Mo Brooks

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, if not for the massive immigration wave of the last 40 years, America's population would have stabilized or had very modest growth. Instead, America's population has exploded to 321 million people, due primarily to 62 million foreign- born people, plus their minor children. As an aside, illegal aliens are estimated to account for roughly 25 percent of that growth. Overall, America's foreign-born population grew from 4.7 percent of total population in 1970 to over 13 percent of population in 2015. Consistent with the above, the Census Bureau estimates that, within 7 years, America's population will have the highest percentage of foreign-born people since the Revolutionary War, adding another 74 million people to America's population over the next 45 years. Although Americans are supportive or tolerant of legal immigration, they are showing a growing unease in the face of this record-breaking immigration tidal wave that drives up welfare costs, overcrowds schools and hospitals, and increasingly subjects American citizens to growing crime and terrorist attack risks. Consistent with this growing concern, a recent poll found that 61 percent of Americans believe ``continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States.'' Notwithstanding America's concern, America's wealthy elite use their campaign contributions, political influence, and popular media to glorify legal and illegal immigration to ensure their continuance. Puppet-like politicians expand visa programs, ignore laws that protect Americans from illegal aliens, and seek to legalize those illegal aliens who have broken into our homes. Left-wing media, Democrats, and even some Republicans brand as racist and small-minded the working-class Americans who object to massive immigration and label concerned politicians as paranoid isolationists. What drives the craving by America's wealthy elite for more foreign workers? Follow the money. Throughout history, from lords to merchant princes, elite have acquired great wealth by exploiting cheap slave or low-cost foreign labor. Even here, America's two great immigration waves depressed incomes of working citizens as large numbers of immigrants blew up the labor supply while also competing for and taking jobs from American citizens. On the plus side, back when America had seemingly unlimited natural resources and great spaces of open land, immigrants were self- sufficient, were not a financial burden on other Americans, and grew America's wealth and gross domestic product. In Ecclesiastes in the Bible, a very wise man, Solomon, once said: ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the Heaven.'' Times have changed. America's natural resources are limited. We must import metals and energy to sustain our economy. Great spaces of usable land are long gone. Further, technological advances in the intelligent machine age are dramatically changing labor markets. Rather than just more productive tools that must still have a human in the operational loop, intelligent machines produce value independently with minimal to no labor requirements. No longer is massive population growth essential to grow America's gross domestic product. America must recognize our challenges and opportunities. While over 5 billion foreigners want to migrate to America, in part, because they earn only $10 a day in their own countries, America has enough citizens and technology to assure our common defense and economic advancement. Each foreigner imported consumes space and resources, neither of which is infinite. Hence, we must be more selective in our immigration policies to ensure incoming immigrants are both self-sufficient and able and willing to be properly absorbed into American society. If we aren't, America's population will explode and America will lose its special place in history.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I have given numerous House floor speeches warning of a looming and debilitating American insolvency and bankruptcy. In order to drive home the dangers, I have cited Greece, where young adult unemployment nears 50 percent, overall unemployment approximates the worst America suffered during the Great Depression, and public pensions have been slashed by almost 50 percent. I have cited Venezuela, where inflation last year was 275 percent, is estimated at 720 percent this year, and deadly street and food riots are common. I have cited Puerto Rico's default on $70 billion in debt, credit rating cut to ``junk bond status,'' abysmal labor participation rate of less than 40 percent, and closure of over 100 schools. While House Republicans can boast that they helped cut the $1.3 trillion deficit that we inherited in 2011 to $439 billion in 2015, that boast now rings hollow. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the fiscal year 2016 deficit is ballooning by $151 billion, to $590 billion. Absent correction, the CBO warns that in 2024, America will embark on an unending string of trillion-dollar-a-year deficits. Absent correction, the CBO warns that America's debt service cost will increase within a decade by $464 billion per year, to roughly $712 billion per year--more than what America spends on national defense. Which begs the question: Where will the money for a $720 billion a year annual debt service payment come from? Mr. Speaker, America's financially irresponsible conduct has caused both America's Comptroller General and the Congressional Budget Office to repeatedly warn in writing that America's financial path is ``unsustainable.'' I agree with the Comptroller General and CBO warnings and I am convinced that, absent major changes in the economic understanding and backbone of Washington's elected officials, a debilitating American insolvency and bankruptcy is a certainty within three decades, a probability within two decades, and a dangerous risk over the next 10 years. All of this brings us to the continuing resolution spending bill that Congress will soon vote on. According to the CBO, this continuing resolution spending bill, plus so-called mandatory spending, increased Federal Government spending by $150 billion and blows fiscal year 2017 Federal Government spending through the $4 trillion mark--a new record high amount of spending. This CR spending bill ignores economic reality and fails to prudently restrain Federal Government spending to reflect America's tax revenue. This CR spending bill reflects Washington and special interest group greed and shortsightedness and continues the worst generational theft in American history by again breaking into our kids' piggy banks and stealing money we don't have and will never pay back, callously letting our children suffer the consequences. Mr. Speaker, economic principles don't care if you are a family, a business, or a country. If you borrow more money than you can pay back, you go bankrupt. Americans are rightfully angry at Washington elected officials who are all too willing to sacrifice America's future for today's special interest campaign contributions. Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me, Mo Brooks, from Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, I vote for financial responsibility and prosperity and against a debilitating American bankruptcy, insolvency, and resulting economic depression. As such, and although this continuing resolution admittedly spends money on lots of good things, I will vote against it because it is financially irresponsible. I will not vote for a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy of America that will damage so many Americans for so many years to come.