Mo Brooks

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. For citizenship.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. A remarkable number.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose would eliminate the funding for the Emerging Markets Program. For those of you who are not familiar, the Emerging Markets Program assists United States private and public organizations with agriculture marketing in low- to middle-income countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Eurasia and the Middle East. The Emerging Markets Program funding is $10 million per year in this food stamp and farm bill. Over the 5-year life of this legislation, funding is $50 million. The Emerging Markets Program duplicates and overlaps the Federal Government's much larger Marketing Agricultural Program. By way of example, in 2010, at least 27 of the 82 projects funded by the Emerging Markets Program went to entities that also received funding from the Federal Government's Marketing Agricultural Program. Emerging Markets Program expenditures are quite informative: $30,000 was spent on ``Brazil Craft Beer School Seminars for the Brewers Association.'' $468,000 in hard-earned taxpayers' money was spent studying food consumption in China's second-tier cities, the new frontier for U.S. agricultural export opportunities. $212,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent concerning, ``Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Sector Development for the United States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Services/Chengdu, China.'' $174,431 was spent on a ``Global Food Safety Forum China Exchange for the GIC Group.'' $35,000 was spent on ``China Beer Distributors Education Program for the Brewers Association.'' $142,356 was spent on a ``Central American Microbiological Standards Program for USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.'' And the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, since, first, the Emerging Markets Program overlaps and duplicates America's Marketing Agricultural Program, and since, second, the private sector's ability to do this work without Federal Government intervention or assistance, and since, third, America's out-of-control deficit and debt situation slowly but surely increased America's risk of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy, and since, finally, America's financial condition forces us to borrow every penny of the $50 million being spent on the Emerging Markets Program, I urge this body to be financially responsible by adopting my amendment to eliminate funding for the Emerging Markets Program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma's response--and he's a good friend of mine--is reflective, unfortunately, of the financial irresponsibility that jeopardizes America's future solvency. Let's keep in mind that we're in a triage situation. We've had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. We are looking at blowing through the $17 billion total accumulated debt mark. If we cannot eliminate a program of this magnitude--only $10 million per year-- a program that is duplicative of other Federal Government programs, well, I would submit to this body that that suggests and reflects, in a very strong way, the financial irresponsibility that has put America into the position we are in where we are at risk long term of a debilitating financial insolvency and bankruptcy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. The Justice Department targets Associated Press, FOX News, and other journalists. For political reasons, the State Department and White House contrive a false story about Americans murdered in Benghazi. Cover-ups ensue. The President promotes rather than fires the principal deceiver. The President promises to punish the Benghazi murderers, yet the only person jailed is a scapegoated filmmaker the White House falsely blamed for inspiring the Benghazi attacks. Armed Federal SWAT agents raid Gibson Guitar and threaten to put Gibson Guitar out of business. Why? Gibson Guitar imported the same guitar materials they have imported for years; yet Martin & Company, a Gibson Guitar competitor, imports the same guitar materials with impunity. The difference? Gibson Guitar contributes to Republicans like Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, while Martin contributes $35,000 to Democrats. The IRS targets law-abiding citizens who use names like ``Tea Party'' and ``Patriots'' and dare exercise their freedom of association and speech rights. In one particularly outrageous example, Texan Catherine Engelbrecht is investigated and harassed by the IRS, the FBI, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Why? Engelbrecht founded the King Street Patriots, which hosts weekly discussions on economic freedom, and True the Vote, which trains volunteers to fight voter fraud. The White House manages the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal that left hundreds of Mexicans and an American Border Patrol agent dead. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius unethically--and perhaps unlawfully--shakes down companies she regulates for donations to support ObamaCare. President Obama thumbs his nose at America's immigration laws by not only giving millions of illegal aliens a free pass; Obama rewards illegal conduct by giving illegal aliens work permits in direct violation of American law, thereby undermining the ability of Americans to obtain good-paying jobs. America is in uncharted waters when our own Federal Government aggressively undermines our rights to freedom of speech and association--rights won with American blood on the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, Trenton and Princeton, Saratoga, Cowpens and Kings Mountain, and Yorktown. Mr. Speaker, America faces a policy debate between privacy and national security. Fifty years ago, our foes were well-known nation- states like Communist China and the Soviet Union. Now, our enemies may be foreign neighbors, foreign tourists, or even foreign students. Foreign terrorists seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction that can destroy an American city or murder hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single attack. As America seeks the proper balance between our privacy rights and national security, one thing stands out: Americans must be able to trust our Federal Government to do the right thing with the privacy information Americans give up. If we cannot trust the Federal Government to use our private privacy information solely for antiterrorism purposes, then the balance shifts. We will not give up our privacy information, thereby increasing the risk of a successful weapon of mass destruction terrorist attack on an American city. More and more, our own Federal Government disregards the rule of law that is essential to avoid the strife and bloodshed of anarchy. More and more, the Federal Government targets American citizens who differ politically with the White House. While the IRS, Gibson Guitar, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and numerous other scandals are troublesome, the bigger picture is that this White House, this administration, has breached the public's trust. The bigger scandal is that this White House, this administration, by their breach of trust, has undermined America's national security and thereby risked American lives. Mr. Speaker, the White House can still do the right thing, but the right thing is not coverups. The right thing is not rewarding and promoting political cronies and lawbreakers. The right thing is, with full and open candor, telling the American people the truth about these scandals. The right thing is very publicly and aggressively firing offending Federal employees. The right thing is very publicly prosecuting lawbreakers. Then and only then will the trust of the American people in the Federal Government be restored. Then and only then can America fight the war on terror with certainty that we will win.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amnesty bill gives amnesty to illegal aliens regardless of public safety and the danger to American citizens. For example, the Department of Homeland Security must waive misdemeanor criminal convictions when determining amnesty eligibility. That means crimes like assault, vehicular homicide, possession of drug manufacturing equipment, DUI, and sex offenses. Even gangsters get amnesty. Chris Crane, President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, says: The idea that we're going to give known gang members the opportunity to renounce their affiliation--and believe them-- and then give them legal status in our country is outrageous. Letting illegal alien criminals stay in America is outrageous, yet amnesty for criminals is exactly what the President and Senate Gang of 8 advocate. Mr. Speaker, this amnesty bill is so bad it should be renamed the ``Loopholes for Criminals Act.''

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise to proudly vote to repeal ObamaCare, the most dysfunctional law to ever pass United States Congress. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? For the vast majority of Americans, ObamaCare guarantees worse health care at higher costs. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? ObamaCare imposes 21 new taxes on America; thereby, according to the Congressional Budget Office, costing 800,000 Americans to lose their jobs. In my home State of Alabama, just one of those tax increases imposes roughly $200 million a year in higher tax burdens on Blue Cross/Blue Shield, costs that will translate into higher premiums for Alabama citizens. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? Those 21 tax increases come nowhere close to paying for the increases in ObamaCare costs, thereby either denying health care to American citizens or forcing even higher taxes on already stressed family incomes. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? It gives Americans worse health care. Doctors and patients will largely be shut out of costly lifesaving health care decisions. Instead, Independent Payment Advisory Board bureaucrats will decide whether ObamaCare will pay for the treatments that save your life or risk ending it. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? It suppresses the research and development necessary for the discovery of the next generation of lifesaving diagnostic tools and medical cures. Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? It drastically drives up health insurance premiums for Americans who work for a living. Madam Speaker, while my friends across the aisle bemoan today's vote to protect Americans from a dysfunctional ObamaCare, I rejoice that Republicans in the House of Representatives say that when American lives are at stake, we will never give up, and we will never, never surrender.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the President and Senate Gang of Eight amnesty bill is not only bad for America, it is a disaster for American workers who are pitted against millions of illegal aliens in the competition for scarce jobs. On April 24, 2013, Dr. Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and now leader for the African American Leadership Foundation, stated, ``The Senate Gang of Eight's immigration bill is not only impractical, but immoral. Increasing immigration levels through amnesty and new visa programs, particularly at the low-skilled level, will flood the labor market with millions more people, leading to higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the Black community.'' Dr. Morris is right. Amnesty undermines millions of African-American workers' incomes and job searches by flooding the American market with cheap labor. In an April 23 news release, the African American Leadership Foundation stated, ``Blacks have an unemployment rate nearly twice that of the national average. The Senate's immigration plan to drastically increase the immigrant workforce will continue to keep that number high.'' Dr. Morris emphasized that illegal aliens have huge advantages over American job seekers. ``Immigrants