Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the ``Band of Brothers'' episode, ``Why We Fight,'' reminds me of an experience my father, Jack Brooks, shared with me. At age 23, dad was a combat engineer in General Patton's army. Near war's end, dad was ordered to help at a German concentration camp. Dad and his fellow soldiers saw human bodies decomposing and stacked like cordwood, 5- and 6-feet high, with lime sprinkled on them to retard the spread of disease. Those concentration camps helped my dad, and America, understand why we fought in Europe.

Today, Washington is in an epic political battle that will affect America's future for decades and centuries to come. Some see a fight between Republicans and Democrats. I see a fight between those who are financially responsible and those who are not, between those who have the understanding and backbone needed to prevent an American bankruptcy and those who do not.

Why do I fight? I fight for America's children and grandchildren. I fight for America's future.

President Obama's five deficits have averaged $1 trillion per year, the worst in history. America soon will blow through the $17 trillion debt mark, the worst in history.

Mr. Speaker, it is challenging to grasp trillion-dollar deficits and a $17 trillion debt. Let me simplify. In each of the last 5 years, the Federal Government borrowed 20 to 30 percent of its operational costs. How many American families or businesses could avoid bankruptcy if, year after year, 20 to 30 percent of what they spent was borrowed money? Not many, and not for long.

Economic principles don't care if you are a family, a business, or a country. If you borrow more than you can pay back, you go bankrupt. America has been warned of the consequences of financial irresponsibility. Greece is further down the debt path than America. Greece's unemployment rate is 27 percent, worse than any year in America's Great Depression.

Earlier this year, Cyprus confiscated as much as 60 percent of their citizens' savings and checking accounts. The Detroit and Stockton municipal bankruptcies risk retirees losing their pensions.

President Obama's former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, warned Congress that America's greatest national security threat is not Iran, not al Qaeda, not China, not Russia; it is our debt. Admiral Mullen is prophetic. In recent history, no enemy has done as much damage to America's military and national security as have debt and sequestration.

President Obama's Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, warned Congress and the White House earlier this year that America's deficits and debt are unsustainable, which brings us to today's fight involving a government shutdown, debt ceilings, and socialized medicine. No question, a government shutdown hampers the economy. Between 1976 and 1995, there were 17 government shutdowns. Yet, America's economy boomed in the 1980s and 1990s. Shutdowns can be overcome.

No question, not raising the debt ceiling poses economic risk. No one knows for sure how much risk, because America has never crossed this threshold before. Whatever it is, it can be overcome.

Knowing these risks, why do I fight over funding bills, the debt ceiling, and socialized medicine? Because too many Washington politicians pander to the next election's voters without caring one whit about America's future--because appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, the debt ceiling, and the like are the only leverage I have to cajole financially irresponsible Washington politicians into doing what must be done to prevent an American bankruptcy.

It is because, as bad as government shutdown and debt ceiling risks may be, they are relatively inconsequential compared to the economic devastation resulting from an American bankruptcy. Think about the chaos and hardship that will ensue if America has no national defense, no FBI, CIA, or DEA, no Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare, no NASA, no justice system

because an American bankruptcy has deprived us of the money needed to pay for them.

Why do I fight? I fight to minimize the risk of America suffering a debilitating bankruptcy that can destroy the America it took our ancestors centuries to build.

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to use any tools I can to win that fight, because this is one fight America cannot afford to lose. That is why I fight.

Mr. Speaker, I speak on the House floor for the third straight day to request that President Obama obey the Pay Our Military Act that fully funds, also, defense workers who support the Armed Forces. Since every defense worker, by definition, supports the Armed Forces, furloughs for every defense worker should end.

Over 60 Congressmen and I are highlighting this issue in hopes of returning 400,000 furloughed defense workers to their jobs. I am pleased to announce that we're making progress.

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel agreed that ``there's no job in our Department of Defense that doesn't support the military.'' Hence, the Pay Our Military Act's only furlough-ending requirement has been met.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama must end all defense worker furloughs. Why? Because it's the law, and because America's national security is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Defense, ``of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.'' That means President Obama, our Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, publicly declared that roughly 400,000 DOD civilian employees are not ``essential'' to America's national security.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's furloughing 400,000 civilian Defense workers violates the law while putting national security at greater risk.

Let me explain. If any one of three circumstances exist, then America's Defense workers should not be furloughed.

The first circumstance is if Congress passes a Defense appropriations bill, then the military is funded and the President has no legal basis for using the shutdown as an excuse for furloughing Defense workers.

Unfortunately, this first circumstance does not exist. While the House of Representatives, 4 months ago, passed the National Defense Authorization Act on a 315-108 bipartisan vote that included 103 Democrats, and while the House, almost 3 months ago, passed the Defense appropriations bill on a 315-109 bipartisan vote that included 95 Democrats, President Obama, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their allies refused to allow the Senate to vote on either bill that would both fully restore Defense funding lost because of sequestration and fully fund America's national security.

The second circumstance exists if President Obama declares workers ``essential.'' While I disagree and question why any Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, would slight 400,000 Defense workers by declaring them superfluous to America's national security, President Obama did just that. Hence, the second circumstance does not prevent furloughs of civilian Defense workers during this shutdown.

This brings us to the third circumstance, the Pay Our Military Act. This act not only forces the President to pay our men and women in uniform; it does more, much more. It also bars the President from furloughing civilian Defense workers even if there is a government shutdown, even if they are not declared ``essential,'' and even if Congress has not passed its Defense appropriations bill.

For those who wish to read it, google the Pay Our Military Act to confirm that what I say is true. The Pay Our Military Act states, in part:

There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 . . .

such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to .

. . civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . .

whom . . . are providing support to members of the Armed

Forces.

Let me repeat that for emphasis. It states:

There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 . . .

such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to .

. . civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . .

whom . . . are providing support to members of the Armed

Forces.

There is no requirement that civilian Defense workers be essential. The only requirement is that they provide support to members of the Armed Forces. For emphasis, there is also no requirement that the support be for Armed Forces who are in combat.

Mr. Speaker, every single civilian Defense worker supports the Armed Forces. By definition, that is their entire job. Hence, as a matter of law, there should be no furloughs of any civilian Defense workers.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, on October 1, I joined 67 other Congressmen in a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security reminding them of the Pay Our Military Act and emphasizing that we are:

Disheartened that the administration chose to needlessly

furlough workers against the intent of Congress and that

since all DOD civilian employees serve to support the

uniformed services, all of these civilians should be returned

to work without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, the President, our Commander in Chief, is actively violating the Pay Our Military Act. The Obama administration must immediately return all 400,000 furloughed DOD workers to work. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because it's the law.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent Redstone Arsenal, one of America's premier military bases and home to the

Army Materiel Command, Aviation and Missile Command, Security Assistance Command, Contracting Command, Expeditionary Contracting Command, Space and Missile Defense Command, and numerous other program executive offices, agencies, and centers.

According to the Department of Defense, ``of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.'' That means President Obama, our Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, publicly declared that roughly 400,000 DOD civilian employees are not ``essential'' to America's national security.

While I disagree and question why any Commander in Chief would, in his sole discretion, slight 400,000 defense workers by declaring them superfluous to America's national security, that is not why I address the House of Representatives today. What I want to know is: Why do President Obama, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their allies pointlessly insist on shutting down the DOD?

Let me elaborate.

On June 14, 2013, almost 4 months ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act, on a 315-108 bipartisan vote; 103 House Democrats, a Democrat majority, joined 212 Republicans to pass the National Defense Authorization Act.

On July 24, 2013, almost 3 months ago, the House passed H.R. 2397, the Defense appropriations bill on a 315-109 bipartisan vote; 95 House Democrats joined 220 Republicans in passing the Defense appropriations bill.

I publicly thank the House Democrats who supported the programs and funding that help America's warfighters protect American lives. Collectively, these defense bills restore funding lost because of sequestration and fully fund America's military and national defense. If these defense bills become law, then national defense is exempt from President Obama's shutdown orders.

Unfortunately, there is an unhappy ending to the House's bipartisan support for national defense. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needlessly obstructs votes on both bills, thus causing them to languish 3 and 4 months in the United States Senate.

Senate intransigence means the Department of Defense is subject to President Obama's shutdown orders and 400,000 defense workers are, as of today, barred from helping our warfighters who risk their lives for America both here and abroad. Each day these 400,000 defense workers do not work is another day America's warfighters are without their help, is another delay that denies our warfighters the cutting edge in high- tech weaponry needed to defeat America's enemies with minimal loss of life.

Mr. Speaker, Democrat Senator Harry Reid should stop his obstructionism and allow a vote--just a vote--on the defense bills that have passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. If he does, both bills will pass and become law and national defense will be fully funded and exempt from President Obama's shutdown orders.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate, White House, and Congress agree on close to 99 percent of our appropriations bills. The White House and Senate must stop using a Federal Government shutdown and the loss of 400,000 national defense jobs to coerce the House of Representatives into spending money America does not have on a socialized medicine program that does not work and that a majority of Americans do not want. The responsible thing to do is to fund the 99 percent, end the Federal Government shutdown, and then debate and negotiate the 1 percent that we legitimately disagree on.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to join our bipartisan House effort to compromise--yes, compromise--and pass the National Defense Authorization Act and Defense appropriations bill, thereby securing America's national security while at the same time restoring 400,000 jobs America's economy sorely needs.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Pay Our Military Act became law. It states, in part, and I quote:

There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 such

sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to:

Members of the armed services, civilian personnel of the

Department of Defense who are providing support to members of

the armed services, and contractors of the Department of

Defense whom are providing support to members of the Armed

Forces.

Mr. Speaker, every single DOD civilian worker and contractor supports the armed services. Hence, as a matter of law, there should be no furloughs of any DOD civilian personnel and no payment delays to any DOD contractors.

Yet, a DOD memo states, ``Of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.''

Mr. Speaker, that violates the Pay Our Military Act, and the Obama administration must immediately return all 400,000 furloughed DOD employees to work and pay all DOD contractors on time. It's the law.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is shut down, thereby damaging America's economy generally, and the Tennessee Valley's economy in particular, where thousands of defense and NASA and other Federal Government employees have been furloughed because the President, in his discretion, designated them non-essential.

I hope my remarks add clarity about the shutdown, its cause, and the efforts to fund the government.

City, county and State governments across America pass one bill, called a budget, that funds services for their fiscal years.

In contrast, Washington uses a three-step spending process. First, Washington should pass a bill that is called a budget, yet, does not, in fact, spend a dime. Rather, in Washington, the word budget is more like a game plan. It is much like a football coach's playbook. It lists the team's plays but does not, in and of itself, gain a single yard.

Second, Washington should pass authorization bills that describe the programs the Federal Government is to operate. For example, the NASA authorization bill authorizes NASA to work on the Space Launch System so that America can have a human space flight program. Like budgets, authorization bills spend no money.

Third, Washington must pass appropriation bills to actually spend money on the programs authorized. If Congress fails to pass appropriation bills, then Congress uses continuing resolutions as crutches for our failure.

