Mo Brooks

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the House today, H.R. 3630, the so-called ``payroll tax holiday,'' passed. Later it passed the United States Senate, meaning it passed the United States Congress. But on the House floor today, I joined 91 other Republican budget hawks, each of whom shares my concern for the financial stability of our Nation and a risk of a Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy. Each of us budget hawks voted ``no.'' In December of 2011, Alabama Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions and I voted ``no'' on the deceptively named payroll tax bill. I am pleased today that I was part of a united Republican delegation from the State of Alabama to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3630. Robert Aderholt, Republican from Haleyville, voted ``no.'' Spencer Bachus, Republican from Birmingham, voted ``no.'' Mike Rogers, Republican from Anniston, voted ``no.'' Martha Roby, Republican from Montgomery, voted ``no.'' And Jo Bonner, Republican from Mobile, voted ``no.'' On the Senate side, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby voted ``no,'' and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions voted ``no.'' Each of these individual Congressmen and Senators voted ``no,'' again because they share a deep- rooted concern for the financial stability of our country and the impact this legislation can have on that. In sum, I voted against H.R. 3630 for a variety of reasons, but I'm going to mention three. First, H.R. 3630 disproportionately targets and burdens American Federal workers, takes their hard-earned money and diverts it to those who don't work for it. That's not fair, and that's not good policy. Second, America's seniors have asked me to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits because they paid for and earned them during their working lifetimes. Americans support Social Security because everyone contributes their fair share to their own Social Security retirement benefits. Social Security is not welfare. Social Security is an earned entitlement. H.R. 3630 undermines Social Security's and Medicare's foundation by threatening 10 percent funding cuts totaling $120 billion per year, which will, if continued beyond this fiscal year, breach America's commitment to our elderly and will force significant Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts. We cannot expect the benefits while cutting the revenue that provides those benefits. Third, and most importantly, the name ``Middle Class Tax Relief,'' which is on the title of H.R. 3630, is deceptive and it is false. There is no tax cut. Rather, Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to understand that it is 100 percent a loan. Let me delve into that a little bit deeper. But as I do so, let me mention this: in the private sector, if a commercial institution had done what Congress did today, it would constitute flagrant violations of truth in advertising, truth in lending, and deceptive practice statutes. But as we all know, Washington is all too often immune from such constraints. H.R. 3630 is false advertising and deceptive because it is not a tax cut. H.R. 3630 is a loan that risks America's solvency and which the American people must pay back with interest. In this regard, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation reports revealed two troubling aspects of H.R. 3630: first, according to the CBO's and JCT's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630 would change revenues and direct spending to produce increases in the deficit of $101.1 billion in fiscal year 2012--$101.1 billion in fiscal year 2012--and we are already 4 or 5 months through with this fiscal year. So that gives you an idea of what it's like for the remainder. Further, H.R. 3630 would direct the Office of Management and Budget to exclude the budgetary effects of H.R. 3630 from its scorecard of balances under its Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. So what is H.R. 3630 doing? Well, it's instructing the Office of Management and Budget to not count the deficit impact of this legislation on its full scorecard of balances. In sum, the Congressional Budget Office report confirms that every penny of the so-called ``tax cut'' must be paid back with interest. Now, where I come from, if you're given money that you have to pay back with interest, that is called a loan; and that is exactly what the American people will have to do. My parents taught me about debt. Debt never rests. Debt is working against you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for however many years it takes you to pay it off in full. Too much debt enslaves you. Your creditors and your debt become your masters, and you become their servant. This is what debt does to every American family, and it is doing that slowly but surely to America. As you all know, we blew through the $15 trillion mark in November of 2011, and sometime this year we are going to blow by the $16 trillion debt mark. That debt is not free. There is no free lunch. According to the CBO report, H.R. 3630 racks up debt at the rate of over $12 billion per month in FY 2012. Now, if I had a printed copy of H.R. 3630--but the speed of this place sometimes does not empower you to have that--according to the CBO report, if we were to have printed H.R. 3630 on sheets of gold--which we probably should have done because it costs American taxpayers roughly $500 million per page in additional debt burden and payments--that's the cost of that bill per page. Why would Washington do this to America? What is Washington's motive for this deception? Why don't we call things what they are? Why don't we call a payroll tax a payroll tax rather than a Social Security and Medicare funding tax, which is what it really is? The answer is simple: poll data, pandering to voters, and the 2012 elections. Why does Washington use the phrase ``payroll tax'' rather than what so-called ``payroll taxes'' are--Social Security and Medicare funding taxes? Because polls show voters don't understand what the payroll tax is, but by golly they know what Social Security and Medicare funding taxes are. Yet, 100 percent of the so-called ``tax cuts'' in H.R. 3630 are cuts to Social Security and Medicare funding taxes. In other words, Washington politicians use the phrase ``payroll tax'' because they know using the more accurate phrase ``Social Security tax'' would cause American voters to rise up to protect our Social Security and Medicare system. Worse yet, H.R. 3630 deceives America's working families into believing they are reaping a windfall when in fact they are being saddled with a burden, a burden that will hamstring our children, grandchildren, and America's future with another layer of heavy, taxing, onerous debt. What Washington won't tell the American people is that H.R. 3630 is another debt-busting bill that further empowers China and other American predators