shift in the understanding of power. General Washington won the Revolutionary War. He enjoyed the support of his Army, yet he was not tempted to use that power for his own glorification. Instead, he returned it to the people.

Power is a tricky thing. It can be absolutely corrupting or it can be used for great good. Exceptional persons throughout history have used power to contribute to civilization. For others, power is a weapon to kill and plunder and crush others.

In our country, America, we embrace the noble way. In our Constitution, in its deepest sense, it really is about one thing: it is about the proper positioning of power, the proper control of power, and the proper transfer of power.

Mr. Speaker, let's now fast-forward to a recent event where a prominent Washington political insider recently wrote that he prefers ``the deep state.''

Now, what is that?

Although not widely known, the term ``deep state'' refers to a group of career employees of the military, intelligence services, and other agencies of the United States Government who have inordinate but often hidden power to influence policy and society.

It is posited that the deep state is particularly successful when it comes to halting or slowing implementation of government edicts deemed threatening to prudent stability or its own existence. This deep state, though, turns sinister when it operates outside of transparency and oversight. This concealed, controlling force, unfettered, can create an entirely new antidemocratic branch of our government.

However, I want to propose something, Mr. Speaker. This discussion about the deep state is bigger than the government itself. A broader understanding of the deep state requires insight into the network of institutions that attempt to manage society in multiple ways.

Some in the media, for instance, academia, and corporations orchestrate self-reinforcing narratives of technocratic or expert superiority. Frankly, again, this is why so many people in our country feel forgotten and are suspicious of what might be called the government-corporate-cultural complex.

The notion that elites supersede the decision of voters and their elected Representatives is contrary to our democratic tradition. It is also deeply offensive to the American understanding of the source of proper governance.

On the other hand, maintaining some consistency for the sake of order has merit. Retaining career civil servants, for instance, with strong institutional knowledge and experience is necessary for the uniquely smooth and peaceful transition of power that we enjoy in this country.

Those who have committed themselves to a career of government service and risen in the ranks, those in the media who have taken a long view of civic responsibility, those in business who have achieved outcomes and wish to share them for the betterment of society, ensuring the stability and proper functioning of our Nation's core operating systems during times of disruptive change, are the persons who make up another type of body in our culture who are taking responsibility for the systems that we enjoy.

The point is any analysis of the deep state is complex. A deep state that is mysterious and enigmatic, unidentified, that effectively triumphs over the will of the people, marginalizes our voices. At the same time, political transitions without the backup of those who maintain a continuity of service can both be volatile and destabilizing. There lies the tension.

President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. Perhaps the challenge of today's government-corporate-cultural complex is broader: a self-affirming, closed society that says there is only one way--our way--and you have to follow. Just plug into the technocracy and know your place.

Mr. Speaker, it could easily be said that George Washington was an elite of his day. Nevertheless, Americans celebrate him along with other great leaders because they attained their status through selfless service to our country and its founding ideals to a genuine civic state.

Mr. Speaker, on my desk there is a pile of letters. At one point, it approached about a foot high. It is a little smaller now, as I am digging out. I have to be honest. I am behind because I take the time to review the content of each letter that my constituents send me.

Lately, the mail has tripled, perhaps quadrupled in size due to, frankly, the present philosophical divide that is all

over our country and manifested in this body in the breakneck pace of governmental action and the important questions about what Congress is doing in key policy areas such as health care and immigration.

This is no complaint. I stand in the seat formerly held by the great Midwestern populist William Jennings Bryan, and it is my duty, responsibility--all of our responsibility--to hear and read what our constituents are telling us. It is also my duty to make judgments on their behalf. I have an obligation to read and study and analyze the facts of any situation, to listen to the people who are effective, and ultimately to make a decision.

I think that the irony of this great moment, of great tension in our country, Mr. Speaker, interestingly, has brought a renewed and refreshing attentiveness to this body, to the legislative branch. There is now a very impassioned and healthy engagement with the centers of government about the very nature of power and its purpose. As Americans, we believe that power is justly derived from the dignity and right of each person. When properly exercised, that power rightly informs the State.

Vigorous interaction is beneficial to our Republic when it is cordial and constructive, when all parties in an authentic attempt seek workable consensus. This can be harmful to our Republic when interactions descend into shouting matches, rude interruptions, orchestrated ambushes, or worse, violence toward people or property.

Mr. Speaker, I have a new friend who is an ambassador here in the United States from an African country. It is a fascinating nation that rebuilt after a difficult civil war. He was kind enough to have me over for dinner recently with one of my colleagues. My colleague is a brand- new Member of Congress, and he happens to be in the other political party.

On the ride over, we talked about the very real prospect that, if we could just have a conversation, if we just had the time or disposition to have a conversation, a genuine dialogue, then perhaps things would get a bit better in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, most of us crave dialogue. Our country needs dialogue more than ever. We have multiple new technological ways to conduct dialogue. However, we have lost touch with what genuine dialogue is. If we are racing to score points or impatiently, loudly bludgeoning each other, we are not engaging in authentic dialogue. We are engaging in monologue.