There are 12 appropriation bills that, collectively, fund the Federal Government. So far this year, the House, months ago, passed appropriation bills for national defense, energy and water, homeland security, military construction, and veterans affairs.

If the Senate passes these appropriation bills, then each of these Federal programs are fully funded and exempt from the Federal Government shutdown. That's correct: exempt from the shutdown.

Unfortunately, the Senate inexplicably refuses to vote on any of the 12 appropriation bills. Senate intransigence is why we are here today debating a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the Federal Government.

For emphasis, continuing resolutions are the worst way to fund the Federal Government. By definition, continuing resolutions are for a short period. Speaker Boehner's CR is for 2\1/2\ months. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's CR is for even less, 1\1/2\ months.

Each CR kicks the can down the road and forces America to quickly face yet another shutdown risk. Each CR means Federal agencies cannot plan long-term, and contracting officers are restricted in their ability to let contracts for services and goods provided by the private sector to the Federal Government and American citizens.

Generally speaking, continuing resolutions fund at prior-year spending levels, which means spending does not change to reflect changing priorities, circumstances and challenges.

In sum, continuing resolutions are inherently inefficient, waste tax dollars, and retard proper Federal government operation.

Hence, I have historically voted against less-than-year-end continuing resolutions in hopes of forcing Congress to do the compromising necessary to pass authorization and appropriations bills. This work will not be done so long as the continuing resolution crutch protects Congress from failure.

Which brings us to today. The Senate, White House and Congress agree on roughly 99 percent of the appropriation bills. Let me emphasize that. The Senate, White House and Congress agree on roughly 99 percent of the appropriation bills.

The solution, therefore, to our impasse is simple. Congress and the White House should fully fund the 99 percent we agree on, end the government shutdown, and work out our differences on the remaining 1 percent.

Instead, the Senate and White House use a Federal Government shutdown to coerce the House of Representatives into spending money America does not have on a socialized medicine program that does not work and that a majority of Americans do not want.

Yesterday, I spoke with House leadership, and I urged them to pass bills that, one at a time, fund the 99 percent of the Federal Government that we agree on. I thank the House leadership for doing exactly that yesterday and today. Each bill we pass exempts yet another part of the Federal government from the shutdown.

I urge my friends across the aisle to stop using the 99 percent as a hostage, to stop punishing citizens across America in their effort to coerce the House of Representatives into funding the 1 percent we have a legitimate disagreement on.

I urge my friends across the aisle to join us, to join America, to compromise, yes, to compromise, and pass as many funding bills as we can to minimize and eliminate the harmful effects of a Federal Government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the 852 employees of United Launch Alliance in Decatur, Alabama, for their hard work and commitment both to their jobs and to America. Because of their dedication, when using United Launch Alliance, America has secure access to space 100 percent of the time.

Two days ago, on September 18, 2013, ULA completed their 75th successful launch using an Atlas V rocket at Cape Canaveral. This was ULA's fourth launch in 2 months, ninth launch this year, and 40th successful launch of the Atlas V rocket.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the United Launch Alliance workers of Decatur for their achievement that embodies American exceptionalism. It is an honor to represent them in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the story of a courageous Congressional Medal of Honor recipient living in Alabama's Fifth Congressional District.

Pilot Lieutenant Colonel Leo Thorsness was on a mission over North Vietnam when he lost his wingman. As the crew members parachuted to the ground, Colonel Thorsness destroyed a MIG-17 that was threatening their safety. Low on fuel, Colonel Thorsness went in search of a refueling tanker, but upon hearing that the downed men were again threatened-- this time by four MIGs--he immediately returned to their aid. Low on fuel and perilously close to crashing himself, Colonel Thorsness attacked the four MIGs, damaging one, driving them away, and saving the downed men and their rescuers. Then he flew further afield to refuel, aiding another plane that needed the emergency fueling station.

Lieutenant Colonel Thorsness' extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice, and personal bravery saved many lives, and our Nation is forever grateful for his service.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama, without consulting Congress or the American people, intervened in Libya's civil war, resulting in the murder of four Americans, including our Ambassador in Benghazi, while creating yet another fertile terrorist recruiting ground. Repeating its Libya mistake, in September 2012, the Obama administration declared that America will intervene in Syria's civil war and work ``to support a Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls.''

Shortly thereafter, I stood on this floor, stated my opposition to America's intervening in yet another civil war and argued that ``America must stop spending our treasury and risking American lives for those who neither appreciate our sacrifices, nor believe in basic liberties like freedom of religion and freedom of speech.''

I have participated in classified hearings with Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and many others. I have listened to President Obama. The arguments for attacking Syria are unpersuasive.

Absent substantially different circumstances, and consistent with my 2012 opposition to intervening in Syria's civil war, I will vote against attacking Syria, if and when Congress has that vote. I reject the President's argument that the best way to keep Syrians from killing Syrians is for Americans to kill Syrians. America has peaceful options. We should pursue them more vigorously.

There is not the required public support to attack Syria. Americans oppose attacking Syria by a two-to-one ratio. In Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, 1,272 citizens have contacted my office about Syria, and 1,267 citizens oppose attacking Syria. A scant five citizens out of 1,272 support attacking Syria.

The President last night told America that there is no evidence that Syria is a security threat to America that supports preemptive military action. Yet an attack makes Syria and its allies a security threat. President Obama erred when he made Syria's chemical weapons a red line. But a President's verbal gaffes don't justify war. A Syrian war costs money America does not have. Every dollar spent attacking Syria worsens America's deficit and debt, weakens our economy, undermines our ability to pay for national security, and increases the risk of even more defense layoffs and furloughs.