to become our master while enslaving America and the American people with generations of oppressive debt burden payments. Mr. Speaker, America yearns for leadership, leadership that involves adult, mature conversations with American voters about the financial condition we are in and what H.R. 3630 is really about. There are simply too many in Washington who pander to voters in an election year for political gain. H.R. 3630, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, represents the worst of Washington, not the best, and not what the people deserve. I cannot speak for other Congressmen, but as for me, today I and 90 other Republican budget hawks stood strong for America's future. We voted to kill H.R. 3630, stop the deception, stop pandering to voters, and save America from another mountain of oppressive debt that threatens us with insolvency and bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, during the House Armed Services Committee's review of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, I successfully proposed a two-tier amendment to protect America's missile defense technology. Tier 1 bars the White House from giving the Russian Federation any American hit-to-kill or other sensitive missile defense technology. Tier 2 bars the White House from giving Russia any American non- sensitive missile defense technology unless the White House first certifies to Congress that America's missile defense will not be undermined and that our technology will not be proliferated. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois is blocking the Russian ambassador nomination until the appropriate safeguards exist that protect America's missile defense technology. I applaud Senator Kirk's efforts. The NDAA is now in conference committee. I urge the conferees to support the HASC amendment and to safeguard missile defense technologies that have cost American taxpayers so much and that have helped protect America so well.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Aslum Hamayun lives in Alabama's Fifth Congressional District. He is a father who loves and cares very much about his son, Hamesh Khan. At Mr. Hamayun's request, let me share with you and the American people the plight of Mr. Hamayun's son, Hamesh Khan. Mr. Khan is an American citizen who, thanks to the Obama administration and the United States Government, has been wrongfully held for over a year and a half in Pakistan prisons without indictment for a specific crime or trial. This is Hamesh Khan's story. Mr. Khan has lived in America since he was 10 years old. Mr. Khan earned a bachelor's and two master's degrees from Georgia Southern University. Following graduation, Mr. Khan worked for Citibank in Pakistan. In 2003, the Musharraf government appointed Mr. Khan to head Pakistan's Punjab Bank. Unfortunately for Mr. Khan, the Musharraf government fell in April 2008. As seems to be so often the case in the world, a new government regime meant that appointees of the past regime risked trouble. In American citizen Hamesh Khan's case, the new Punjab government issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices. Let me emphasize that point, on suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices. Fearing politically motivated reprisals, Mr. Khan fled Pakistan for his home, America. Thereafter, Pakistan sought extradition of Mr. Khan pursuant to the arrest warrant for suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices. Let me be clear on this point. Three parties are involved in this tragedy: a new Pakistani regime; President Obama and the United States Government; and Hamesh Khan, an American citizen. The United States had to decide whom to support: Pakistan or an American citizen. The Obama administration chose Pakistan over its own American citizen. Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful to know why the Obama administration made that decision. In any event, on December 10, 2009, Mr. Khan was arrested by United States marshals in his office in Washington, D.C., and held without bond for 5 months. Remarkably, persons in Mr. Khan's position are barred from fully defending themselves at extradition hearings. For example, Mr. Khan was barred from presenting evidence to impeach the allegations against him. Mr. Khan fought extradition until it became clear that the severe evidentiary limitations made it impossible for him to defend himself. On May 13, 2010, the United States Government forcefully handed Mr. Khan over to Pakistani authorities at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. Mr. Khan was bound in handcuffs and leg chains. With the Obama administration's historic act, Hamesh Khan became the first American citizen ever extradited to Pakistan. The one concession the United States State Department received from the new Pakistani regime was a promise that Mr. Khan would be fairly treated under Pakistani law. While anyone hearing this story can suspect political motivations for the prosecution of Mr. Khan by Pakistani authorities, I am not in a position to make a judgment on that issue. But I am in a position to make a judgment about our United States Government and its responsibility to protect American citizens. Whether he is innocent or guilty of the charges by Pakistani authorities, Hamesh Khan has not been served justice. Under Pakistani law, after arrest for suspicion, Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau can hold a person for up to 3 months without bail. Within that 3 months, Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau must either indict a held person for specific crimes for trial or order his release; yet it is now over 18 months since Hamesh Khan became the first American citizen extradited to Pakistan, and for those 18 months, Mr. Khan has been held without bail, without indictment, and without trial. Mr. Khan lives in a 6-foot by 6-foot prison cell in Pakistan. I pray the American State Department did not anticipate that Mr. Khan would be held indefinitely without indictment or trial when they forcibly bound and shackled an American citizen and gave him to Pakistan. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I enter this statement in the Congressional Record: It is time for America's State Department to use whatever influence is necessary and proper to cause Pakistan to treat Mr. Khan in accordance with Pakistan's own law and with international treaty obligations. Justice cannot be served an American citizen in any other way.