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, it is not just the snooping. It is also the coercion where the Federal Government uses, Washington uses the Tax Code to compel people to engage in conduct that they otherwise would not engage in, or to not engage in conduct that, under normal circumstances were they free to do so without potential retaliation by the IRS, they would engage in. We have some issues, by way of example, where the Internal Revenue Service has been used to try to achieve political gains, where the Internal Revenue Service has been used to punish people because they have chosen to exercise their freedom of speech rights or their religious rights or because they chose to associate with some people rather than other people, all rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The power that we have given the Federal Government and the Internal Revenue Service through the Tax Code can all be taken away from the Federal Government by going to the FairTax. The reasons to support the FairTax so far greatly outnumber any potential harms that detractors may describe. Again, I urge the Speaker of the House to allow this legislation to come up for a House floor vote so that we can support it, so that we can pass it through the House of Representatives. Should it fail, the American people will know who was on record in support of liberating the American people from the Internal Revenue Service and who wants to keep the Internal Revenue Service as our masters with our being in bondage to their whims. So there are lots of advantages and very few disadvantages. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia and the people of the great State of Georgia who have sent him here so that he can advocate on their behalf and advocate for a FairTax that just makes sense.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the opportunity to stand with him tonight as we discuss the FairTax. Quite frankly, I wish my eloquence was that of yours. Certainly, my passion is for the FairTax, with all the economic benefits that it would yield to the American people, the job creation it would yield, and the simplification of the headaches that occur every March and April as American people, including job creators, have to try to figure out how much taxes they have to pay. In that vein, I have some prepared remarks, but I am available for any colloquy that you may want to have afterwards. Mr. Speaker, America's Tax Code is so complex as to border on impossible for any one person to understand. According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2016, American taxpayers suffered an economic loss of $234 billion from the 1.9 billion hours of time spent trying to figure out and pay their taxes. Making matters worse, from 1986 when President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act into law to today, the Tax Code has grown from 30,000 to 70,000 pages, more than doubling in size. Further, the corporate tax rate has skyrocketed to 39.1 percent, easily claiming the highest rate in the industrialized world. I cannot emphasize enough the detrimental impact America's complicated Tax Code has on our economy and the burden it creates for taxpayers and job creators alike. As such, I strongly support Representative Rob Woodall's FairTax Act to abolish the Federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax, and replace them with a national sales tax and prebate that eliminates the effect of sales taxes on low-income families. Businesses and families know how to best spend their hard-earned money. We need a system that puts power back into the hands of the taxpayer, not government bureaucrats. The FairTax proposal makes this possible. In particular, it eliminates the income tax and stops the Federal Government's snooping into American citizens' incomes, savings, and bank accounts, while still producing the revenue needed to fund the Federal Government. The FairTax is simpler, thereby saving taxpayers billions of hours and hundreds of billions of dollars in trying to determine tax liability. In addition, the FairTax dramatically stimulates America's economy by eliminating costly income tax and compliance costs for America's employers, thus cutting the cost of producing American goods and services by roughly 15 to 20 percent, a huge competitive advantage in an increasingly tough international marketplace. This competitive advantage for American job creators means more jobs and higher incomes for American workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to bring the FairTax legislation to the House floor for a vote to simplify the Tax Code, return American individual freedom, and grow the economy. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the House of Representatives to support this plain, commonsense way of collecting taxes, stimulating the economy, and getting the Federal Government more so out of our own personal lives. Mr. Speaker, to the extent Congressman Woodall has more that he wants to discuss, I am available.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, never has an American President been so willing to shoot first and ask questions later when a police officer uses deadly force in self-defense or to protect innocent lives. Never in American history has a President's legacy been a consistent disregard for the rule of law. Time after time, after police shootings of African Americans, the Obama administration's knee-jerk, racially divisive strategy has been to paint a disturbingly false image of racial bias in police shootings that conflicts with a recent 2016 Harvard University study that found that police are 24 percent less likely to fire upon African Americans than Caucasian Americans. For emphasis, let me repeat that. A 2016 Harvard University study by African American Professor Roland Fryer, Jr., found that police fire upon African Americans 24 percent less often than police fire upon Caucasian Americans. On July 7, well before the facts of two police shootings of African Americans were known, President Obama, again, stoked racial prejudice flames by claiming that ``Black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents.'' President Obama even defended subsequent, sometimes violent, protests as rather benign ``expressions of outrage.'' Shortly after the Obama administration attacked the motives of America's law enforcement officers and, perhaps, helped inspire even more violence against police, a Dallas sniper gunned down five police officers and injured many others during a Black Lives Matter protest. The shooter justified his murders by stating he was upset by police shootings, referenced Black Lives Matter, and stated that he wanted to kill White people, especially White police officers. Three days later, after these horrific murders of police officers, President Obama reiterated his politically motivated, racial division narrative by blaming the attacks, in part, on a racial prejudice problem that police must fix because ``that is what's going to ultimately help make the job of being a cop a lot safer.'' Showing great hutzpah at the Dallas memorial ceremony for the slain officers, Obama, again, publicly blamed police racial bias as a contributing cause of police assassinations. Mr. Speaker, when tearful Americans seek solace and unification, the Obama administration