An American attack on Syria aids and abets Syrian rebels. Syrian rebels have beheaded Christians solely because they are Christians. One rebel leader killed a Syrian soldier, cut open his chest, took out his heart, ate it, and then bragged about. Another rebel leader personally executed helpless prisoners of war. I question the wisdom of helping rebels who may be even more evil and barbaric than Syrian President Assad. Yet that is exactly what President Obama proposes.

The White House Syrian strategy is conflicting and amorphous. The President claims he does not seek regime change. Yet in 2012, his administration said the exact opposite. President Obama claims attacks will deter Syria's chemical weapons use, yet his Secretary of State insists that attacks will be ``unbelievably small.''

I have reservations about this administration's ability to handle a delicate foreign policy matter. This administration bungled its Fast and Furious gun-running program, killing hundreds of innocent Mexicans and an American Border Patrol agent. This administration botched Benghazi and threw in a coverup for good measure. This administration illegally uses the Internal Revenue Service to attack political adversaries. The list goes on and on.

President Obama has cultivated cheerleaders but not players on the field whose militaries will help America attack Syria. America cannot perpetually be the world's only policeman.

In sum, I believe attacking Syria unilaterally makes matters worse, not better. Absent a major international effort to punish Syrian President Assad for his inhumane and criminal use of chemical weapons, I cannot and will not in good conscience vote on the House floor or in the Foreign Affairs or Armed Services Committees to attack Syria.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to recognize Dr. William A. ``Bill'' Craig and his many accomplishments during his career.

After receiving a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from Mississippi State University, Dr. Craig began his civil service career in 1960 with Dr. Werhner Von Braun's Astrionics Laboratory before moving to the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Agency in 1970, and then as a charter member to the Army Missile Command's Missile System Software Center when it was established in 1976.

Since 1988, Bill Craig has served as the Director of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, Software Engineering Directorate (SED). Through his leadership, the SED, as an organization, attained a Level 4 rating against the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI's) Software Capability Maturity Model in 2000. During Dr. Craig's tenure, the SED has experienced significant growth, greatly expanding its customer base as well as enlarging its facilities. As one of only three Life Cycle Software Engineering Centers in the Army, the SED provides software and systems engineering support for most of the Army's major weapon and aviation systems. Under the leadership of Dr. Craig, the SED organization is the responsible agent for the development and fielding of numerous Army Systems, including: Joint Battle Command-Platform and the Aviation Mission Planning System. Also, the SED, in partnership with the Program.

Executive Officers and Program Mangers, has established numerous Aviation and Missile System Integration Laboratories for the analysis and test of tactical systems and software. These laboratories provide the capability for Joint Services Interoperability Certification as well as Intra Army Certification. The SED also is responsible for development and deployment of the America's Army Program. This program includes the public game, weapon systems trainers, and Army recruiting applications.

The SED collaborates with a number of other organizations/agencies, including: Space and Missile Defense Command for Cyber Security, Jackson State University for Homeland Security, and as a Technology Transition Partner with the Software Engineering Institute. The SED has also made significant progress in workforce development, in partnership with the University of Alabama in Huntsville, including a very robust Co-op Program, and advanced degrees in Software Engineering and Systems Engineering. These opportunities allow the expansion and growth of the SED workforce to remain relevant in the complex areas of the digital world.

Dr. Craig is a highly respected leader and visionary in the community and a strong proponent of the greater Tennessee Valley area. In 2004, he received an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Additionally he serves on the advisory board for the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Other honors include induction into the Order of Saint Barbara, an honorary military society of the United States Field Artillery Association, recognition as supervisor of the year in 1985 by the North Alabama Chapter of Federally Employed Women, and the first recipient of the Joseph C. Moquin Award given by the Huntsville Association of Technology Societies in 2006. In 2010, the Tennessee Valley National Defense Industrial Association presented Dr. Craig with the Medaris Award for demonstrating technical excellence in promoting the defense preparedness for the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on its sixty-six years of dedicated service and proclaim October 2013 as Alpha Delta Kappa Month. Established in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa's goals have been to establish high standards of education, give recognition to outstanding educators, build a fraternal fellowship among educators and to promote educational and charitable projects and activities enriching the lives of individuals everywhere.

With a membership of over 33,000 educators representing all fifty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica and Australia, Alpha Delta Kappa is committed to educational excellence, personal and professional growth and for collectively channeling their energies toward the good of their schools, communities, the teaching profession and the world.

Women in education constitute a great portion of the nation's working force and are constantly striving to serve their communities and nation in educational, cultural, and charitable programs leading to harmony, happiness, and peace among all people.

Over the last few years, the members of Alpha Delta Kappa have given altruistically to the communities they serve by raising nearly $14.5 million dollars and volunteering over 2 million service hours.

I congratulate Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women

Educators on their many years of unparalleled success and wish them well and best wishes as they continue to educate our children.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to implement or execute any non-treaty executive agreement with Russia regarding missile defense or to provide Russia with information about America's ballistic missile defense systems, both classified and unclassified. The reason the amendment says classified and unclassified is to prohibit the administration from declassifying missile defense technology to skirt the law. A similar amendment was passed last year, with bipartisan support, and is included in the current continuing resolution that is funding our government during this fiscal year.

Multiple news sources over the years have reported that the Obama administration may seek to share our missile defense secrets with the Russians. I am concerned these reports may be accurate. While the danger to national security is a serious concern, so is the loss of billions of dollars we have sunk into creating these exceptional technologies.

The Congressional Research Service estimates the United States has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. Roughly 90 percent of that $153 billion, or $140 billion, has been spent on hit-to-kill technology.