Clearly, there are many differences that cannot easily be solved here throughout America. We have to be sober about that. The tough arena of politics occupies a unique space in our country in the quest for answers, but holding it together depends upon a commitment to this ideal of the civic state, a broad attempt at friendship and goodwill to hold together the good that should be common for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, on a visit to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, I noticed that, among its many noteworthy qualities, the beautiful, bucolic campus reflected a dignity, a call, if you will, to something higher. This special place creates a sense of place as a message for the ages, and that used to be reflected in the great tradition of American public architecture.

In one of the Academy's halls, a United States submarine commander named Howard W. Gilmore is honored. During World War II, Gilmore ordered his submarine to the surface of the ocean. The crew came out onto the deck. Unbeknownst to them, enemy planes were in the area and they spotted the vessel and began a strafing run.

The crew of the submarine scrambled back inside to go into dive mode, but as one crew member looked back, he saw Commander Gilmore lying on the deck, wounded. Looking at his commander in the eye, he heard him say, ``Take her down.'' The commander knew he would be left behind to drown, but everyone else was saved.

Stories like this one appear repeatedly throughout our Nation's history, particularly among those who have served in the military. They detail the brave actions of honorable men and women who have served an ideal far greater than any superficial distinctions in the political debate that might separate them, the ideal that the sacrifice for just and enduring principles is a noble thing.

In this age of anxiety and petty strife, it is worth reflecting on why we now find this so hard.

In the wake of World War I, poet-politician W.B. Yeats wrote this:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Mr. Speaker, present-day Washington, as a microcosm of the Nation, routinely exhibits a lack of political community. Partisan discord and dysfunction do reflect the larger philosophical divides across America: market fundamentalists versus government fundamentalists, protectionists versus globalists, elites versus the common man--on and on and on.

We lack a unifying spirit. Part of this fracture is driven by monied interests in politics. Part of it is driven by competing world views that are earnestly derived about the core of what it means to be an American and about the core of what it means to have a functioning government for America. Part of it results from the lack of will and courage among lawmakers to move beyond these dispiriting constraints and find some higher ground.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will add this. Perhaps there is a silver lining. Let's think about this. On a deeper level, the vehement animosity in the Capitol and across our country could, ironically, point to something good. Washington's inability to rally around big and meaningful ideas, reflecting longstanding, again, cultural and political divides in America, it might actually signal a desire for resolution. After all, if no one cared, our situation would be far more dire.

If we can stretch to see that all of this negativity is actually a search for solidarity, then perhaps we have a shot. Indeed, there might be a chance to recapture our democratic narrative, our special American identity by embracing something larger than the insistent demands of self, party, or narrowly focused advocacy groups. We are a country whose proper aim and purpose, whose very foundation is built upon that which is good and that which is eternal: fairness, self-determination, the rule of law. Perhaps this combustible moment is actually a yearning to reconnect. Or maybe not. Perhaps it is too far gone. We have to decide.

Mr. Speaker, yet, with all these attempts at lofty sentiments here, to successfully govern requires some type of consensus around core values. And, yes, it requires sacrifice for our ideals, for each other, and for America. So that the center might hold. Right before Commander Gilmore died, he looked at his crew and said, ``Take her down.'' Perhaps the commander's advice to us today to America would be: ``Lift her up. Lift her up.''

Mr. Speaker, I had an incredible opportunity yesterday to meet hundreds of Vietnam veterans who came to our Nation's Capital on one of the honor flights from all over the State of Nebraska. I saw some people I knew, saw constituents, met many of the former troops who I had no idea they served. Isn't that the hallmark of many of our troops, doing so with a quiet selflessness, not needing to have anyone know?

But the Honor Flight actually gave them an opportunity to be welcomed home because particularly after enduring the Vietnam conflict, so many of our soldiers, so many of our troops came home to either no welcome or to, in an odd way, being blamed for the situation that they were trying to resolve. They never got a proper welcoming home.

So we spent a little time together yesterday at the Iwo Jima memorial. After a long day, they had visited the various monuments, including the Vietnam Memorial, the wall.

Of course, it was a tiring day for them, but many were, I would think it is safe to say, exhilarated by the chance to come, to be in solidarity as a community, to reconnect with the purpose of their service and perhaps, most importantly, to be welcomed home because when they got back to the Lincoln airport where I live, thousands of people were there waiting for them, chanting ``USA, USA, USA.''

Mr. Speaker, especially in times of significant duress like we are living in, I think it is particularly important to remind ourselves that America has tremendous capacity for replenishment. Unexpected opportunities give us a chance to reassess and realign in new and compelling ways, both to preserve our most valued traditions and to restore the promise of our Nation. This understanding is especially important as we confront dysfunctional government, economic stagnation, global violence, and the social fallout from the fractures and the pain in our culture.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one way to lift America up in this age of anxiety might be glimpsed through four mutually supporting principles: government decentralization, economic inclusion, foreign policy realism, and social conservation.

Now, what do I mean by this?