dishes out racism and antipolice profiling that helps inspire even more violence against police. The result of the Obama administration's politics of racial division and hatred? So far this year, as of September 2, firearms-related deaths of American law enforcement officers are up 56 percent. The Obama administration's relationship with police has deteriorated so badly that William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, accuses Barack Obama of engaging in a ``war on police,'' adding that the Obama administration's ``continued appeasements at the Federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country, has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible.'' Mr. Speaker, no one condones illegal shootings by police. Police who illegally use excessive force should be, and are, prosecuted criminally and civilly to the fullest extent of the law. But the Obama administration repeatedly pours gasoline on an open fire, rushing to antipolice judgment before the facts are known, and justice had, thereby helping to incite murders and assassinations of American police who dedicate their lives to our protection. The solution, Mr. Speaker, is generating more respect for law and order and those who enforce it. That solution is absent in Obama administration pronouncements. Mr. Speaker, I want the public to know that I stand with the rule of law. I stand with America's brave police officers who protect the rights and lives of all Americans. And I here and now publicly thank America's law enforcement officers for risking their lives to protect law-abiding Americans from crime and anarchy.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on sixty-nine years of dedicated service, and proclaim October 2016 as Alpha Delta Kappa Month. Established in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa's goals are to institute high standards of education, recognize outstanding educators, build a fraternal fellowship among educators and promote educational and charitable projects, enriching the lives of individuals everywhere. With a membership of more than 33,000 educators representing all fifty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, and Australia, Alpha Delta Kappa is committed to educational excellence, personal and professional growth, and collectively channeling their energies toward the good of their schools, communities, the teaching profession, and the world. Women in education constitute a great portion of America's workforce and are constantly striving to serve their communities and America in educational, cultural, and charitable programs leading to harmony, happiness, and peace among all people. Over the last two years alone, members of Alpha Delta Kappa have altruistically given to the communities they serve by raising nearly $12 million and volunteering more than two million service hours. Alpha Delta Kappa members biennially award more than a quarter million dollars through eleven scholarship programs and have contributed more than $1 million to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. I congratulate Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on their many years of unparalleled success and wish them well as they continue to educate our children.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America has blown through the $19 trillion debt mark and rapidly approaches the $20 trillion debt mark. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns Washington that America faces an unending string of trillion-dollar-a-year deficits beginning a mere 6 years from now and that America's debt will blow through the $29 trillion debt mark in a decade. Further, as debt principal and interest rates surge, America's debt service costs will increase by $600 billion a year within a decade. For perspective, $600 billion is more than America spends on national defense, which begs the question: Where will that $600 billion in additional debt service cost come from? America must learn from financially reckless nations like Greece and Venezuela, and from Puerto Rico, an American territory that has had its credit rating cut to junk bond status and is defaulting on its $70 billion in debt. For emphasis, Puerto Rico owes roughly 40 percent of all Puerto Rican tax collections, $4.1 billion, in debt payments this year. That is tax revenues not building roads, not educating children, and not growing the economy. Puerto Rico, like America, suffers from a bloated central government, welfare programs that undermine the work ethic, decades of financial mismanagement by elected leaders, and a resulting anemic economy and shrinking job market that causes roughly 7,000 citizens to flee Puerto Rico each month. Only 40 percent of Puerto Ricans are employed or looking for work. Why bother to get a job when American taxpayers pay Puerto Ricans to not work by doling out free food, free health care, and other welfare worth $1,743 per month, almost $600 more than minimum wage take-home earnings? Puerto Rico's debt defaults and resulting economic morass have forced Puerto Rico to delay tax refunds, fire public sector workers, raise sales taxes to a record 11.5 percent, and close over 100 schools. Unfortunately, these austerity measures, and more, are inadequate because Puerto Rico's self-serving and financially irresponsible elected officials waited too long. Puerto Rico still cannot pay its bills or creditors. Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Padilla recently stated that, if Congress does not intervene, ``a humanitarian crisis will envelop the 3.5 million American citizens on the island.'' Puerto Rico asks Congress to let Puerto Rico default on its legal operations via bankruptcy or force American taxpayers to bail out Puerto Rico's decades of financial mismanagement. Never mind that, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report, mainland American taxpayers already subsidize Puerto Rico to the tune of $16 billion per year, or roughly $4,500 per Puerto Rican. As Puerto Rico desperately seeks an American taxpayer bailout, Americans should ask: Who will bail out America when America defaults on its debt? Mr. Speaker, America must learn from Puerto Rico, a territory that is spiraling into bankruptcy and insolvency because of a $20,000-per- capita debt burden--a debt burden, I might add, that is three times better than America's $60,000-per-capita debt burden. If America's creditors stop loaning America money, if America is forced to go cold turkey on its debt addiction, America could be forced to slash military pay or eliminate the volunteer Army altogether and go back to a draft, cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the like. Mr. Speaker, America's spending binge and accompanying debt and deficits are unsustainable. If voters do not elect financially responsible officials to Washington, America will endure the same debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that wreaks havoc in Greece and Puerto Rico--with one major difference. Unlike Greece, which has been bailed out three times by the European community, and unlike Puerto Rico, which may yet be bailed out by American taxpayers, there is no one--no one--who can or will bail out America.