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, America faces a financial threat of historic proportions. It has one basic cause. We suffer from unsustainable budget deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy. We have seen what's been going on in Europe with Greece and with Paris from a few years ago, with Rome, with riots in Greece where there's even been fatalities. All of these relate to the financial stewardship of their governments. I hope that with the remarks I'm about to share that the people of America will have a better understanding of the deficit situation we face, because given that understanding, I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the American people will cause Washington to do the right thing. A little bit of history is in order. I've got a chart here, the United States annual deficits. The last balanced budget we had was $128 billion, fiscal year '01, a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, a Republican House and Republican Senate. Since that time, we've had 9/11 and we've had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see how the deficit situation became worse. George Bush as President and Republicans in control of Congress to $158 billion to $377 billion to $413 billion. All of those were bad, no question. Notably, we have the Bush tax cuts in the summer of 2003; and, paradoxically, from one perspective across the aisle, things should have gotten worse, but they got better because our economy improved and our deficit declined to $318 billion to $248 billion to $161 billion. We were on the right path as of November 2006. Then we had a different mindset capture the United States House and the United States Senate. We had a different Speaker of the House, a different majority leader in the United States Senate, and a different philosophy of government and a different economic philosophy that unfortunately has failed miserably. As a consequence, after the November 2006 elections where the Democrats captured the United States Congress, we have a $459 billion deficit followed by a $1.4 trillion deficit. Then we have a change in the White House. For 2 years, two budgets, two sets of expenditures and two sets of revenues were totally controlled by the other party, my colleagues across the aisle. In FY10 and FY11, the fiscal year that we just finished, we had back-to-back $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion deficits. Ladies and gentlemen, these deficits were bad. These are unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and they're a great risk to our Nation. To put it into perspective, that's $2.3 trillion in revenue last year, $3.6 trillion in expenditures, a $1.3 trillion deficit, and a $14.3 trillion accumulated debt. With what happened with the Budget Control Act in August of this year, a bill that I voted against, the debt ceiling was increased by $2.4 trillion such that it will soon hit a $16.2 trillion debt burden in 2013. Now, I mention trillions, and people's eyes often start to glaze over, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it down in a family sense where hopefully the American people can better understand it. Think in terms of a family that's uncertain about their income. So they go over their finances, and they discover that over the last 3 years they've averaged $50,000 a year in income--not too bad. And then they look at their expenses, and they've been averaging $80,000 a year in expenses. That's scary to them, and it should be. They've been in the hole 3 straight years for $30,000 a year. Then they pick up their Visa bill, and it's for $320,000. Now what do you think that family would do? Well, they'd cut their spending and they would try to balance their budget in order to avoid bankruptcy. Those analogies are exactly the same as that of the United States of America--those ratios. We have to have a balanced budget constitutional amendment, I submit to the American people, Mr. Speaker, because that is the only way Washington will have the backbone to do the right thing, to protect future generations from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy that we in America face today. So I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of Representative Goodlatte and all the other members of the Constitutional Caucus who have been working so hard to come forth with a substantive, effective, and enforceable constitutional amendment that can help save our children and grandchildren from the seriousness of the financial situation that we in America face today. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to support a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I will do my utmost to ensure that it is an effective constitutional amendment, that it's not a dog and pony show, that, in fact, it will achieve the desired result. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I have read President Obama's American Jobs Act. It is 155 pages and single spaced. I encourage the American people to read it too. Unfortunately, President Obama's American Jobs Act does not address the underlying structural issues with the American economy. In fact, in my judgment, it destroys more long-term jobs than it claims to create. Some history is in order. In November 2006, America's unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. That's right, 4.5 percent--less than half today's rate. In November 2006, Democrats captured Congress and gave us House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In November 2008, President Obama was elected. For 2 years, Democrats completely controlled America's economic policy. The result: Between November 2006 and November 2010, 7 million American jobs were lost. America's excellent November 2006 4.5 percent unemployment rate deteriorated to 6.8 percent by November of 2008 and degenerated further to 9.8 percent by November 2010. For almost 5 years, America's job creators have been hammered by job- killing policies. America's job creators are reeling from ObamaCare costs. America's job creators are shell-shocked by a job-killing National Labor Relations Board that sues to kill South Carolina jobs because South Carolina dares to be a right-to-work State in which workers cannot be forced to join a union. Obama's job-killing 10 percent tax increase awaits job creators in 2013. Obama's EPA repeatedly imposes new, costly environmental regulations that risk plant closings and kill jobs. Obama's three consecutive trillion-dollar deficits threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and frighten job creators into inaction. In 5 short years, President Obama and his congressional allies have replaced a pro-free enterprise, job-friendly environment that created 6 million jobs between 2003 and 2006 with class warfare, demonization of job creators, socialist feel-good policies that don't work, and 7 million lost jobs between 2006 and 2010. Mr. Speaker, Obama's so-called jobs bill creates ``one and done'' short-term jobs that will evaporate the moment Obama has blown through another $450 billion in borrowed money. In exchange for ``one and done'' jobs, Obama kills real jobs. First, Obama raises taxes on America's domestic oil industry, which increases production costs, drives up domestic oil prices, reduces demand for domestically produced oil, thereby destroying domestic oil industry jobs. Obama's higher oil taxes force price