are the preferred employees because they are more vulnerable, you can cut them out of overtime, you can cut them out of safety measures, you can cut them out of anything and they have no recourse.'' Charles Butler, also of the African American Leadership Foundation, added that the amnesty bill would ``provide green cards and residency benefits to illegal aliens when many Americans are hurting the most. What makes sense is for America's jobs to be reserved for people who are legally entitled to compete for them.'' In 2007, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami emphasized that, ``Amnesty for illegal workers is not just a slap in the face to Black Americans. It's an economic disaster. ``I see illegal immigration and the adverse impact that it has on the political empowerment of African Americans and the impact it has on the job market.'' How bad does illegal immigration hurt American workers? Harvard Professor George Borjas found in a study released in April 2013, and I quote, ``Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.'' Who is hurt the most by illegal aliens? American workers who lose $99 to $118 billion in badly-needed income. Who is helped the most by illegal aliens? Employers who pad their profits to the tune of $107 to $128 billion when they hire illegal aliens over Americans. Dr. Borjas adds that ``immigration has its largest negative impact on the wage of native workers who lack a high school diploma, a group that makes up a modest . . . share of the workforce. These workers are among the poorest Americans.'' Who do American workers compete against for jobs? Per a 2010 Pew Hispanic Center study, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America. That's 7.8 million job opportunities that would be opening up for American workers if the President would enforce Federal immigration laws. The way to help our blue-collar and low-wage workers is not to flood the market with illegal aliens. The way to help America's blue-collar and low-wage workers is by denying American jobs to illegal aliens, thus forcing blue-collar wages up and helping workers and their families pursue the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, we must return American jobs to American citizens. The White House and Congress should be fighting for American jobs for American citizens, not jobs for illegal aliens. Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, ratify illegal conduct with my vote, and I hope other elected officials in Washington will represent Americans seeking jobs, not foreigners illegally on American soil.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. America struggles under President Obama's economic policies: Nearly 12 million Americans are out of work. Last month, almost 280,000 Americans were forced into part-time jobs because their hours were reduced or they couldn't find a full-time job; The average workweek and weekly take-home pay for Americans dropped; The best measure for employment, the Labor Participation Rate, is at 63.3 percent, the worst since the economic malaise of President Jimmy Carter. With the Obama economy doing so poorly, why implement a law we know will kill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, some 800,000 American jobs? ObamaCare undermines the ability of American companies to hire workers. It stymies economic growth, and it's only going to get worse. Even top Democrats admit as much. One of the law's authors, Senator Max Baucus, called it a ``train wreck.'' Madam Speaker, we must stop the train before the wreck. It's time to repeal ObamaCare before it does even more damage to the American economy.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I applaud the Alabama Legislature's Scottsboro Boys Act, which granted posthumous pardons to eight African American young men wrongfully accused in Alabama in 1931. The Scottsboro Boys case profoundly impacted America's civil rights movement and American law. In two different landmark decisions, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires legal counsel for criminal defendants and held that arbitrarily excluding African Americans from jury pools was unconstitutional. It is never too late to call wrong by its name. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in his ``Letter from Birmingham Jail'': Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I pray that the families of Olen Montgomery, Haywood Patterson, Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Charlie Weems, Eugene Williams, and Andy and Roy Wright may take comfort in Alabama's full acknowledgement of the innocence of these wrongfully accused young men.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, while America has the world's most generous immigration policy, we simply lack the resources to accept all the world's immigrants into America. The President and Senate Gang of Eight push an amnesty bill that, per The Heritage Foundation, costs American taxpayers a 50-year net tax loss of $6.3 trillion. That's a net tax loss of $126 billion per year--enough to eliminate sequestration. In April 2013, a Pew Center poll revealed that 20 percent of all Mexicans--that's 22 million Mexicans--say they want to illegally immigrate to America if they can get away with it. America cannot afford to open these massive floodgates anymore than we can afford an amnesty plan that rewards illegal conduct while adding $6.3 trillion to America's already dangerous and exploding national debt--a debt, I might add, that is already doing significant damage to America's economy and national security.