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America has led the world culturally, scientifically, militarily, in freedom, and in many other ways, but if America does not stop its overspending and binge borrowing, then we are doomed to follow the footsteps of countries that chose to be financially irresponsible and are condemned to suffer the same dire consequences. America need not speculate on our fate. Rather, America must learn from bad example countries, such as Venezuela, a socialist country that has already walked the financially irresponsible path America, unfortunately, is on. Venezuela suffered the world's highest inflation rate, at 275 percent, in 2015. According to the International Monetary Fund, Venezuela's 2016 inflation rate will be 720 percent. Compare that to America, where 3 to 5 percent inflation causes concern. To put Venezuela's inflation rate in everyday terms, let's apply it to things we buy. If a gallon of milk costs you $3 today, it will cost you $21 a year from now. If a pound of ground beef costs you $4 today, it will cost you $28 a year from now. A new car that costs you $25,000 today will cost you $175,000 a year from now. But the damage and danger does not end with hyperinflation. The International Monetary Fund reports Venezuela is experiencing ``widespread shortages of essential goods, including food, exacting a tragic toll.'' Grocery stores have rows and rows of empty shelves. Venezuelans can't find food to feed their families and form long lines outside of stores, hoping to buy whatever is in stock, from sugar to shampoo. In response, Socialist President Maduro has ordered police to limit consumers to two shopping days per week at government-owned food stores. One frustrated Venezuelan shopper noted: ``It is exasperating, but it is the only way to get food in Venezuela.'' Inflation and food shortages are only the tip of the iceberg. When supplies run out, when jobs can't be found, violence erupts. In just 1 month in 2014, violent street riots killed 43 Venezuelans, blocking citizens from accessing food, transportation, and medical services. Occupied buildings were torched, injuring hundreds. Venezuela is now one of the most violent countries in the world, with a chilling 82 homicides per 100,000 population, roughly 20 times worse than America's homicide rate. Caracas, Venezuela's capital, is the world's most violent city, with a war-zone-like 120 murders per 100,000 citizens. Venezuela's insolvency has forced it to slash defense spending by 34 percent, putting Venezuelan citizens at even more heightened risk of loss of life. Venezuela's tragedy is not because it is a resource-poor country. To the contrary, Venezuela has more proven oil reserves than any country on Earth, even more than the entire oil-rich North American continent. Venezuela's collapse is because of two things. First, Venezuela decided to experiment with socialism, an economic model that has failed every country that has tried it. Second, Venezuela's politicians were seduced by the lure of out-of-control spending financed by more borrowing and higher debt, the same temptation Washington politicians have succumbed to for decades. America must learn from Venezuela and every other country that has been financially irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Washington must balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals out of control. America cannot wait until our financial crisis is lost and it is too late to prevent the debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that awaits us. I pray the American people will be good stewards of our Republic in 2016 and elect Washington officials who both understand the threat posed by deficits and debt and have the backbone to fix it. Mr. Speaker, America's future depends on it.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office data reveals that America's financial condition has taken a sharp, ugly turn for the worse. America's estimated 2016 deficit is $105 billion worse than 2015's already dangerous $439 billion deficit. America's debt has blown through the $19 trillion mark and is projected to blow through the $29 trillion mark in a decade. America's Comptroller General and CBO warn that America's financial path is ``unsustainable,'' meaning America faces a debilitating insolvency unless we get our financial house in order. Mr. Speaker, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In that vein, America must learn from Greece, a country betrayed by decades of financially irresponsible leadership. In the past 5 years, Greece has repeatedly failed to meet its debt obligations and subsisted on three bailouts from the European Union. The result? The Greek economy is in a shambles. Greece has a 52 percent labor participation rate, 10 points worse than here in America. Greece's unemployment rate was recently 25 percent, approximating America's worse unemployment rate in the Great Depression. Worse yet, Greeks under the age of 25 suffer from a 48 percent unemployment rate. Financial irresponsibility ultimately forces draconian austerity spending cuts. Greece has cut public health care spending from 6.8 percent of GDP in 2010 to roughly 5 percent today, thereby risking Greek lives. Cancer screening has been cut. HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria rates have surged as fewer Greeks receive proper treatment. The public pensions Greek elderly citizens rely on for survival have been cut an average of almost 50 percent since 2010 and are again on the chopping block. Greek tax rates are exploding. Income taxes on farmers have doubled from 13 percent to 26 percent. Self-employed professionals and farmers say proposed social security and income tax increases will combine to consume as much as 75 percent of their incomes. Greece's banking system is on the brink. In the summer of 2015, pre- European bailout, the Greek Government froze citizens' bank accounts, limiting cash withdrawals from ATMs to $67 per day. Greeks could not even access their own money. Post-bailout and as Greeks began fearing their savings accounts would be confiscated to pay for government debt, as occurred in nearby Cyprus--yet another insolvent country--Greeks withdrew cash from banks. The run on banks caused the Greek Government to intervene and limit the right of Greek citizens to withdraw their own money, which caused citizens to cut deposits into Greek banks, which undermined the Greek banking system, which dried up the availability of loans for new business needed to create jobs in a rebounding economy. Violent demonstrations are resulting. For example, on February 4, 2016, Athens, Greece, ABC News reported: ``Riot police have used tear gas in clashes with protesters during a mass rally in Athens as Greeks demonstrated against government pension reforms needed to meet demands of international creditors.'' Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage that ignorance is bliss. I don't know about that, but I do know that ignorance is dangerous. In 2009, Greece spent 3.2 percent of GDP on its national defense. Five years later, Greek defense spending was cut to 2.3 percent of GDP, a 28 percent cut. Now, perhaps the world will not suffer from Greece's defense spending cuts, but what would be the effect on world peace if America's defense spending suffered a similar fate? Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Washington must balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals out of control before it is too late to prevent the debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that awaits us. I pray the American people will be good stewards of our Republic in 2016 and elect Washington officials who both understand the threat posed by deficits and debt and have the backbone to fix it. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, America's future depends on it.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America entrusted Republicans with the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Democrats lost Congress because their financially irresponsible conduct and trillion-dollar deficits threaten America with a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy. House Republicans inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011. They cut it to $1.1 trillion in 2012, cut it to $680 billion in 2013, cut it to $485 billion in 2014, and cut it to $439 billion in 2015. House Republicans did what the American people elected them to do. In each election thereafter, we were entrusted with 2 more years of a House Republican majority. Unfortunately, newly released data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reveals America's financial condition has taken a sharp turn for the worse. According to the CBO, the first quarter fiscal year 2016 deficit deteriorated by $36 billion compared to 2015's first quarter deficit. If extrapolated to a full year, America's FY 2016 deficit would be $583 billion. That is $144 billion worse than in fiscal year 2015. Out-of-control spending was the problem, not taxes. During the first quarter, tax revenues were up 4 percent, but spending was up even more, at 7 percent. Now, for the first time since I have been in Congress, Republican compromises and surrenders to Obama and Democrats have made America's deficits worse, not better. This Congress broke open our kids' piggy banks, stole money we cannot pay back, and used it to pay for a trillion-dollar omnibus spending bill that adds tens of billions of dollars to 2016's deficit. I am proud I voted against the financially irresponsible omnibus. Mr. Speaker, America's Comptroller General and the CBO repeatedly warn that America's financial path is ``unsustainable,'' meaning America faces a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy unless we get our financial house in order. Further, the CBO warns that, absent correction, America's debt service costs will increase by $600 billion per year within a decade, roughly what America spends on national defense, which begs the question: Where will the money come from for an additional annual $600 billion debt service payment? America's total debt approached $14 trillion when I was elected to Congress in 2010. We have blown through the $19 trillion mark. Now the CBO projects America will blow through the $29 trillion debt mark in a decade. For emphasis, Washington is engaged in the worst generational theft in American history. Washington steals from our children and grandchildren with a callous devil-may-care attitude so that we can today live high on the hog, even though it forces our children into hardship and poverty. Economic principles don't care if you are a family, a business, or a country. If you borrow more money than you can pay back, you go bankrupt. Time is running out. Washington must balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals out of control, before it is too late to prevent the debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that awaits us. Mr. Speaker, Americans are rightfully angry at Washington elected officials who care more about special interest campaign contributions than American voters or America's future. Will the American people channel their anger in the 2016 elections and elect Washington officials who both understand the threat posed by deficits and debt and have the backbone to fix it? The answer to that question determines whether America continues as a great nation and world power or declines into the dustbin of history. Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me, Mo Brooks from Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, I fight for financial responsibility and prosperity and against an American bankruptcy and economic depression.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, Washington has, once again, undermined and betrayed struggling American workers who seek jobs that pay enough to support their families. In December, on less than 72 hours' notice, Congress and President Obama shoved down the throats of Americans a 2,000-page, financially irresponsible, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that not only risks America's solvency, it also threatens American jobs for American workers. Under old law, 66,000 H-2B foreign worker visas could be issued each year. Buried deep inside the 2,000-page omnibus spending bill, on page 701, is an obscure provision without even a heading that, according to labor expert John Miano, increases available H-2B visas up to 264,000 per year, effectively quadrupling visas for low-skilled, temporary nonagricultural foreign workers. Making matters worse, on New Year's Eve, while America focused on football games and celebrations, President Obama issued a 200-page proposed rule to illegally bust statutory green card immigration caps by approving unlimited numbers of work permits for foreigners who don't have green cards. This White House action is yet another brazen display of contempt for immigration statutes, the rule of law, and American workers. The White House argues importing foreign labor is necessary because of a claimed shortage of American labor. Similarly, House Speaker Paul Ryan claims increasing foreign worker visas ``helps small businesses who cannot find labor when there's a surge in demand for their labor, like seafood processing or tourism.'' This claimed labor shortage is unsupported by jobs or wage data and is political bunk. Per Federal labor statistics, 57 percent--57 percent--of Americans without a high school diploma had no job in 2015's second quarter. That bears repeating. Fifty-seven percent of Americans without a high school diploma had no job in 2015's second quarter. That is a lot of Americans who would love to have those jobs President Obama and Congress denied Americans and gave to foreigners. Economics 101 explains that wages rise if there is a labor shortage and fall if there is a labor surplus. According to Census Bureau data from 2007 to 2014; wages for security guards went down 6.1 percent, for cooks down 4.4 percent; for janitors down 1.2 percent; for ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers, down 7.1 percent; for hotel, motel, and resort desk clerks, down 7 percent. The list of falling wages for low-income American workers goes on and on. This falling wage data is compelling evidence that there is no shortage of American labor and, to the contrary, that there is an oversupply of American labor that demands cutting foreign labor, not expanding it. Mr. Speaker, while these surges in foreign worker visas and foreign labor work permits is a huge victory for special interests that profit from suppressed wages, it is a debilitating loss for struggling American families. Unemployed and underpaid Americans desperate for a good-paying job have every right to be angry at a Federal Government that takes American jobs from American citizens and gives them to foreigners. Americans have every right to be angry at Washington elected officials who care more about special interest campaign contributions than American voters who elected us. I hope those Americans will remember their anger during 2016's primary and general elections. That is the way to force Washington to represent us. Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for anybody else, but, as for me, Mo Brooks from Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, I fight for the economic interests of American citizens and against policies that undermine the struggling American voters who sent us here. That is part of the reason why I voted against December's financially irresponsible omnibus spending bill--and am proud of it.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin advised: ``When you run in debt, you give to another power over your liberty.'' Washington is in the middle of an epic battle between elected officials who, on the one hand, are financially responsible, have the understanding and backbone needed to prevent an American bankruptcy, heed the wisdom of Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, and fight out-of- control debt that threatens our liberty, and you have those elected officials who, on the other hand, are financially irresponsible and are too weak to resist spending money America does not have, has to borrow to get, and can't afford to pay back. This week Congress faces yet another last-second debt deal, negotiated in secret, sprung at the last moment, that fails the American people by not fixing the cause of the debt ceiling problem: out of control deficits. Earlier this year America's Comptroller General and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned Congress and President Obama that America's current financial path is ``unsustainable,'' meaning that America faces a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy unless we get our financial house in order. The CBO issued two other dire warnings: First, America's debt service costs will increase by, roughly, $600 billion in 10 years. For perspective, $600 billion is more than what America spends on national defense, which begs the question: Where will the money for that additional $600 billion debt payment come from? Second, the CBO warns that, by 2025, America will face an unending string of annual trillion-dollar deficits, deficits that can only end in a debilitating American insolvency and bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, economic principles don't care if you are a family, a business, or a country. If you borrow more money than you can pay back, you go bankrupt. There are good and bad ways to raise the debt ceiling. Today's debt bill is bad because it not only fails to restrain America's spending addiction, it makes things worse by increasing spending by $80 billion. I have been in Congress since 2011, when America's debt blew through the $14 trillion mark. Now America's debt is $18 trillion. This debt deal blows America's debt through the $19 trillion mark, meaning America's bank account will soon be $5 trillion weaker than it was in 2011. Rather than fixing America's deficit problem while we still have the financial ability to do so, this debt deal kicks the can down the road to 2017, when America will be financially weaker and less able to rise to the financial challenge that threatens us. Mr. Speaker, today's debt bill is akin to a sick patient going to the emergency room and getting pain-killing drugs that make the patient feel better, yet does nothing to cure the disease that kills him. In the real world, that is medical malpractice. Similarly, today's debt bill that makes America feel good, but does nothing to cure our debt disease, is governing malpractice. President George Washington advised Congress: ``No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt. On none can delay be more injurious.'' George Washington's advice in 1793 is prudent today. Congress and President Obama must balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals out of control, before it is too late to prevent the debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that awaits us. Mr. Speaker, I exhort Washington to rise to the challenge and be financially responsible when raising the debt ceiling. The first step is to defeat this debt bill that not only fails to fix a time-critical problem, but that actually makes America's spending addiction $80 billion worse. America's future as a great Nation and a world power depends on it. I will vote against this debt deal. I urge my colleagues to be financially responsible--do the same--and insist that the debt ceiling be raised only if we simultaneously fix America's addiction to deficit spending. Today's debt ceiling bill fails that benchmark. It threatens America. It should be defeated.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, between 2000 and 2014, in the 16 to 65 age bracket, although the American economy created 5.6 million net new jobs, American-born citizens lost 127,000 jobs. All job gains in America--and more--went to people born in foreign countries. In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by immigrants relied on welfare compared to 30 percent of households headed by someone born in America, thus driving up America's deficits and driving down America's ability to pay for safety nets for Americans. This week I vote on Paul Ryan's bid for House Speaker. While Paul Ryan has excellent communication skills, is charismatic, understands the economic risk of out-of-control deficits, and the like, Paul Ryan and I have a major disagreement on border security. Last week, on October 22, Paul Ryan, I, and others met about his candidacy. Border security was discussed. Thereafter, I hand-delivered to Paul Ryan, on the House floor, at, roughly, 4 p.m., a letter that states: ``Paul: Struggling American families have lost more than 8 million job opportunities to illegal aliens. All lower and middle income American workers have suffered from suppressed wages caused by the surge in both illegal alien and lawful immigrant labor supply. ``Your past record and current stance on immigration conflicts with the values of the Americans I represent and causes great concern to me and the Americans I represent. ``Yesterday during discussions about the Speaker race, you made two representations about immigration that stood out. They are: ``1. It is unwise or unproductive to bring up any immigration legislation so long as Barack Obama is President. ``2. As Speaker, you will not allow any immigration bill to reach the House Floor for a vote unless the immigration bill is `supported by a majority of the majority' of Republican House Members. ``Although you talk faster than I can write your words down, I believe the above statements properly reflect what you said. I send this letter to confirm that I accurately portray your remarks and that I may rely on them when the House Floor Vote for Speaker occurs next week. ``If my portrayal of your words errs in any respect, please deliver to me (before the GOP Conference meeting next week in which we are to conduct Speaker elections) a written communication correcting my errors. ``If I do not receive such a communication from you, then I will infer that you concur that my portrayal of your remarks is accurate and that I, and the rest of the GOP Conference, and the American people, may rely on your words as I have written them. ``I need your assurance that you will not use the Speaker's position to advance your immigration policies, except when in accord with the two above statements, because there is a huge gap between your immigration position and the wishes of the American citizens I represent. Your words yesterday constitute the needed assurance. ``If your assurances as I have portrayed them are accurate, then I am much more comfortable voting for you for Speaker on the House Floor (and will do so, absent something startling coming to my attention between now and the election, which I don't anticipate). ``If, however, you would use the Speaker's chair to advance an immigration belief system that is unacceptable to the Americans I represent, it will be very difficult for me to vote for you for Speaker on the House Floor. ``To be clear, I intend to publicly share this letter and your responding letter, if any, to help explain to my constituents why I voted as I did on the House Floor in the Speaker's election. ``Thank you for considering the contents of this letter.'' At roughly 5:20 p.m., Paul Ryan called me and stated that my letter accurately portrayed his immigration representations. Paul Ryan confirmed that he meant what he said and would keep his word. Based on Paul Ryan's representations and my trust that Paul Ryan is a man of his word, I will vote for Paul Ryan for House Speaker on the House floor if he is the Republican nominee. Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter for the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 22, 2015. Hand-delivered on House Floor to Paul Ryan at approx. 4 p.m., 10/22/15 Paul Ryan called Mo and confirmed accuracy of letter via phone at 5:20 p.m. (during staff meeting) Re: Immigration Positions & Speaker Race. Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee. Paul: Struggling American families have lost more than 8 million job opportunities to illegal aliens. All lower and middle income American workers have suffered from suppressed wages caused by the surge in both illegal alien and lawful immigrant labor supply. Your past record and current stance on immigration conflicts with the values of the Americans I represent and causes great concern to me and the Americans I represent. Yesterday during discussions about the Speaker race, you made two representations about immigration that stood out. They are: 1. It is unwise or unproductive to bring up any immigration legislation so long as Barack Obama is President. 2. As Speaker, you will not allow any immigration bill to reach the House Floor for a vote unless the immigration bill is ``supported by a majority of the majority`` of Republican House Members. Although you talk faster than I can write your words down, I believe the above statements properly reflect what you said. I send this letter to confirm that I accurately portray your remarks and that I may rely on them when the House Floor Vote for Speaker occurs next week. If my portrayal of your words errs in any respect, please deliver to me (before the GOP Conference meeting next week in which we are to conduct Speaker elections) a written communication correcting my errors. If I do not receive such a communication from you, then I will infer that you concur that my portrayal of your remarks is accurate and that I, and the rest of the GOP Conference, and the American people, may rely on your words as I have written them. I need your assurance that you will not use the Speaker's position to advance your immigration policies, except when in accord with the two above statements, because there is a huge gap between your immigration position and the wishes of the American citizens I represent. Your words yesterday constitute the needed assurance. If your assurances as I have portrayed them are accurate, then I am much more comfortable voting for you for Speaker on the House Floor (and will do so, absence something startling coming to my attention between now and the election, which I don't anticipate). If, however, you would use the Speaker's chair to advance an immigration belief system that is unacceptable to the Americans I represent, it will be very difficult for me to vote for you for Speaker on the House Floor. To be clear, I intend to publicly share this letter and your responding letter, if any, to help explain to my constituents why I voted as I did on the House Floor in the Speaker's election. Thank you for considering the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Morris J. ``Mo'' Brooks, Jr.,

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on its sixty- eight years of dedicated service and proclaim October 2015 as Alpha Delta Kappa Month. Established in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa's goals have been to establish high standards of education, give recognition to outstanding educators, build a fraternal fellowship among educators, and to promote educational and charitable projects and activities enriching the lives of individuals everywhere. With a membership of over 33,000 educators representing all fifty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica and Australia, Alpha Delta Kappa is committed to educational excellence, personal and professional growth and for collectively channeling their energies toward the good of their schools, communities, the teaching profession and the world. Women in education constitute a great portion of the nation's working force and are constantly striving to serve their communities and nation in educational, cultural, and charitable programs leading to harmony, happiness, and peace among all people. Over the last two years alone, the members of Alpha Delta Kappa have given altruistically to the communities they serve by raising nearly twelve million dollars and volunteering more than 2 million service hours. Alpha Delta Kappa members also biennially awards nearly two million dollars through its 11 scholarship programs. I congratulate Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on their many years of unparalleled success and wish them well as they continue to educate our children.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America's policymakers face an information gap that undermines our ability to make the immigration policy decisions needed to protect American lives from the threat posed by illegal aliens. What information gap? It is crime statistics that reflect criminal conduct by illegal aliens. The horrifying murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle in San Francisco has, once again, put crime by illegal aliens in the national spotlight; but this issue should always be in the spotlight because it daily affects American citizens across the country, despite pro-amnesty forces' best efforts to suppress politically inconvenient truths about illegal alien crime in America. The fact is America's crime data for illegal aliens is inadequate. While we have access to Federal sentencing data for illegal aliens, illegal aliens crime data for cities, counties, and States is just not there. For example, while illegal aliens are roughly 3.5 percent of America's population, the United States Sentencing Commission data reflects that, out of 74,911 Federal sentencing cases, illegal aliens committed 17 percent of drug trafficking, 20 percent of kidnapping/ hostage taking, 12 percent of money laundering, 12 percent of murders, and a whopping 74 percent of drug possession felonies. If this Federal data is any indicator, illegal aliens are far more likely to commit violent and dangerous crimes than the average American or lawful immigrant. The absence of State and local law enforcement data is critical because most heinous crimes--such as murder, rape, violent assaults, and the like--are prosecuted at the State level. As of today, the Federal Government does not publicly report State and local illegal alien crime data, thus undermining our understanding of how bad the illegal alien crime