First, we should consider that a more decentralized government will restore the local source of America's strength. I am not a person who is antigovernment, but what we have done in our society is we have federalized every conceivable level of problem, and this institution ought to be about doing a couple of big things well.

We ought to respect the authority and the institutions that are closer to the people that have jurisdiction over things that they can better provide. Those closest to an opportunity or a problem ought to be the first to be empowered to seize the opportunity or solve the problem.

Economic inclusion, as well, should help America recover from a concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This primarily happens through a restoration of the small business sector, giving rise to entrepreneurial momentum once again. Mr. Speaker, we are in an entrepreneurial winter. This is where most jobs come from. I am not talking about even larger small businesses. I am talking about small, microbusinesses that employ one to five persons. For the first time in America's history, the number of small businesses dying is greater than those being born.

So if you want to restore a vibrancy and create the conditions for economic inclusion, a turn of focus to the small business sector, that great gift where people are using their talents of intellect and the gift of their two hands to make things, an imprint of their own dignity, to give rise to the ability to take care of themselves and those under their authority, their employees, to create benefits for others through exchange, that reinforces a community narrative of the longing and commitment and interdependence.

Third point, foreign policy realism. Based upon authentic relationships and genuine friendships, a foreign policy realism should chart a course between passivity and ad hoc intervention. In other words, we are a globalized society. We are interconnected in extraordinary ways. We are not going to turn the clock back. We couldn't if we tried here. So isolationism is not an option. And yet, just entering into relationships that are transactional without having any authentic basis has led to the collapse of relationships and the conditions for them not to be long lasting.

Finally, social and environmental conservation preserves family life, faith life, civic life, and natural life. The ecosystem, which we all value and live, that is not a partisan issue. That is not even a bipartisan issue. These are transpartisan issues because they create the conditions in which the human heart, the human person can thrive. These are the institutions that give rise to a continuity of our great tradition, give a meaning to life and create sustainability for ourselves and our children.

We know we are confronting intensifying struggles about the direction of our country, the direction of our world. The fault lines can widen, they may widen, but we also can choose to lean into these serious challenges. We can still choose to rediscover commonsense governance, right-sized economic models, a proper foreign policy, and universal and foundational values that create the binding narrative of our country that so many persons have sacrificed for.

It is time to rediscover our purpose as a people and reclaim this sense of solidarity and to reempower our communities. As the military says: One team, one fight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Adrian Smith, for yielding, and I thank him, more importantly, for honoring the life and memory of our mutual good friend Clayton Yeutter.

In my desk in my office there is a letter, and it was written to me by Clayton Yeutter, former Secretary of Agriculture, a couple of years ago. Of course, we all receive a lot of letters, but sometimes you get one that you just want to keep close to you.

Clayton Yeutter was a gentleman, he was a farmer from Nebraska, and he was a true statesman. In that letter, he basically kindly and gently encouraged me in public service. He was the ideal public servant. He expressed his sentiments to me personally, but in his public life, with a great nobility, a great yearning and care for our country, he committed himself in multiple ways to serving our institutions of governance. But he never forgot his humble roots back in Nebraska.

So I simply want to say: Well done, good, faithful servant Clayton Yeutter, my friend.

I thank the gentleman for honoring Ambassador Yeutter's life.

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

Mr. Speaker, for 150 years now, Nebraska has held a special place in the history of America. We Nebraskans rightly pride ourselves on the values of hard work, on the values of community life, on the proper value of the good stewardship of our precious resources. The mystique of the Great Plains, the nobility of the family farm, and the vibrancy of our people create the conditions for the good life.

Our story is one of strength, it is one of dignity, and I am proud to celebrate our 150th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, a gift of land donation enabled the expansion of the Homestead National Monument, which is near Beatrice, Nebraska. Run by the National Park Service, their personnel were kind enough to invite me to the dedication ceremony; and during that event, a young woman who was from a seventh-generation farm family--in high school at that time, as I recall--got up to speak. She gave a beautiful talk about our Nebraska values, our connectedness to the land, the deeper meaning of living on the plains, and the ideal of maintaining the continuity of family life.

Her remarks, Mr. Speaker, moved me so much that I literally tossed my own speech aside and spoke off the cuff, and I said something like this: Perhaps it was on a day just like this where that settler family came over the hill there, and they looked at the great expansion of the plains before them.

Perhaps that day they felt the warm, spring sun on their cheeks, and they heard the chirp of the western meadowlark in the air, and they watched as the beautiful bluestem prairie grass swayed in the wind. Perhaps it was then that they made their decision: We stay right here. Nebraska will be our home.

Mr. Speaker, when I finished that, I was very proud of myself, so I sat down. And then the next speaker came up, another political figure, and he had this to say: Well, my family came here because they were horse thieves. We all shared a little laugh, but really, Mr. Speaker, Nebraska's colorful history and droll wit were simultaneously captured in that moment.

Nebraska's official motto is ``Equality before the law,'' but our unofficial motto is ``Nebraska nice.'' It is true. Nebraskans are generally nice. But beneath that friendly veneer is an unmistakable, unvarnished realism.