increases for gasoline, heating oil, and plastics. These higher prices in turn drive up manufacturing costs in America, make America less competitive, and kill jobs across our entire economy. Second, and incredibly, Obama gives civil rights status to unemployed people, empowering them to file costly EEOC complaints and Federal lawsuits against employers for discrimination any time an employer does not hire an unemployed person. Millions of frivolous EEOC complaints and lawsuits will drive up the cost of doing business in America which, in turn, kills business and destroys American jobs. Third, Obama raises taxes on charitable contributions to churches, synagogues, mosques, the Red Cross, United Way, and other charitable institutions. Higher taxes mean fewer charitable contributions, which kills religious and charitable institution jobs. Obama does not have a jobs bill; Obama has a kill-jobs bill that encourages jobs to relocate overseas. Mr. Speaker, America's economy has serious structural issues that Presidential Band-Aids and makeup won't fix and can't hide. President Obama's kill-jobs bill must be defeated because it is poorly thought out, bad economic policy, and costs American jobs. President Obama's kill-jobs bill is a political document, not an economic document. It gets an ``A'' for class warfare politics and an ``F'' for job creation. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of President Obama's kill-jobs bill. It must be killed before even more damage is done to America's economy.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, due to a clerical error, I was inadvertently made a cosponsor on the wrong bill. As such, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 2954.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, according to a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America. Madam Speaker, there is a sure-fire way to create jobs now for American citizens: evict all illegal aliens from America and immediately open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans. The eviction of illegal aliens from America has the side benefit of eliminating the abundance of cheap, illegal alien labor which, in turn, forces blue color wages up, thus helping American families afford and pursue the American Dream. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, there are those in Washington who chase a different dream, a class warfare nightmare, that pits unemployed Americans against illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs. The White House and too many Members of Congress seek amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legitimizing criminal conduct and depriving American citizens of job opportunities. Madam Speaker, Congress and the White House must create jobs now for American citizens. We can and must fight for American citizens, not turn our heads the other way, which gives illegal aliens preference over American citizens. But the issue of illegal aliens is greater than just jobs and better incomes for American citizens. Illegal aliens crowd our hospital emergency rooms, delaying treatment for Americans and driving up health care costs because too many illegal aliens don't pay their bills. Too often, illegal aliens get free health care on the backs of our already stressed American taxpayers. Illegal aliens also do not produce enough in tax revenue to pay for our schools; yet illegal alien children overcrowd our schools, thereby reducing the quality of education for American children. Illegal aliens commit horrendous crimes against American citizens, crimes that strain State and Federal judicial systems, police and sheriff departments, and prisons that are already overcrowded and in a financial crisis. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in one of her last Supreme Court opinions, wrote in 2005 in Medellin v. Drake, that: ``In 2003, over 56,000 noncitizens were held in State prisons. Noncitizens accounted for over 10 percent of the prison populations in California, New York, and Arizona. As of February 2005, 119 noncitizens from 31 nations were on State death row.'' Madam Speaker, so that I am clear, let me emphasize that death row is not just for any kind of murderer. Death row is for murders where victims are tortured or raped before killed. Death row is for murders where multiple citizens are killed. In sum, death row is reserved for only the most heinous of murderers. Hundreds if not thousands of Americans are dead today because the United States Government has been derelict in its duty to protect American citizens from illegal aliens. For example, in my home of Madison County, Alabama, population roughly 300,000 people, we have had more American citizens killed or murdered by illegal aliens than we have had lost in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Madam Speaker, let me share with you a personal story that happens to have happened in Huntsville, Alabama. But, the truth be told, similar events have likely happened throughout America. On April 17, 2009, a 19-year-old man in my hometown of Huntsville by the name of Tad Mattle was needlessly killed by an illegal alien who has since been convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years in prison, at a cost to Alabama taxpayers well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So that we are clear about the illegal alien's conduct, he was drunk. He was wanted for crimes in several States. When he murdered Tad Mattle, he was fleeing the scene of yet another crime. What had Tad Mattle done wrong? Absolutely nothing. Tad Mattle was driving home from a church social with his girlfriend. He was lawfully stopped at an intersection not far from my own home. After everything was said and done, at the end of an illegal alien crime spree, both Tad Mattle and his girlfriend were subject to force trauma and burned beyond recognition. Both died. Why did this needless crime occur? Why were these two young person's lives snuffed out? Because our American Government has steadfastly failed and refused to protect American citizens from illegal aliens. Madam Speaker, please let me share with you information about Tad Mattle, told in the words of his grieving father, Dan Mattle: Tad Mattle was the first child of Dan and Terri Mattle, born on November 8, 1989, in Florissant, Missouri. Tad was very curious and enjoyed figuring out how things worked. Shortly after his parents installed safety locks on all of the cupboards, he figured them out and then taught his little brother how to defeat them. He loved to play outside in the dirt and loved the water. He enjoyed trying different sports. More than anything, however, he loved building and creating. To the frustration of his parents, he would scatter Legos all over the floor as he created ships, starships, and airplanes. On family vacations, he reveled in the sand as he built sand castles. When he was 8 years old, he helped his father rebuild an engine