I ask the House to support this amendment to preserve America's lead in missile defense technologies, protect America's investment of billions of dollars, and ensure the viability of current and future missile defense technologies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

There have been numerous occasions in which the media has reported that the administration is considering, as a part of negotiations or other things, divulgence of our sensitive hit- to-kill technology to the Russian federation.

I am thankful that my colleague across the aisle says that it takes away his breath, and I hope with that that he will support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the appropriate way to gather the requested information is simply for the gentleman to Google what I have just stated.

This issue arose in 2011 with numerous comments by the White House that were reported in numerous outlets. By way of background, my source is not FOX News in this particular instance, but all he has to do is Google it and he can find it.

Also, there were numerous reports in 2012 where the President indicated--in what turned out to be an open mic--that once the elections were over with, he could more freely negotiate or give away information to the Russians. Those aren't the exact words used by the President. Unfortunately, I don't have perfect recall, but it was words to that effect.

I would emphasize that this House has visited this issue previously. This has passed with bipartisan support. So I would urge this body to again, as a precautionary measure, adopt this amendment to prevent the sharing of our hit-to-kill technology with the Russian Federation to the extent that risk becomes a reality.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.

I have a firm belief that, if the people understand the truth, then they'll make the right decision. There have been a number of arguments advanced by the other side on this immigration-illegal alien debate that are misleading at best, and I'm going to touch on a couple of them with your permission.

First and foremost, there is the argument advanced that our economy is going to do better, and, hence, Americans will do better. Half of that is right. Bear in mind that the Senate Gang of Eight bill legalizes, at a minimum, 11 million illegal aliens who are now present in the United States of America. Also bear in mind that, over the next decade, according to the Department of Homeland Security report, the Senate Gang of Eight bill will bring into America lawfully, roughly, 33 million foreigners who are not here presently. Now put those numbers together--11 million legalized plus 33 million to come in lawfully. That totals 44 million lawful workers added to the American workforce. That is out of 144 million total number of people who are employed in the United States economy, according to the June--last month--of 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If you look at these numbers--if you bring in 44 million people--of course America's gross national product and gross domestic product are going to increase, but the misleading part of it is this: that does not necessarily translate into a higher standard of living for Americans and foreigners who are lawfully in America. Let me explain.

The key is not the total GNP or GDP for our country. The key is the total GNP and GDP per capita. If our gross domestic product goes up a little bit but the population goes up a great amount, then we, individually--American families, individually--are now living under lower economic conditions. Stated differently, our standard of living has declined; and, in that vein, rather than just making an argument, I want to share some data that buttresses that argument.

The Congressional Budget Office, which has been rather kind in my judgment to its evaluation of the Senate Gang of Eight legislation, issued a report called ``The Economic Impact of S. 744.''

This report was issued just last month in June of 2013. I'm going to quote for the record parts of that report:

S. 744 would lower per capita gross national product by

seven-tenths of 1 percent in 2023.

So over the next 10-year period of time, rather than our GNP growing per capita and America doing better individually, it declines under this bill. It's not just stagnant, the kind of stagnation that we have suffered for the last 5 or 6 years or so. There is a decline in GNP per capita, which means that the amount of money each American household has to spend to take care of their daily needs goes down because of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, because it is both legalizing and admitting into our country a total of 44 million foreigners who are going to be seeking jobs that Americans already have or that Americans want.

Further in the report:

Average wages for the entire labor force would be one-tenth

of 1 percent lower in 2023'' because of Senate bill 744. By

2016, just 3 years from now, that would be four-tenths of a

percent lower, where our wages again are going down.

Also notably, in another admission, S. 744 will ``slightly raise the unemployment rate through 2020.''

So not only do we have a suppression because of this amnesty, because of this open-borders nature of the Senate Gang of Eight bill of individual incomes, we also have more Americans who are unemployed, according to the Congressional Budget Office

I think that their numbers, quite frankly, are rather kind to the Gang of Eight bill. I think it's going to be much worse. In that vein, let me share some other data points. According to The Heritage Foundation report that was issued a few months ago:

Unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-

skill U.S. born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent,

or $2,300 per year. Unlawful immigration also drives many our

most vulnerable U.S. foreign workers out of the labor force

entirely.

That's a big number, a drop in wages of $2,300 per year for low-skill American born and lawful immigrant workers.

Here's another study, a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center that concluded that there were 7.8 million illegal aliens who were holding jobs in America. Okay? Stated differently, that's 7.8 million job opportunities that Americans have lost. Why? Well, quite frankly, because illegal aliens are often willing to work under the table, get paid under the table; because illegal aliens are often willing to work for less than Americans are; quite frankly, because illegal aliens are often willing to look the other way with respect to the worker safety laws that we have imposed in order to protect our American workers from bodily harm. There were 7.8 million job opportunities that were lost. The Federation for American Immigration Reform thinks that number is low. They have it at 8.5 million job opportunities lost to American citizens, and that's today before the Gang of Eight bill gets implemented.

Harvard professor George Borjas found in a study released in April of 2013, again just a few months ago:

Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by

an estimated $99- to $118 billion a year.

Let me read that again:

Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by

an estimated $99- to $118 billion per year and generates a

gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107- to

$128 billion per year.

Is it any wonder the United States Chamber of Commerce is spending millions of dollars to try to induce America to go with the Gang of Eight bill that will legalize 11 million foreigners and add another 33 million foreigners over the next decade? They see profits coming from this increase in the size of the workforce, which in turn will decrease the wages that they pay not only to illegal aliens, but also to lawful immigrants, and also to American citizens. So that's where the United States Chamber of Commerce is coming from. They certainly have a financial interest.