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, what would President Ronald Reagan do about illegal immigration? Mr. Speaker, let me share verbatim with you parts of a 2006 editorial by Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese, that is instructive: What would Ronald Reagan do? I can't tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable. Immigration is one area where Reagan's principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive. President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened, in particular through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial. He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants, even if they had entered illegally, who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for 5 years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after another 18 months and, after another 5 years, to citizenship. It wasn't automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military Selective Service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today's large population of illegal aliens. So here we are, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal. What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools like biometric technology for identification and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective. One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United States, a reasonable program consistent with security and open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy. And what about those already here? Today it seems to me that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border, a combination of incentives and disincentives, will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants. Lastly, we should remember Reagan's commitment to the idea that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning for freedom. As a Nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan believed that there was something unique about America and that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration, assuring that those who choose to come here permanently become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy-- and it should be ours--to ``humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.'' According to Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, President Ronald Reagan would learn from history and not repeat the 1986 amnesty mistake that created today's illegal alien problem, the very same amnesty that today's President and so many Senators and Congressmen demand. President Reagan would insist that those who are here illegally must repent and atone for their illegal conduct by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. Mr. Speaker, America's most cherished right is American citizenship. Foreigners whose first action on American soil is illegal conduct are not deserving of that cherished right.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, in 2011, I voted against the Budget Control Act and President Obama's sequester because I believed and feared they posed a grave threat to national security. That fear has come true. As I stand here today, north Alabamians face job furloughs in the thousands because Washington would rather spend money on frivolous programs than protect national security. Madam Speaker, I have voted against sequester at every opportunity. I sent a letter to the White House calling on the President to face and avoid the horrendous consequences of his sequester. I've escorted members of the House Armed Services Committee around Redstone Arsenal to help them better understand how our civilian defense workers are critical to America's security, and I have repeatedly cosponsored legislation to end the sequester. For nearly 2 years I have been fighting sequester and the hollowing out of our Armed Forces. It's time for the President and the Senate to do the same.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states sequestration ``would be a disaster in terms of the Defense Department. As far as our budget is concerned, as far as our ability to respond to the threats that are out there, it has a big impact.'' Over time, sequestration's disproportionate cuts to national defense will reduce our military to its smallest number of uniformed personnel since before World War II, its smallest number of operational naval vessels since World War I, and its smallest number of operational aircraft in the history of the United States Air Force. But national security is not the only sequestration risk. In my home district in north Alabama, President Obama has ordered that roughly 14,000 highly skilled and irreplaceable Department of Defense civilian employees suffer 20 percent furloughs and 20 percent salary cuts. Redstone Arsenal's engineers, scientists, and other civilian defense staff are critical to national security in a time of international instability. Their knowledge and skill sets are unique, virtually irreplaceable, and may be lost to national security forever if these workers are forced to find work elsewhere. The damage I've just described to north Alabama's economy is before President Obama starts hammering defense and NASA contractors and many other Tennessee Valley Federal employees who provide worthwhile services to their country. Nationwide, the economic impact is absolutely staggering. Sequestration risks 1.5 to 2 million job losses, with a resulting 1 percent worsening of America's unemployment rate. It is unwise to subject America's fragile economy to job losses of this magnitude. For emphasis, and despite White House, Senate leadership, and House leadership efforts to the contrary, I voted against sequestration and the Budget Control Act of 2011, quite frankly, because the risk to America was simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, my vote was in the minority. In 2012, and despite President Obama's veto threats, the House twice passed legislation to fix sequestration. In response, the Senate not only refused to vote on the House's sequestration solutions, the Senate irresponsibly refused to propose solutions of its own. Hence, despite the Senate enjoying more than a year and a half to do its job, Senate inaction and delay have given America yet another short-term crisis. So here we are. America faces three major crises: Sequestration, a continuing resolution to fund the government, and yet another debt ceiling crisis. While I agree with the House leadership's view that, since the Senate has done nothing to solve this problem, it is appropriate for the Senate to act first on