Nebraskans have a unique ability to look at a situation and size it up accurately, if often humorously. ``Git r done'' is an often-used phrase that I think can be safely attributable to us.

Now, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, Nebraska has been pejoratively described in the popular imagination of our country, first as the ``Great American Desert'' because it was thought that nothing would grow there. Today, we have the largest amount of acreage under irrigation in the country, including the fact that we are the largest grower of popcorn in America. We are a leader in livestock production and multiple types of commodity production, as well as specialty crops.

We were sometimes castigated as ``flyover country.'' I hear that around here sometimes, that is, until you come to Nebraska and realize that it is a wonderful place to live and to work and to raise a family relatively free from crime, except even horse thieves, congestion, as well as pollution.

Nebraska has, routinely, the highest graduation rate in the country and the lowest unemployment rate in the country.

And, though, in true Nebraska fashion, self-effacing Cornhuskers would cringe at the term, we have had our fair share of celebrities as well, including Father Ed Flanagan, who founded Boys Town, now known as Boys Town and Girls Town; Civil Rights pioneers, Chief Standing Bear being one of the most prominent; Malcolm X; authors Mari Sandoz and Willa Cather; professional athletes Bob Gibson and Gale Sayers; and entertainers, Henry Fonda, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Johnny Carson, and Dick Cavett.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, our singular, unicameral legislature is a model for bipartisanship and frugality. And I would be remiss if I didn't say our run-it-up-the-gut offense with a few option twists, it may not have been flashy, but it helped the University of Nebraska's football team win five national championships.

I am proud to serve in the United States congressional seat once held by Williams Jennings Bryan, who along with Senator George Norris perhaps are the most famous, though controversial in some ways, politicians in our State's history.

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Nebraska's admission to the United States of America--by the way, the first State admitted after the Civil War--I recall Representative Bryan's words from over 100 years ago. It is a quote that actually is outside of our football stadium, known as Memorial Stadium, on Tom and Nancy Osborne Field. It says this: ``Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.''

And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can add to that quote today: And that the choice to be good makes the destiny arrive well.

Happy birthday, Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 9 a.m.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was going through my mail last week, I read a publication that I receive frequently at my house from what is known as the Great Plains Trail Network. This is a dedicated group of people who enjoy, promote, and foster the growing network of hiking and biking trails in my hometown of Lincoln and the vicinity. They provide an extraordinary service to our community. Most notably, the trail systems provide an alternative means of transportation, physically linking our community in creative ways along creek beds and underpasses, through open plains and wooded areas, and beside the wooden fences between residential neighborhoods. These trails also link us in a more profound way. They link us to the values of healthy exercise, neighborliness, and the beauty of nature--even in the setting of the urban city environment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I received an unusual media request recently. New York Magazine wished to speak to me. I took the meeting because I wanted to give a broader perspective on the issue of environmental stewardship, particularly in light of policy debates about energy and the environment. Since this topic can be so toxic, I thought it was important to reframe the issues with some prairie perspective, if you will. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is time to spike the football and focus on solutions and activities that all of us can agree on and that all of us see are beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, for the 21st century, we must harmonize environmental and economic security. As a different public policy approach, I am considering a new idea called the zero-emissions energy credit, or

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) would mind lingering in the Chamber for just a moment, I want to make a couple of comments on what he said. Because he began his talk with a commemoration of some extraordinary Americans, World War II veterans. And as I was waiting my turn to speak, I couldn't help but reflect upon perhaps one of the most extraordinary opportunities that I have been given as a Member of the House of Representatives.

A bipartisan delegation went to the 70th anniversary of the D-day invasion. President Obama, of course, spoke, and dignitaries from around the world, including the Queen of England, also made an appearance.

When we got to the cemetery area at Omaha Beach, we were meeting veterans who had fought there or in the vicinity. One of the first gentlemen I met, he had only a thumb, and he was sitting in a wheelchair. And I just asked him, because it was such a celebratory atmosphere and everyone was so engaged by the heroism of these men and the opportunity to be back so many years later--I just asked him: Did that happen here?

He said: Yeah, right over there on the beach.

Well, his daughter was with him, and she told me a moment later: Actually, what happened was we think that he was shot on the hip and one of his grenades began to go off and he was throwing it away from himself.

I looked at him and I said: How are you here?

And he said: I don't know.

Another man had been a part of the paratroopers who dropped in behind enemy lines the night before near the town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise, and I will come to that town in a moment. And I asked him: What was your assignment?

He said: Hill 60, or some number.

And I said: Where is that?

He said: Right over there. He said: Guard the bridge at La Fiere.

I said: That is the bridge at La Fiere.

An old Norman-style, arched stone bridge, maybe a car-length wide, obviously just one lane to get a horse and cart over.

He said: Do not let the Germans cross that bridge, that was our assignment, and we held them.

Another man looked at me and said: I haven't been here in 70 years. A much better reception this time.