Now I want to emphasize something. We should not be debating bringing in these mass numbers of foreigners into the American workforce in this kind of context. America currently suffers a 7.6 percent unemployment rate. Asian Americans suffer a 5 percent unemployment rate. White Americans suffer a 6.6 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, Hispanic Americans suffer a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, African Americans suffer a 13.7 percent unemployment rate. And even worse, American teenagers suffer a 24 percent unemployment rate.

Does it make sense to anybody that when we have unemployment in so many different segments of our economy so high that we should legalize another 11 million workers and bring in an additional 33 million workers over the next decade to compete for jobs when Americans are having such a difficult time in this economy not only getting jobs, but getting quality jobs?

That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is a myth that the

economy is going to become better because of this large importation and legalization of immigrants. Sure, America's GDP will go up, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the quality of life for individual Americans goes up, and under this legislation, virtually every study I have seen, in fact, says that it goes down. That's one of the reasons why we have to stop this.

I've got one other myth that I would like to talk about. The whole premise of this immigration law debate is that the laws need dramatic changing, they aren't working. I would submit that that's not the case at all. The problem is not so much with our immigration laws. Sure, there's some tweaking that can be done in order to make sure that we admit into our country those individuals who have particular skill sets or educational levels or wealth that will enhance our economy. Sure, we can do that kind of tweaking. But it's a myth to say that we have 11 million illegal aliens in America because of our laws. That's not the case at all. We have 11 million illegal aliens in America, quite frankly, because the White House, the executive branch of our government, has absolutely refused to enforce the laws that are on the books. And I'm not talking about just this administration. I'm talking about 20 years of neglect by the White House and the executive branch.

Let me share some numbers with you on that point, and then I'll defer back to my good colleague, Mr. Gohmert.

In 2011, the number of Border Patrol returns plus illegal aliens deported by court order was 715,495 individuals. That's an important point to note. Okay?

You've heard the myth that this administration deports more than any administration in history, or words to that effect. That's kind of true, but it's misleading because that's only half of the number that you need to look at. It's not just the deportations by order that you look at. It is also how many times has our Border Patrol caught individuals and returned them. So in 2011, we have roughly 715,000 Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order.

Let's go back to 2008, the last President before the current President. During that year, you put those two numbers together, and it was 1.1 million that the Border Patrol returned plus deported by court order. That's a big number--64 percent more returned than in 2011, the most recent year for which I have information.

A decade ago, it was again 1.1 million Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order--62 percent more than this administration in 2011. In 1993, two decades ago, 1,285,952 illegal aliens were returned pursuant to Border Patrol returns or deported by court order--80 percent more than in 2011. In 1983, it was 950,000--33 percent more than 2011. In 1973, four decades ago, it was 585,000. And in 1963, it was 77,000 Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order. And I want to note something about the gap between 1963 and 1973. You'll remember these welfare programs that got passed as a part of the Great Society program where America started paying foreigners to come into our country where they start accessing welfare benefits? I would submit that that is a huge incentive for why these individuals have come to America who previously would not have come here under illegal terms. But because we've got laws in place that pay and incentivize illegals to come here, that is, in fact, a major reason why they're here.

Nonetheless, the myth that the laws are the problem, is not it. It's a lack of enforcement of the laws on hand. And the myth that this administration has been really good at returning illegals, that's true only if you look at half of the problem. If you look at the whole problem, then, quite frankly, this administration in 2011 was doing far worse than previous administrations have done or as has been done in 2003, one decade ago, two decades ago, three decades ago, and four decades ago.

Thank you. I very much appreciate this opportunity and the work that you put forth in getting us together this evening.

I want to emphasize a few points about America's immigration situation. The first point of emphasis is this: America is now and has been far and away the most generous Nation in world history when it comes to allowing foreigners to come on to our soil, when it comes to allowing foreigners to receive our most cherished right, that of citizenship.

In that vein, I would like to share with each of you some information from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Statistics. This covers data from 2011 and going backwards.

First, with respect to legal status, the numbers of people that we as a country allow to have permanent legal status in the United States of America, in 2011, it was 1,062,000 foreigners in that 1 year that were given legal status who previously had not had previous legal permanent resident status. To put that into perspective, let's go back 50 years to 1963. It was 306,260 that were given legal permanent resident status; i.e., today, we're even more generous than we were half a century ago. Today we're giving three times as many legal permanent resident status than we did a half century ago.

Forty years ago in 1973, 398,000 foreigners were given legal permanent resident status. That's still twice today, what we're giving, than we gave 40 years ago. In 1983, it was up to 550,000, meaning that today roughly twice, again, what we are giving than we did as recently as 30 years ago. Then in 1993, it was 903,000. In 2003, it was 703,000. Again, today it's more generous than any time in American history. That's with respect to legal status of permanent residency for foreigners.

A bigger issue is how many petitions for naturalization were filed by foreigners and how many foreigners did Americans give naturalization to, i.e., our most cherished right in the United States of America.

Over the last few years, in 2011, 694,000 foreigners were naturalized in the United States of America; in 2010, 620,000 foreigners were naturalized; in 2009, 744,000 foreigners were naturalized; in 2008, a little over a million were naturalized; and in 2007, 660,000 were naturalized. Those are huge numbers. Probably more so than any nation on Earth. Not probably, but definitely more so than any nation on Earth and probably more so than all the rest of the world put together. That's how generous America has been with respect to foreigners.

If you put that into perspective, a decade ago, 462,000, meaning we're roughly giving 50 percent more now than we did just a decade ago naturalization. In 1993, 20 years ago, it was 313,000, meaning today we're giving twice as much naturalization as we gave 20 years ago. Thirty years ago in 1983, it was 178,000, meaning today there are four times more today than there were in 1983, just 30 years ago.