sequestration this time, I am troubled the House is scheduled to work only 24 days in March and April, combined. Conversely, there are 19 workdays in which the House is not in session. Stated differently, the House will only work 56 percent of workdays and be on recess from Washington 44 percent of the time. The American people work on workdays. Congress should do no less. Actions speak louder than words. Under the circumstances America faces, a part-time Congress is simply unacceptable. As sequestration unfolds, as national security, Federal Government functions, and the American economy slowly but surely deteriorate, the American people will intensify pressure on Harry Reid's Senate to finally do its job. Americans are suffering. National defense is suffering. The suffering of Americans is not in recess during this crisis. Congress should not be in recess either. We signed up to do a job, and that job is not done. The House must provide leadership and prove we are serious about doing the people's business, and Washington is where the people's business is done. Given the magnitude of the risks and damage done by sequestration to America on a daily basis, I respectfully request that the House remain in session and do our jobs on each and every workday until sequestration is resolved. The House has passed numerous sequestration solutions. It is long past time for the Senate to wake from its slumber, respond to the clarion call of the American people, and pass a sequestration solution.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Julian Davidson passed away on January 31, 2013. I have personally known Julian Davidson and his wife, Dorothy, for only a few years. But I know enough about Julian Davidson, what he did, and how he lived to know that he was an American patriot who will be sorely missed by his family, the Tennessee Valley, America, and me. Julian Davidson was born in the small town of Oakman in Walker County, Alabama, on September 2, 1927. He was a proud son of Oakman and Walker County; however, his destiny lay elsewhere. At the age of 17, Julian Davidson hitchhiked to Montgomery, Alabama, and without permission and despite being underage, enlisted in the Navy during World War II. He served with distinction on gunships loading heavy ammunition into gun turrets. Julian Davidson's naval service gave him an enduring respect and admiration for America's warfighters who serve in harm's way. After the Navy, Julian Davidson attended classes during the day and worked at a pool hall at night to obtain an electrical engineering degree from Auburn University. After graduation, Julian Davidson joined the Tennessee Valley Authority where he rose to senior design engineer. In 1961, Julian Davidson began work for the United States Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as an aerospace research engineer, thus beginning his life's passion in a career in missile defense that spanned half a century. Julian Davidson once briefed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concerning using the Nike Zeus missile system for a possible anti- satellite role. Army leadership didn't believe McNamara would do it, so they sent in Julian Davidson, then a junior member of the briefing team to make the presentation. Julian related that ``for some reason, McNamara was very interested and asked how long it would take and how much it would cost.'' I answered 15 months and $15 million. He didn't flinch. He said, Do it. We went through about six decision milestones in that 15-minute briefing. In time, Julian Davidson became Director of the Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense Agency and one of the youngest people to achieve the rank of senior executive service with the Federal Government. In 1979, Julian met Dorothy Smith. In 1981, they married in Fairfax, Virginia. Julian loved and admired Dorothy for her intelligence and spark. Julian Davidson used to say that Dorothy ``is the glue that holds everything together.'' He wrote in a speech: I'd like to thank my wife, Dorothy, who in addition to running her company, takes care of family matters, allowing me to do the things that interest me the most, missile development and testing. Julian Davidson was quick witted when he added: I want you to know the rumor is not true that Dorothy does all the maintenance jobs around the home because I refuse to. I would be happy to do these tasks, except she will not allow me to borrow her tools. In the 1990s, Julian and Dorothy Davidson settled in Huntsville, Alabama, a community Julian loved very much. Julian started Davidson Technologies in 1996 with just two employees. Julian Davidson emerged as a leading figure in the Tennessee Valley and believed that if everyone worked for the betterment of the community, regardless of personal gain, everyone benefited. Julian sought to leave our community and country better than he found it, and he did that. Julian Davidson is a former chairman of the Air Force Studies Board of the National Research Council, member of the Defense Sciences Board, and vice chairman of the Technology Assessment Committee of the United Space Command for the National Research Council. Julian Davidson twice received the Army Exceptional Civilian Service Award. He has received the Air Force Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the MDA Pioneer Award, and the Medaris Award. He is a member of the United States Army Strategic Defense Employees Hall of Fame, the Alabama Technology Hall of Fame, and the Auburn Alumni Engineering Council. Julian Davidson's impact on America is enormous. He is known by many as the ``father of missile defense in America.'' Julian Davidson is survived by his wife, Dorothy; his four children, Diana Lyn, Janice Faye, Randall Eugene, and Robert Lee; his two grandchildren, Wendy Faith Holderfield and William Blair Peyton; and three great grandchildren, Teagan Holderfield, Shelby Holderfield, and Michaela Holderfield. America and the Davidson family have lost a great man and a true patriot, and we are all better for having known Dr. Julian Davidson.