on the family truck. At age 9, Tad Mattle and his family moved back to Huntsville, Alabama. Being very social, he quickly made new friends at church and school. In Cub Scouts, he achieved the Arrow of Light award. In his last year, he won the Pack Pinewood Derby Contest. In middle school, Tad joined the Boy Scouts and joined the school band as a percussionist. Tad thoroughly enjoyed making music, and he kept switching between first and second chair with one of his friends. During a scout trip in this period, Tad went caving with his father. By the time he was 13, he was a qualified vertical caver. By age 14, he had achieved a prestigious award among the caving community by completing his ``Vertical 8.'' In high school, Tad Mattle became heavily involved in the marching and symphonic bands. In his last 2 years, he served as the percussion section leader. Tad also pursued an advanced diploma by taking advanced placement science and math classes. In addition to these activities, he continued serving the community through Boy Scout and church youth group service projects. With his troop, in which he served as a leader, he participated in many different activities. On a Boy Scout troop hike on the Appalachian Trail, Tad helped maintain morale with his goofy sense of humor. Tad is especially remembered for his Julie Andrews impersonation as he skipped down a meadow on Siler Bald, wearing a 40-pound backpack, while the troop sang ``The Sound of Music.'' Tad was very excited when he became old enough to drive. He wanted his own car, so he took a job to earn money for it. He bought a neglected Toyota Supra that cost only $475. He spent the next few months restoring it to running condition. In his junior year of high school, Tad took an auto body collision repair course and completely restored the body of that car. He was so proud on the day he brought it home from the paint booth. He took meticulous care of that car and never abused it because he did not want to destroy all of his hard work. During his senior year of high school, Tad achieved the rank of Eagle Scout. For his Eagle leadership service project, he chose to rebuild a boat dock at the Madison County Boat Harbor on the Tennessee River. The original dock was a hazard to users due to warped, splintered, and rotten boards. Tad's leadership resulted in 190 man-hours of volunteer labor that saved the county thousands of dollars. In 2008, Tad graduated from high school with an advanced diploma. His dream was to work in an auto body collision repair and open his own shop. As he worked the following summer and winter, he realized that an education would be necessary to fulfill his dream. Tad applied to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and with his excellent top 1 percent ACT score of 32, he was quickly accepted. On April 14, 2009, just 3 days before his murder, Tad received a letter awarding him the UAH Presidential Full Scholarship which covered all tuition for his mechanical engineering degree. Tad was so excited as he read this letter to his parents that night. Three days later, on April 17, his father's birthday, Tad attended a church social with his family and girlfriend. After the social, he and his girlfriend headed to her cousin's house to watch a movie. While stopped at a traffic light, Tad's car was rammed by a truck driven by a drunk illegal immigrant who was fleeing from the police. Tad and his girlfriend were killed instantly, which was a blessing because the impact ruptured the gas tank of the car Tad had so meticulously restored and burned the two beyond recognition. There were no skid marks from the drunken driver's vehicle, and accident investigations indicated the truck impacted between 67 and 72 miles per hour, almost double the legal speed limit. The illegal immigrant responsible for this crash had seven different aliases, had four different DUI arrests, and was wanted by at least four other States for misdemeanors and felonies. According to police records, he was to have been deported in 2001. Let me reread that part for emphasis. The illegal immigrant responsible for this crash had seven different aliases, had four prior DUI arrests, and was wanted by at least four other States for misdemeanors and felonies. According to police records, he was to have been deported in 2001. Tad left behind a family that still mourns his loss. His brother and sister have dealt with depression, nightmares, and guilt. His mother still deals with days of depression. This loss was completely unnecessary but occurred because of a failure by the Federal Government to perform its duty to protect legal citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Tad's father, all I ask is that the government perform its Constitutional obligations to its citizens to prevent other families from experiencing this same nightmare. Madam Speaker, Tad Mattle's tragic story is one of many that I could tell here today, and his story illustrates so clearly why the Federal Government must stop being derelict in its duty to ensure the safety and security of American citizens. There are many Tad Mattles in America, each and every one of them victims of crimes that could have been prevented. In that vein, I introduced the Jobs for Americans Act. It empowers State and local governments to help the Federal Government by passing laws that identify illegal aliens, deter illegal aliens from entering the United States, apprehend illegal aliens, or encourage or otherwise cause illegal aliens to leave the United States. States aren't asking for another Federal handout. They're asking for freedom from Federal interference. They're asking for the freedom to protect their citizens' lives and livelihoods. This act ensures that the Federal Government will appreciate, not punish, States that do the hard work of enforcing our laws. Madam Speaker, when States like Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, and many others act to stop illegal aliens, they should be given letters of appreciation from Washington leaders for doing Washington's job. Instead, they receive lawsuits from the President's Justice Department. That is wrong. And the Justice Department's conduct will only victimize more American citizens. Madam Speaker, my Jobs for Americans Act prevents these wasteful Justice Department lawsuits against States that are only trying to protect their citizens from illegal aliens and the Federal Government's dereliction of its duties. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting American jobs. The Jobs for Americans Act does just what it says. It returns jobs to the American people. Its premise is simple. If the Federal Government won't do its job, it should get out of the way for States and those who will. At this point, I yield to my good colleague from Alabama.

Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I next recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Congresswoman Diane Black.

Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I next recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Rob Woodall.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks for the eloquence of Congressmen Rob Woodall of Georgia, Diane Black of Tennessee, and Robert Aderholt of the State of Alabama. I pray that the American people and Washington, D.C., will be mindful of the loss of Tad Mattle, the suffering of his family, and the sufferings of hundreds, if not thousands, of other Americans under similar, yet difficult, circumstances, all brought about because our Federal Government is derelict in its duty to protect American citizens from the conduct of illegal aliens. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, this morning a ``jobs now'' protest and chant reverberated through the Rayburn House Office Building. Per a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America. Mr. Speaker, there is a surefire way to create jobs now for American citizens: Evict all illegal aliens from America and immediately open up millions of jobs for American citizens. That also forces blue-collar wages up, helping American families afford and pursue the American Dream. Unfortunately, the White House chases a different dream, a nightmare that pits unemployed Americans against illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs. The DREAM Act gives amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legitimizing illegal conduct and depriving American citizens of job opportunities. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the White House must create jobs now for American citizens. We must fight for American citizens, not for illegal aliens.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I have voted to raise the debt ceiling where the bill makes America's financial condition better, not worse. In my judgment, both the Reid and Boehner plans fail to adequately address unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy. Both plans push the debt ceiling issue to 2012 or 2013, at which time a financially weaker America will confront a worse debt ceiling crisis. Both plans simply are not up to the seriousness of the financial challenges America faces. Washington must put 2012 election considerations aside and put America's interests first and foremost, now. Congress and the White House can and must do better, now. America deserves better, now. And quite frankly, we have no choice but to do better, now. Years of spending binges by the Federal Government have come home to roost. America's debt exceeds $14 trillion. America has suffered 3 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits and faces trillion-dollar deficits into the foreseeable future. Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits. In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis. If the debt ceiling is not raised, economic hardship will ensue, unemployment rates will rise, and America's gross domestic product will decline. Over a longer term, however, America faces a larger, more serious debt crisis. If trillion-dollar deficits continue to run rampant, America's insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, which risks America's national defense capabilities, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else that the government provides. The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how. I have already voted to raise the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion as part of the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. We're cutting FY12 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit, capping Federal Government expenditures within historically justifiable 18 to 24 percent ranges, and passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment that protects future generations of Americans from the financial mess we now face. I am prepared to vote to raise the debt ceiling again, so long as Congress substantively addresses our underlying deficit problem while protecting our fragile economy and jobs market. As best I can with the limited and changing information available, I have examined both the Boehner and Reid plans. While they differ in many respects, they also share common concepts: Neither plan purports to immediately raise taxes. Neither plan cuts spending in FY 2012 or 2013 by as much as 5 percent of this year's $1.5 trillion deficit. Neither plan eliminates annual trillion-dollar deficits in the foreseeable future. Both plans raise the debt ceiling by at least $1 trillion and as much as $2.7 trillion. Both plans kick the can down the road and force America to revisit the debt ceiling crisis in either 2012 or 2013, at which time America's debt burden will be much higher and America will be that much weaker. Neither plan heeds Standard and Poor's or Moody's credit downgrade warnings. Neither plan cuts America's short- or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America's credit rating, a downgrade that will drive up America's debt service cost and cut funding for all other Federal Government programs. To make matters worse, if America's interest rates go up, State and local private interest rates are likely to also go up, thereby hurting Americans at all levels. There is only one reliable solution that I can discern that protects America from both financial threats: a debt ceiling increase coupled with a balanced budget constitutional amendment that is phased in over a 5-year period of time. In as much as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America does not have, the first step must be to raise the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week. The second step, equally important, raises the rest of the debt ceiling when the States ratify the proposed balanced budget amendment, thus giving States a needed incentive to ratify the balanced budget amendment in less than 1 year. This approach solves both financial threats. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I pray that Washington has the strength to do what it must before it is too late. America is on the verge of a downward spiral. We must act now, and we must act in substantive ways.

Mr. BROOKS

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

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Obama gave a speech to the Nation about the debt ceiling. He said, I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal. Mr. Speaker, I say please bore us with the details. The House passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan that prevents a national bankruptcy by modestly cutting spending, capping the size of government, and advocating a balanced budget amendment to force Congress to act responsibly. In contrast, the President gives fine speeches, yet fails to submit a single written plan to balance the budget that can be evaluated by the American people. Mr. Speaker, I say bore us with the details. Washington's spending binge has put America $14 trillion in debt. America's future is at risk. Congress welcomes written detailed solutions to Washington's spending binge from the President. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, please bore us with the details. America has a right to hear them. President Obama has a duty to deliver them.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. During Barack Obama's 2 years as a freshman Senator, America's debt increased $400 billion. During Obama's next 2 years in the Senate majority, America's debt increased another $1.8 trillion. As President, Barack Obama drove up America's debt another $3 trillion. In Barack Obama's time in Washington, America's debt load has increased by more than $5 trillion. That's a 50 percent increase in just 6 years. Do you see the pattern? The longer Obama is in Washington, the worse America's debt and the weaker America becomes. What is President Obama's solution? Obama submits record-high budgets to Congress that continue Washington's unsustainable spending binge. Obama demands a debt ceiling increase with no spending cuts. Mr. President, America needs White House leadership. If you have a written solution to this debt crisis, please submit it. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, one of the things I am understanding and communicating with people is the difficulty in their understanding the difference between millions in debt, billions in debt, and trillions in debt. So I heard an analogy the other day that I thought was appropriate, that hopefully will help the American people better understand the financial situation in the United States of America. Imagine that you are a family and you haven't been keeping track of your finances for a good while. Finally, you decide to sit down at your kitchen table, the two spouses get together, and they accumulate their income, they accumulate their expenses, and they accumulate their debt. And as they go through their income, they discover that they have about $50,000 that they can spend--that's their income--for the upcoming year. And then they look at their expenses, and they put all the bills together and how they spent over the past year. And they discover that last year, they spent $80,000, meaning that they have spent $30,000 more than their income. And then finally, they pick up their Visa card bill, and that Visa card bill is $320,000. Well, those are the exact same ratios that we're talking about with the United States Government and the debt that we face. We have got a budget that's around $3.5 trillion. We have got an income that's a little over $2 trillion, and we have a deficit that is $14.3 trillion. All of that is unsustainable. It is a financial house of cards. And we have to take a tough but reasonable course, and that's what cut, cap, and balance is all about. Cut, cap, and balance, that is the way we score financial security for the United States of America, and that is the way to create jobs.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We enjoy a standard of living that is envied by most. We have a national defense unmatched in history. We are a beacon of freedom for all. Have you ever thought about why America is the world's leader? Are we just lucky. No. I would submit to you that there are substantive reasons for our greatness. We are blessed today because of the sacrifices of others before us, others who gave of themselves to ensure a better future for their children and succeeding generations. History shows us that great nations rise and great nations fall, but they rarely fall from without without first suffering weakness from within. Today, the greatest threat to America is not a foreign power. No. America's greatest threat is Washington's irresponsible, dangerous, and insatiable spending habits. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee that America's greatest national security threat is our own unsustainable and growing debt burden. It wasn't al Qaeda. It wasn't North Korea. It wasn't the Taliban. It wasn't any other foe across the globe. It was our unsustainable national debt. And he is right. For years, Washington has been on a spending binge of epic proportions. Why do Washington's politicians risk America's future? Because they have put their own self-interests above America's interests. They spend money we don't have to get votes for the next election. They don't care about who must pay the bill. They don't care about America's future generations. They don't care whether their spending binges risk America's future. Some say we don't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment to force Washington to spend within our means. They are 100 percent dead wrong. Most recently, the President stated: We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs--and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices. And he went on: We don't need more studies. We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our bases. But history has established that we need, in the United States Congress, a balanced budget constitutional amendment because it will provide the backbone that Congress has lacked for so long. History proves those naysayers are wrong. Three years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits proved them wrong. Projected trillion-dollar deficits into the future proved them wrong. America must rise up and force Washington to live within our means before it is too late. America must give Washington the backbone it lacks. That backbone is a balanced budget constitutional amendment forcing Washington to do the right thing. If this Congress will not pass an effective balanced budget constitutional amendment, then the States must do it for us. The Lone Star State of Texas recently passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention for a balanced budget constitutional amendment if Congress fails to act. The great State of Alabama has joined Texas. I will next read into the Record of the United States House of Representatives Alabama's Senate Joint Resolution 100 from Alabama's 2011 regular session just passed by the Alabama State Legislature. This is Act No. 2011-400. The principal sponsor is Senator Arthur Orr. Cosponsors from the State of Alabama are Senator Scofield, Senator Sanford, Senator Holtzclaw, Senator Williams, Senator McGill, and Senator Beason. ``Enrolled, SJR100, urging Congress to propose a Federal balanced budget amendment. ``Whereas, the reluctance of the Federal Government to incur debt and other obligations was established early in American history, with deficits occurring only in relation to extraordinary circumstances such as war; yet for much of the 20th century and into the 21st, the United States has operated on a budget deficit, including the 2010 budget year, which surpassed an astounding $1.3 trillion, an annual deficit that exceeded the entire gross State product of many of the States; and ``Whereas, an exception to this pattern was at the turn of the 21st century; in FY 2001, America enjoyed $128 billion budget surplus; and ``Whereas, since FY 2001, America has been burdened with 10 consecutive years of deficits, to wit: ``FY 2002, $158 billion deficit; FY 2003, $377 billion deficit; FY 2004, $413 billion deficit; FY 2005 $318 billion deficit; FY 2006 $248 billion deficit; FY 2007, $161 billion deficit; FY 2008, $459 billion deficit; FY 2009 $1.4 trillion deficit; FY 2010, $1.3 trillion deficit; FY 2011, $1.5 trillion deficit (estimated); and ``Whereas, as of January 2011, America's accumulated national debt exceeded $12 trillion now estimated at over $13 trillion; and ``Whereas, the Congressional Budget Office projects that, if current trends continue under the White House's proposed budget, each of the next 10 years has a projected deficit exceeding $600 billion; and ``Whereas, the budget deficits of the United States of America are unsustainable and constitute a substantial threat to the solvency of the Federal Government as evidenced by the comments of Standard and Poor's on April 18, 2011, regarding the longer term credit outlook for the United States; and ``Whereas, Congress has been unwilling or unable to address the persistent problem of overspending and has recently increased the statutory limit on the public debt and enacted a variety of legislation that will ultimately cause the Federal Government to incur additional debt; and ``Whereas, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in its report 'The Moment of Truth' includes recommendations to reduce the Federal deficit that have not been considered by the United States Congress; and ``Whereas, the consequences of current spending policies are far- reaching; United States indebtedness to governments of foreign nations continues to rise; costly Federal programs that are essentially unfunded or underfunded; mandates to States threaten the ability of State and local governments to continue to balance their budgets; moreover, future generations of Americans inevitably face increased taxation and a weakened economy as a direct result of the bloated debt; and ``Whereas, many States have previously requested that Congress propose a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, but Congress has proven to be unresponsive; anticipating a situation in which Congress at times could fail to act, the drafters of the United States Constitution had the foresight to adopt the language in Article V that establishes that on application of the legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments; and ``Whereas, in prior years, the Alabama Legislature has called on Congress to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment, many other States have done the same, all to no avail; and ``Whereas, a balanced budget amendment would require the government not to spend more than it receives in revenues and compel lawmakers to carefully consider choices about spending and taxes; by encouraging spending control and discouraging deficit spending, a balanced budget amendment will help put the Nation on the path to lasting prosperity; now therefore, ``Be it resolved by the Legislature of Alabama, both houses thereof concurring, That the legislature of the State of Alabama hereby respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to propose and submit to the States for ratification a Federal balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. ``Be it further