But it goes further, and this is important.

How many foreigners lawfully come into the United States of America? Bear in mind that we as a country have a total population of a little over 300 million people. But let's look at what's happened since 2003. The total of all admissions--again, this is according to the Department of Homeland Security--in 2003, 180 million foreigners came into the United States of America lawfully. They may be tourists coming and going, they may be students on student visas coming and going, they may have work permits or work visas, they may be part of trade delegations, but 180 million foreigners figured out how to do it the right way, the lawful way.

In 2004, 180 million again. In 2005, another 175 million foreigners came into America the right way. In 2006, another 175 million foreigners came into America the right way. In 2007, 171 million foreigners came into America lawfully. In 2008, 175 million; in 2009, 162 million; in 2010, 160 million; and in 2011, 159 million came into America lawfully.

Now, why do I emphasize these numbers? It's because the number of people whose first act on American soil is to break our laws is minuscule compared to the big picture, compared to those who know how to come into America lawfully, compared to those that America welcomes into the United States lawfully.

Those are numbers that I want to emphasize, and basically what that tells you is that there are hundreds of millions of foreigners around the world that want to come into our country and we generously and compassionately allow them into the United States of America. What we are focusing on today are the lawbreakers. And we have people in this body, people in the United States Congress, people in the White House who want to give amnesty to lawbreakers.

Let's bear in mind that there are reasons why we should not be doing that. First and foremost, we can have the choice of whomever we want out of these hundreds of millions that want to come to the United States of America and immigrate and become citizens of our great land. In that kind of perspective, what we need to be doing is choosing those who best fit America's needs. In that perspective, let's bear in mind our financial condition as a country.

We have had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, the worst deficits in the history of our country. We are now about to rush through the $17 trillion mark in total debt. We are not a country that can afford to stay on this path. We are not a country that can afford to allow into our Nation immigrants who are going to be tax consumers rather than tax producers.

When you have the pick of hundreds of millions of people around the world, we should be smart and we should have a smart immigration policy that brings in people who are going to be tax producers, not tax consumers. That's going to help us with our deficit situation, help us with our accumulated debt, and hopefully reduce or minimize the risk of an American tragedy, that tragedy being a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy of our great Nation. So, in that vein, our foreign policy, our immigration policy should focus on those who are going to come here and produce more revenue than they're going to consume.

I'm for allowing immigration in the United States of America. It's a cherished privilege and it's a historical fact of our country. But smart immigration means that the people we allow into the United States of America need to bring wealth with them if that's going to help produce more in tax revenue than they're going to consume. We need to allow people into our country who are going to bring skill sets with them if it's going to empower them to produce more in tax revenue than they're going to consume. We need to allow them to bring in their intellectual capacity that's going to enable them to produce more revenue than they're going to consume.

Yes, our immigration policy is broken in part because we have laws that need to be better. Yes, our immigration policy is broken in part because we have a President of the United States who refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books.

Me, personally, I see no need whatsoever to engage in an immigration law debate until we have a White House that's going to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. In the absence of a White House, in the absence of a President that is going to enforce the laws on the books, then new immigration law is meaningless because it has no force and effect as long as we've got a President of the United States who, instead of being the chief law enforcement officer of this great land, instead of being the chief executive officer of the executive branch ends up being the person who is in charge of more lawlessness than anybody else in the United States of America because, so long as you encourage lawlessness by refusing to enforce the laws, you're giving a wink of the eye and a nod and a tacit admission that it's okay to break our laws. And as long as we have a President of the United States that refuses to enforce our laws, that refuses to come forth with a sound immigration policy that he will abide by, then it does no good for us to have this kind of immigration law debate.

But that having all been said, I want to emphasize a few other things. As pointed out earlier, the Senate Gang of Eight's amnesty and open borders bill legalizes or brings in 40 million foreigners over the next decade. You put

the two numbers together, 11 million who are unlawfully here, who have broken our laws, whose first step on American soil was to thumb their nose at our law enforcement and America's laws, and we have another 10 million that this Senate Gang of Eight's amnesty and open borders bill is going to admittedly bring into the United States of America--think about the impact of that on our economy. Think about the impact of 40 million job seekers on the wages of Americans who are struggling to survive.

There's a study by George Borjas, a Harvard University professor, not exactly a conservative think tank, Harvard University, that indicates that this huge influx of illegal immigration is going to have a definite and adverse effect on the wages of Americans. For example, people who have only a high school degree, illegal immigration is already impacting them to the tune of a loss of $800 per year. Now to a lot of folks who are wealthy, $800 is not much. But to a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet, $800 is a lot of money.

With respect to the average American, not just the least among us, but the average American, the cost to the average American household is over $1,000 from these immigration policies that are in existence now from a White House who refuses to enforce our immigration laws and refuses to protect American workers from this huge supply of cheap foreign labor that is competing with struggling, hardworking American families.

Minorities are also dramatically hurt. I would highly encourage everyone to look at the reports that have come out by the Black American Leadership Alliance.

Finally, I want to focus on a passage from ``America the Beautiful.'' This really is about the rule of law. If we do not enforce our laws, we have no laws, we have anarchy, we have open borders. In that vein, many of you have heard the first stanza, but let me cover it in the second:

O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet

Whose stern, impassioned stress

A thoroughfare of freedom beat

Across the wilderness!

America! America!

God mend thine every flaw,

Confirm thy soul and self control

Thy liberty in law.

This has been America's heritage for decades, for centuries. The rule of law is paramount.