This great humor, this depth of character that these extraordinary men showed was so evident that day.

To continue the story a little bit more, Captain Luther Sextan Fortenberry, my grandfather, left his family in August of 1944. He was a medical doctor and was initially at a hospital in England. The records are a little bit unclear; but, in November of '44, he was killed, and he left his 8-year-old son--my father--behind. He was initially buried at Sainte-Mere-Eglise, at the cemetery there. He was reinterred in Arlington National Cemetery.

One of the guides that we had during that trip was a former British military officer, and he had a complete command of the details of the battle. In fact, I was so impressed by him that I invited him to come to Nebraska to speak to my veterans, and he accepted. So, later that summer, we hosted him in Nebraska. One of my little towns is called Columbus, Nebraska. Columbus is actually the place where Andrew Jackson Higgins was born--the Higgins boat inventor, which was the troop carrier that landed there on Omaha and Utah Beaches that day. President Eisenhower said of Andrew Jackson Higgins that he won the war for us.

He is very much associated with Louisiana because that is where he spent his adulthood, in shipbuilding, and he would not let go of the idea that we needed this innovative type of troop carrier. He is from Columbus, Nebraska. In the front of Columbus, Nebraska--which is a small, agricultural town, a wonderful community of 25,000 people--they have built an extraordinary World War II memorial that is a replica of the Higgins boat, with beautiful bronze sculptures of the troops in their charging off that boat.

When my friend, the former British military officer who now does-- again--tours and commentary on the battle, saw this, he looked at me and said: Jeff, this belongs on Utah Beach because there is nothing like that there anymore.

I will make a long story short.

Some of the members of the community who had worked on that project heard this. They said: Well, we can build another one.

I was trying to tamp down expectations because I knew how difficult that would be; but the day before the 71st anniversary, that new World War II memorial was put in the breach where our troops first came through, where General Roosevelt led our troops through on Utah Beach. Right in the breach, a memorial that was constructed by the good people of Columbus, Nebraska, now sits as a permanent display--a replica--of the Higgins boat, right next to the World War II museum right there on Utah Beach. I understand it is extraordinarily popular as one is able to enter onto the boat and experience the life-like reality of what it must have been like to be in that moment. The French even moved one of their own monuments, by the way. This is the cooperation we had with the French Government. They moved their own monument to General Le Clerc--their general who had followed the pathway or fought, as well, into Germany.

I apologize for holding the gentleman up, but he talked about a number of things. Obviously, we are going to have big, important debates about a number of the sensitive points he talked about; but where there is no debate is in the character of the men and women who served in World War II. I thank the gentleman so much.

Madam Speaker, I want to give this commentary tonight, as well, on some of the dynamics of the moment. Before I begin, I would like to share with you that, outside of my office, there hangs a framed copy of a piece of legislation. In fact, it was one of the earliest pieces of legislation that I worked on here, and I am quite proud of it. The bill increased the number of Iraqi translators who could come to the United States. These persons served alongside our troops and put themselves and their families at great personal risk in service to our country. Among those who benefited from this expanded policy were members of the Yazidi faith tradition--a peaceful, ancient faith--that, very sadly, ISIS has targeted as a part of its extermination campaign against Christians and other religious minorities, including innocent Muslim communities.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, America has long opened her arms to persons who flee persecution, who wish to rebuild their lives and become good citizens here. My hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, is a diverse, welcoming community with a number of first-generation Americans, and we are the better for it. However, when there is chaos and disorder at our border or if there is uncertainty in immigration policy and procedures, this problem undermines the ability of our country to be generous; or, worse, it affects our safety. There are two principles being held in the balance here: keeping America safe and keeping America generous.

President Trump's executive order to protect the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States has suspended all new refugee admissions into the U.S. for 120 days. In addition, it blocks all travelers for 90 days from seven countries of concern--Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--which was a list, by the way, created by the Obama administration in 2015. Refugees from Syria are banned indefinitely, and travelers from these countries with a green card will be allowed since they are permanent United States residents.

Madam Speaker, from my perspective, I believe it is reasonable to pause and review our refugee policy from dangerous parts of the world; but, clearly, the implementation of the policy has caused some confusion, difficulty, and concern, some of which has been clarified.

As an example, there is a Yazidi man named Nawaf, who was one of those military translators--again, putting himself at great risk to serve alongside our troops. Nawaf visited my office last Monday. It was in the evening. He requested help for his wife, Laila. Two of his brothers live where I live--in Lincoln, Nebraska. Although I didn't recognize him at first, I remembered that

a president of a university in Iraq, whom I know, once told me about a Yazidi student who had become class valedictorian of that university; so I began to piece this story together.

Nawaf arrived in America just last year. Following 18 months of vetting, his wife was awarded a special visa about a week and a half ago; but as Nawaf was explaining to me both with great composure and, frankly, a certain sensitivity to our security concerns, he told me that his wife, Laila, was barred from entry.

Madam Speaker, immigration and refugee policy always involves a difficult choice. A country has to consider first its absorption capacity, the possibilities of assimilation, as well as the necessity of those coming to accept the values of the host country's. I think a review of this policy or of these principles--a review of what has happened in Europe--actually sheds some light.