resolved, That, in the event that Congress does not submit a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification on or before December 31, 2011, the Alabama Legislature hereby makes application to the United States Congress to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to that Constitution requiring that, in the absence of a national emergency (as determined by the positive vote of such Members of each house of Congress as the amendment shall require), the total of all Federal appropriations made by Congress for any fiscal year not exceed the total of all Federal revenue for that fiscal year. ``Be it further resolved, That, unless rescinded by succeeding legislature, this application by the Alabama Legislature constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several States have made application for a convention to provide for a balanced budget. ``Be it further resolved, That, in the event that Congress does not submit a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification on or before December 31, 2011, the Alabama Legislature hereby requests that the legislatures of each of the several States that compose the United States apply to Congress requesting Congress to call a convention to propose such an amendment to the United States Constitution. ``Be it further resolved, That this application is rescinded in the event that a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution includes purposes other than providing for a balanced Federal budget. ``Be it further resolved, That the copies of this resolution be provided to the following officials: ``1. The President of the United States. ``2. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. ``3. The President of the United States Senate. ``4. All members of the Alabama delegation to Congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as an application to the Congress of the United States of America for a convention to propose an amendment to provide for a Federal balanced budget in the event that Congress does not submit such an amendment to the States for ratification on or before December 31, 2011. ``Be it further resolved, That copies of this resolution be provided to the Secretaries of State and to the presiding officers of the legislatures of the other States.'' Signed by Kay Ivey, President and Presiding Officer of the Alabama State Senate; signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Alabama, Mike Hubbard; signed by the Governor of the State of Alabama, the Honorable Robert Bentley on June 7, 2011. Congress clearly has the duty to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment to prevent unsustainable spending sprees that threaten America's future. Quite frankly, and in my judgment, a balanced budget constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent a Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy and the ensuing economic and national security consequences of such a bankruptcy. I urge this Congress to do the right thing and pass an effective balanced budget constitutional amendment. But if Congress shirks its duty to America, then I plead for the States to join Texas and Alabama by demanding a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of drafting a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I urge the States to act with haste. America rapidly approaches an economic abyss. The States are our last best hope for American greatness and surviving in generations to come. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS

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

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a chart before me, and I hope everyone will look at it. It is based on Congressional Budget Office numbers. If you go to fiscal year 2001, you'll see that we enjoyed a $128 billion surplus. At that time we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Democrat President. Then if you'll notice, looking at the bottom, that we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President, and we had the beginning of a series of deficits, $158 billion in FY 2002, which was immediately after the 9/11 and the ramp-up as a result of our efforts to protect Americans from terrorism. Then we go to FY '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07, you can see how the deficits have increased to a peak of $413 billion, but then the Republicans start getting things back under control. $161 billion is the deficit that America suffered in FY 2007, and that's not good. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I was dissatisfied with the George Bush administration is because of these deficits. But let's look at what happened after the elections in November of 2006 in which Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker and Harry Reid became majority leader of the United States Senate. These deficits, which we were getting under control, in FY '08, $459 billion; in FY '09, we almost go off the chart, $1.4 trillion. Then we lose the White House. The Democrats are in total control. In FY '10, a deficit of $1.3 trillion. In FY '11, a projected deficit of 1.6 or $1.5 trillion, depending upon who you pay attention to. Folks, we are here today forcing this issue because America is at risk. We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because the * * * Members of this body choose to spend money that we do not have. They believe in wealth transfer programs.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the particular use of one word that the folks on the other side of the aisle have objected to.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of America, we all know what we're talking about here, and we all know what the definitional terms are, and I am more than happy to resume this discussion off the House floor. But for whatever reason, I'm not permitted to use one word. Having said that, you can look at this chart and you can see the kind of deficits that we have sustained over the last 4 years, and the threat that this poses to the United States of America. Now, this Progressive people's budget, I submit to you, is nothing more than a Trojan horse. There is an old saying: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Why should anyone believe that the folks who have racked of these massive deficits that put America at risk are now going to change their stripes?

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, for the listeners and the people in this House, I graduated from Duke University with highest honors with distinction in economics. I say that to give you an idea, to have a little bit of insight as to what I am talking about when I talk about the two principal economic theories of our day. One is free enterprise and the other is socialism. Let's talk about socialism for a moment. It's greater and greater government micromanaging our lives. It's higher taxes to pay for it. Let's talk about free enterprise. Free enterprise is belief in the individual, in freedom and opportunity. It's what has helped make America one of the greatest nations this world has ever seen. This Republican budget, the two of them--you can go with the RSC or you can go with the Ryan one--they are premised on free enterprise solutions. They will create real jobs and wealth for all Americans. I urge this body to go with what our Founding Fathers went with, free enterprise. That's the ticket to success.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, let's remind everyone why we are here. We are here because we are trying to save our federal government from unsustainable budget deficits. During the regime of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, we have had four consecutive budget deficits that average $1.2 trillion a year. Those are unsustainable. They threaten our federal government's solvency. We are facing a national bankruptcy. What are Republicans in the House trying to do today? We are trying to protect our troops who are in Afghanistan and Iraq so they don't have to worry about whether their homes are going to be foreclosed on as they are off doing battle and their kids and spouses are at home. For example, I met a lady from Colony, Alabama who has two young children, twins, age three, and she is fighting on behalf of our country. If our troops are forced to work without pay, then, in addition to everything else, she will have to worry about whether her young children will be financially taken care of at home. I ask that this House and this Senate do what we should do, and that is to protect our troops by funding them adequately. Don't leave them in the position where they are not able to take care of their own people at home.