I can't speak for the rest of this House of Representatives, I can't speak for the United States Senate. I can't speak for the White House. But I can speak for one voice from the Alabama Fifth Congressional District, and that voice is this: I will never, never reward and ratify illegal conduct by supporting amnesty for people whose first step on American soil was to violate American law. We can do better than that. We should do better than that. And we must, must respect the rule of law or else we will descend into chaos and anarchy.

For citizenship.

A remarkable number.

Let me focus on a news release by the Black American Leadership Alliance, and I encourage all Americans to Google that phrase, Black American Leadership Alliance, and look at their news releases. They focus specifically on the impact of the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty and open borders bill on the Black community, and I'm going to quote. Everything I say is a quote, but I'm not going to read the whole new release:

Given the fact that more than 13 percent of all Blacks are

unemployed, nearly double that of the national average, it is

our position that each Member of Congress must consider the

disastrous effect that Senate bill S. 744 would have on low-

skill workers of all races, while paying particular attention

to the potential harm to African Americans. Credible research

indicates that Black workers will suffer the greatest harm if

this legislation were to be passed.

Many studies have shown that Black Americans are

disproportionately harmed by mass immigration and amnesty.

Most policymakers who favor the legalization of nearly 11

million aliens fail to acknowledge that decades of high

immigration levels has caused unemployment to rise

significantly, most particularly among Black Americans. They

further fail to consider how current plans to add 33 million

more legal workers within 10 years will have an enormously

disastrous effect on our Nation's jobs outlook.

The National Bureau of Economic Research recently issued a

report asserting that 40 percent of the decline in employment

rates for low-skilled Black men in recent decades was due to

immigration.

Let me repeat that:

The National Bureau of Economic Research recently issued a

report asserting that 40 percent of the decline in employment

rates for low-skilled Black men in recent decades was due to

immigration.

Studies by Borjas and Katz, professors from Harvard

University, found that immigration reduced the earnings of

certain native born laborers by as much as 8 percent and

other demographic groups by 2 to 4 percent. According to

research conducted by University of California San Diego

economics Professor Gordon H. Hanson, immigration has

accounted for 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline

in Black employment rates, and current immigration proposals

are sure to substantially raise these numbers.

Many Blacks compete with immigrants, particularly illegal

immigrants, for low-skilled jobs due to skill level and

geography, and there are simply not enough of these jobs to

go around. Consider the fact that nearly 51 percent of

African Americans do not have a higher education. In 2011,

24.6 percent of Blacks without a high school diploma were

unemployed. Even Blacks with a high school diploma were

unemployed at a rate of 15.5 percent that same year.

We are firmly convinced that such an expansion of the labor

force during one of the most protracted periods of high

unemployment in decades will result in suppressed wages for

all Americans, but the effects on African Americans will be

the most devastating.

This is the Black American Leadership Alliance. If you pull up the news release, you can see the Black leadership around the country that is saying no, that this is hurting Americans. And in particular, it is hurting us the most.

The issue before us is, who are we, as Representatives and Senators, going to represent and vote for, American workers or foreigners? It's just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, America suffers from four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits and a $17 trillion debt that risks a debilitating American insolvency and bankruptcy.

Financial responsibility is the key to minimizing America's risk of economic disaster wrought by crippling debt. Yet the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty bill is the height of financial irresponsibility. It makes illegal aliens a bigger financial burden on America, racks up higher deficits, and increases America's risk of insolvency and bankruptcy.

The Senate Gang of Eight bill immediately gives illegal aliens State and local welfare. That is in addition to the Federal welfare illegal aliens already lawfully and unlawfully get.

For example, watchdog group Judicial Watch reports that an assistant case manager in charge of food stamp applications stated:

Illegals would come by the van load and we were told to

give them their stuff. Management knew very well they were

illegal. It was so rampant that some employees would tell

their illegal relatives to come and get food stamps.

Judicial Watch adds:

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as SNAP,

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, includes a

Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the

United States Department of Agriculture, with a statement

advising Mexicans in the United States that they do not need

to declare their immigration status in order to receive

financial assistance.

Judicial Watch goes further:

The United States Department of Agriculture spent taxpayer

money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging

illegal aliens to apply for government-financed food stamps.

The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, California, starred in

United States Government-financed TV commercials and assured

illegal aliens that receiving food stamps ``won't affect your

immigration status.''

Judicial Watch concluded that:

Adding insult to injury, last spring, the United States

Department of Agriculture Inspector General revealed that

many food stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to buy

drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous

vendors, disclosing that the fraud has cost American

taxpayers nearly $200 million.

A comprehensive study by the Heritage Foundation found that

``many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children. These

children are currently eligible for the full range of

government welfare and medical benefits.''

The study notes that:

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received

around $24,721 in government benefits and services, while

paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average

annual fiscal deficit, benefits received minus taxes paid, of

around $14,387 per household.

The Heritage Foundation confirms that the Senate Gang of 8 amnesty bill will:

After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible

for means-tested welfare and ObamaCare. At that point, or

shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households

would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same

rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education

level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits

would increase dramatically.

The Senate Gang of 8 amnesty bill is reckless with the

truth and misleads the American people. Not only will illegal

immigration increase American taxpayer burdens through

welfare, ObamaCare, and other pay-outs, but illegal

immigration is already costing the United States taxpayers

more than $14,000 a year per illegal alien household.

All told, per the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, illegal aliens already cost American taxpayers roughly $100 billion per year in net tax losses.

The Senate Gang of 8 amnesty bill does not properly manage welfare, does not give border security, mismanages tax dollars, thereby hammering already stressed and overtaxed American families and taxpayers while aggravating America's already bad financial situation, thus increasing America's risk of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate Gang of 8 bill must be defeated at all costs. America's future depends on it.