For example, Germany recklessly threw open its borders recently, and a wave of persons--many young, single men--entered the country, sparking an uptick in crime and violence and, possibly, the conditions for more terrorist attacks. Confusion continues as to who is where, and the German Government's rapidly considered and naive refugee policy has unwittingly created an anti-immigration backlash and political turmoil.

Madam Speaker, the immigration and refugee movement should always be a means of last resort. Everyone can't come to the West. Rather, it is the responsibility of governments around the world to create the conditions in which people can live securely. If that breaks down, as a first order response, robust humanitarian assistance and repositioning persons in nearby safe zones creates the possibility of a right of return and avoids the trauma of uprooting persons from their homes and their cultures.

Madam Speaker, with all of the complex considerations surrounding immigration, though, it is important to remember that we are not dealing with statistics, that we are not dealing with some remote geopolitical policy, but that we are dealing with the lives of real persons. So, happily, last Friday morning, after my office successfully worked on the case, Laila arrived, and with open arms and flowers, Nawaf, her husband, welcomed her to America.

Madam Speaker, given now that the executive order has been put on a temporary halt as the administration goes through the appeals process, I also think it is appropriate to pause and speak about the broader issues at stake here--what it means to be a nation and what it means to have a binding narrative as a people.

Madam Speaker, I am quite sure our soldiers know this feeling all too well--I have experienced it. Perhaps you have experienced it, too--when you are in a far-off place, with no one familiar around you, and then you, all of a sudden, have that feeling of connection because you see it--you see an American flag. At that moment, the flag is more than a piece of cloth with stars and stripes. It is an enduring symbol that expresses a deep, unspoken narrative about who we are as a people and about the ideals that unite us as a nation.

If you ask most people what America means, I would suggest that they would probably use one word: freedom. Yet I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that this word ``freedom'' is so overused that we have forgotten its essential meaning. Most properly understood, freedom is the ability to do what one ought--to take responsibility for oneself, one's family, one's community, and, by extension, one's nation. Freedom is not a detachment from responsibility to do whatever you want. That is a self- destructive idea that erodes freedom, resulting not only in the loss of oneself, but in the degradation of the entire community.

Of course, we often reflect on what it means to be an American when discussing immigration. America has long offered the hope of freedom for immigrants who are yearning to work for a better future for themselves, for their families. To those tempest-tossed, to those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, America has lifted its lamp beside the golden door. Implicit in this worldwide welcome was a basic compact that those who came here, however arduous their journey, must undertake the responsibility of citizenship. Of course, many people gleefully do.

In fact, America's very survival as a beacon-handed land requires those who immigrate to assimilate and adopt the values proposition that makes our country unique in the history of the world. Those values include respect for others, the acceptance of law and order as a prerequisite for the orderly functioning of society, and the desire to participate constructively as a citizen. Those who refuse to assimilate or reject these time-honored values take advantage of the sacrifices and hard-fought gains of generations of Americans who have built and often died for what we cherish and what we so eagerly share with people from around the world. That is fundamentally unfair and is an abuse of the idea of freedom itself.

Madam Speaker, individual freedom is achieved most fully in the context of community. When the government or interest groups see freedom merely as a functional meeting of material needs alone, it undermines the social dimensions of freedom, which are rooted in authentic human relationships.

Conversely, the proper amount of government, a government well- ordered, provides protection and creates the guardrails for individuals to flourish together, generating meaning for persons and community. The right political approach in America can restore that golden mean.

Madam Speaker, there is a story I would like to tell. There is a man, and he is talking to his young son. He said: Son, you see that beautiful, lovely home there on the hill? One day, if it is your heart's desire, if you are willing to work hard and be patient, and if you do what is right, then maybe you could earn that home one day.

Another man in another country took a very different approach talking to his young son. He said: See that big mansion on the hill there? If you work hard enough, if you stay focused, and if you position yourself right, one day you can get that guy.

You see, Madam Speaker, our country is not based on the principle of envy. It is based on respect and responsibility. To make America flourish again, politically, economically, and culturally, a restoration of this ideal is necessary to create the conditions for a true and lasting freedom.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank my dear colleague and friend, Diane Black, for her leadership on this most essential issue.

Madam Speaker, if you look behind us on this dais right here, it says, ``Peace, Liberty, Justice.'' We inscribe these words all around our Nation's Capitol and on our monuments, but in truth, we cannot find peace in a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members. We cannot find liberty when we are indifferent to one another, and we cannot claim justice when we throw away innocent life.

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that the early feminist movement was pro-life. They saw abortion for what it is: the abandonment of women. Once an abortion occurs, as Maddie Brinckerhoff, an early feminist lecturer, once said:

It is evidence by either a lack of education or resources,

she has been greatly wronged.

At the very least, I think, Madam Speaker, we can stand with the vast majority of Americans and not use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the abortion industry and the violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the chairman for yielding, but, more importantly, for his extraordinarily hard work as chairman of the Rules Committee. I don't think a lot of people are aware just how critical his job is in shepherding and guiding order in our institution here. So I am grateful for his hard work, most grateful for his friendship, and very grateful for his leadership. I thank him so much for the time.

Mr. Speaker, when Presidents give their inaugural addresses, we are very accustomed to lofty narratives, to visionary ideals, and to sweeping language. But last Friday, President Trump spoke very differently. The only sweeping thing in the President's speech was his reference to the windswept plains of Nebraska. Of course, when I heard that, I perked up.

President Trump's speech was a striking and direct call for a new, healthy nationalism. He spoke to the people, about the people, and for the people. A certain awkwardness marked the beginning of his speech, not only because of the initial confrontational style from the outset, but it also began to rain as the President started, creating a bit of an uncomfortable moment. But then the rain suddenly stopped and his speech gained momentum. He discussed, in hard terms, some of the stark realities we are facing and how they might be resolved for our country.

Mr. Speaker, we all know this, that defining problems is an easy task, but finding solutions is much harder. While President Trump's speech lacked specifics in that regard, nonetheless, there was extraordinary power in the attempt to articulate an America that has been lost to globalized supply-side elitism, an America that has been lost to drugs and crime, and an America that has systems that no longer seem to serve all persons. It just seems that no matter how hard individuals work, they just can't get ahead.

Mr. Speaker, our President's speech was an authoritative call for a new national unity, particularly for those forgotten. The idea that America can do better, that we must do better, and that we will do better for everyone was clearly conveyed by President Trump.

I recognize the tone of this speech will not have universal appeal. It was to the point, direct, and firm. It was not a delicate, textured speech. But the President was clear when he declared: ``The American carnage stops right here and stops right now.''

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a renewed and important and essential focus on reviving America's economy. The multinational corporations of this world are on notice: they cannot play both sides of the balance sheet, being for us and against us at the same time, and the benefits of exchange will have to be fair for all. Frankly, I believe this creates possibilities, possibilities for authentic relationships with peoples around the world rather than a transactional one. If this objective can be achieved, it will be constructive indeed. A healthy American nationalism will lead to properly ordered international engagement--for our benefit and the benefit of others.

Mr. Speaker, when the President spoke before the entirety of our government, he also spoke before the House of Representatives. The President's authoritative style, communicating the desire to devolve power from Washington as well as Wall Street, interestingly repositions Congress to its appropriate role in governing society through the power of the people.

Mr. Speaker, it is statistically shown that the majority of Americans believe that it is the job of Congress to do whatever the President says. This is not true. Congress is an independent, coequal branch of government that makes the law, which is interpreted by the judiciary and enforced by the President. But across Democratic and across Republican executive administrations more and more power has been taken by the executive and has been ceded by Congress. This balance of power, this necessary balance of power, this original idea of the balance of power, has been out of balance for 100 years, and perhaps now a realignment begins.

Mr. Speaker, whether you love President Trump or you loathe him, or whether you are someplace in between with certain apprehensions but hoping that President Trump succeeds, Friday, Inauguration Day, was an extraordinary American day. What we saw was the successful and peaceful transfer of power.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to thank, again, my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, given that last week I took the oath of

office as a Member of the new 115th Congress of the United States and given that next week we will watch President-elect Trump also take the oath of office, I want to share a few thoughts on the deep importance of this constitutional duty that we share.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, last week on Capitol Hill was marked by a day of celebration. It was a day of renewal of friendships, even between people who have deep, deep disagreements in this body. Families and guests all gathered to share in the moment's excitement and meaning, and Members of Congress congratulated one another on their recent victories. We all took a reprieve from the intensity of the policy debate for just a moment. But amidst all of that swirl of activity, the day was set apart by the oath of office.

Mr. Speaker, the oath lays down a clear marker of the serious obligations ahead for all of us. In our day and time, we no longer are deeply connected to this concept of oath. We see it in the courtroom when somebody is required to tell the truth. We will see it again next week when President-elect Trump is sworn in. But we rarely take the time to reflect on its deeper meaning.

We see it more like an old tradition, a nostalgic option that we exercise out of deference to our history. However, the oath is much, much more. It is a solemn declaration. It is a pause, the start of sacred duty.

By taking an oath, you effectively hold your very self at ransom. You commit, at the deepest levels, that you will perform the tasks ahead of you to the best of your ability.

The oath is the ultimate test and measure of integrity. If you violate it, you tear at the center of your being, to the detriment of not only yourself but to the community, to those you are sworn to serve. This is a very high bar, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

I am reminded of the words of Sir Thomas More, who was the Lord High Chancellor of England during the 16th century. He strove to live a life worthy of excellence in public service. But in the end, he was put to death by the very state that he sought to so nobly serve.

In an earlier reflection on the idea of oath, Sir Thomas More had this to say:

``When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.''

Mr. Speaker, throughout that wonderful day last week of our swearing in here in the body, I was reflecting personally on a singular word. That word is replenishment.

Our American system of governance has an extraordinary capacity to replenish itself with new ideas, new people, and refreshed perspectives. Our political system starts with the belief that political power is derived from each person's dignity.

By voting, citizens invest that very power in the Representatives that are sent here to make judgments on their behalf. But, of course, to earn that right in the first place, the Representative must make his case to the people. In spite of the drama, in spite of the raucous nature of elections--and we have just come through one--the fact that America goes through this cycle of constant replenishment is truly an extraordinary gift.

Mr. Speaker, as I stood in the center aisle right here last week, I raised my right hand. I raised it right along with everyone else who is a Member of this new 115th Congress, and I took that oath of office.

Mr. Speaker, I just think it is worthwhile to read these powerful words:

``I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.''

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a very high bar. This is a sacred duty. This is a solemn task. It sets this body and our system of governance apart by forcing each of us who have been given this extraordinary privilege of taking on the heavy mantel and weighty responsibility of making decisions on behalf of this great country, and to do so to the best of our ability, having put our very self, the integrity of what it means to be a person, on the line to uphold that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, January 17, 2017, at noon.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

Because they were deeply touched, wounded, if you will, by this story. How could this happen to a little child?

But I think you rightfully acknowledge that those days are behind us. And through all of the difficulties, toils and struggles that occurred, thankfully they are behind us. And I think what you said is appropriate, that Black History Month ought to also be called America's History Month because these chapters are an important, essential part of our national fabric and our national culture.

Again, I didn't intend to dialogue with you. But I was sitting there thinking of this, and I have never shared that story publicly. But I think the main part of the story is the painful look on my own little children's faces when they heard that, and I think that means good progress.

I yield to the gentleman.

I am very familiar with it.

Amen.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

A great expression. Thank you.

Thank you, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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. Speaker, last night, we gathered here in the House of Representatives for a great American tradition: the State of the Union--the Presidential address where we celebrate openness and transparency in our government, where a vision is laid out that we are free to disagree with or agree with components of but, nonetheless, points to this great American ideal that we are a people who self- govern and that we are accountable in an open way to the people who sent us here, even in the midst of deep philosophical divides about the direction of our Nation--and, of course, the world was watching.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important, though, that we take a moment of reflection and be honest about this moment in time and the current conditions in our society. Many Americans do face downward mobility, stagnant wages, and an increased cost of living.

Many people feel very abandoned in the face of a Washington-Wall Street axis, where more and more power is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. But I think we have to be careful about something. We have to be careful about seeing the solution as lying in more government.

I think our Nation deserves a smart and effective government, and I think our job here in Congress is to continue in an open way, look at the past, and see what worked and see what doesn't work, to let go of that which is tired and old and worn out and continues to linger, and to invest more in that which is smart and effective and can truly build a good society that creates opportunity for all.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that we shouldn't divide ourselves by class and income and that, in a healthy economy, it is one that is focused on small business. This is where most new jobs are created in our country.

Particularly for young people, I think we need to create a culture of creativity, one in which a person who has an idea can seize the moment and use the gifts of their own two hands and their own intellect to make good things, to create benefit for others, to create jobs, hire people, protect families, and to make a contribution to society.

Many young people want to pursue these avenues; yet we have to be honest about what is happening. We are entering, in this country, into an entrepreneurial winter. What does that mean? In other words, the number of startup businesses--small businesses--is less than the number of small businesses dying.

We do not have a net increase in the number of small businesses; and, again, this is where most Americans live and work, making good things for others, in small business. That is where jobs are created.

How do we address this problem? Well, the tendency, again, in our body is to think about public solutions, but let's examine--not through my opinion but just the analytics--as to why small businesses are not creating new jobs and are not starting up as aggressively as they have in the past.

It is really two things. It is health care and regulations. Smart regulations are necessary to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, but when you have oppressive regulations that tend to stack the deck toward those who are larger and can hire an army of lawyers and accountants, it represses the ability of small businesses to take risks and create jobs.

The second problem we have is health care. Mr. Speaker, I got an email yesterday from someone who said: ``Congressman, my health care has gone up so much that I have to move into government housing.'' Now, think of the irony of that.

Again, we need the right type of health care reform, one that is going to reduce costs and improve health care outcomes while we protect vulnerable persons. But what has happened? Some people have been helped by the new law, but many, many families have been hurt with escalating health care costs, and, again, it creates an environment in which small business is repressed.

Mr. Speaker, again, I think our government should be smart and effective, and I think that is what most Americans want, but Washington continues to remain mired in mediocrity, and political dysfunction and partisan gridlock have made smart and proper government difficult.

This arthritic recovery has dimmed the financial prospects of too many individuals who, again, have stagnant wages or who have given up hope and feel directionless, isolated, and alone. We can do better, and we must do better.

Despite these challenges, I believe the start of a new Congress is an exciting time to renew our government and this promise of our Nation. I would like

to say this, Mr. Speaker: there is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed by what is right in America, but it is going to require bold resolve, innovative public policy, and a return to our highest ideals.