problem is and what we must do to address it. A report released this past Monday, July 20, by the Center for Immigration Studies found that, according to Census Bureau data, 2.5 million illegal aliens, at the rate of 400,000 per year, have been added to America's illegal alien problem since President Obama took office. America's policymakers need empirical data showing how many Americans are horribly victimized by the millions of illegal aliens this and other administrations have allowed into our country. While we have daily access to the endless stream of anecdotal, gruesome news reports of yet another illegal alien taking yet another American citizen's life, we need ``big picture'' data to rebut the liberal left's mantra that illegal aliens are as clean, innocent, and pure as freshly fallen snow. For example, in my district, which has Redstone Arsenal, one of America's premier military facilities, more Americans have been killed by illegal aliens than my district has lost in Afghanistan, in Iraq, to the Islamic State, to al Qaeda, and to the Taliban combined. Is Alabama's Fifth Congressional District's experience with illegal aliens an anomaly? Or is illegal alien crime as bad in the rest of America? Mr. Speaker, in order to make good policy decisions, America's policymakers need better data. I have introduced a bill to help. My bill, the Arrest Statistics Reporting Act, does two things. First, it requires that arrest reports already sent to the FBI by State and local governments include the best known immigration status of the arrestee. Second, it requires the Federal Government to publish illegal alien crime data in the FBI's annual crime statistics reports. This data will better inform the public and lawmakers about illegal alien crime and empower us to make the decisions needed to protect American lives. Mr. Speaker, honest immigration debate requires the best crime data. My bill, the Arrest Statistics Reporting Act, will help us obtain it.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled her economic program stating: ``The defining economic challenge of our time is clear. We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle class life. We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up families''; and, ``The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hard-working families.'' Clinton concluded that: ``If you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded.'' Hillary Clinton identifies the problem and goals; however, I submit her trickle-down Federal Government dictates solution, while splendid rhetoric, misses the target entirely. What changed over the past several decades that eroded the American dream? Three decades ago, America gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. That amnesty beget millions and millions in more illegal aliens. This illegal alien tsunami has done more to take jobs from and suppress wages of struggling American families than anything else over the past three decades. The Pew Hispanic Center established in 2009 that American workers lost 7.8 million job opportunities to illegal aliens. A more recent FAIR study estimates Americans lost 8.5 million job opportunities to illegal aliens. Economic studies reveal that wage suppression caused by the surge in cheap, illegal alien labor costs American high school graduates an estimated $800 per year and America's low-skilled labor an estimated $2,300 per year in income. But it is not just illegal alien labor that undermines American opportunity and the American Dream for American citizens. America's generous legal immigration policy created a second tsunami of legal foreign labor that doubles the economic damage to struggling American families. Census Bureau, Homeland Security, and Labor Department data offers a startling and sobering insight for Americans in the 16-65 age bracket. While the American economy created 5.6 million net new jobs in the 16-65 age bracket over the past 14 years, American-born citizens lost 127,000 net jobs. All net job gains and more went to illegal and legal immigrants. While American-born citizens lost 127,000 jobs, foreign- born persons gained 5.7 million jobs. Worse yet, when you factor in population growth, there were 17 million more Americans in the 16-65 age bracket not working in 2014 than in 2000. Contrary to the propaganda of amnesty and open border proponents and their media allies, immigrants gained across the labor market in lower skilled jobs, such as maintenance, construction, and food service, and middle skilled jobs, like office support and healthcare support, and higher skilled jobs, including management, computers, and healthcare practitioners. The propaganda that immigrants only do jobs Americans won't do is not supported by fact. Immigrants gained jobs while Americans lost jobs in each of the following high-paying industries: architecture, engineering, transportation and material moving, office and administrative support. Further, American-born citizens of all major races lost ground. The percentage of working African Americans dropped 9.2 percentage points; Hispanic Americans dropped 7.7 percentage points; Caucasian Americans dropped 6.1 percentage points. In a dig at Jeb Bush, Clinton added that Americans ``don't need a lecture, they need a raise.'' Mr. Speaker, Hillary Clinton is right. America does not need lectures. America needs solutions. And the number one job and economic solution for Americans is securing America's borders and implementing a rational immigration policy that reflects economic conditions and protects American jobs and American wages for struggling American families.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, I find it interesting and somewhat perplexing how my good friend across the aisle talks about an anti-immigrant agenda appealing to fear and prejudice. It seems that whenever we start talking about border security and lawful immigration, the race card is played. And I would submit that that is because, in part, there is an absence of rational sound public policy for the position taken. Let's emphasize something. America has, far and away, the most generous lawful immigration policy in the world. No nation is as compassionate with respect to lawful immigrants as the United States of America is, and I challenge anyone to say different. I wish that this kind of amendment was not necessary, but when you have got an executive branch that has shown itself to be willingly lawless, to the point that two Federal judges, one in Pennsylvania and one in Texas, have had to render a decision trying to force this administration to obey the law, then I would submit, Madam Chair, that it is important to have these kinds of amendments to also deny the funding that otherwise would be used for that lawless conduct. I ask for support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Chair, America recently blew through the $18 trillion debt mark. America's Comptroller General warns that America's debt path is unsustainable. In short, Washington's financial irresponsibility threatens America with a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that risks destroying the America our ancestors sacrificed so much to build. With this impending financial crisis as a backdrop, I ask the House of Representatives to have the courage, to have the backbone, to be financially responsible. The House can do that in part by adopting my amendment that eliminates Federal Government housing subsidies for illegal aliens. How big is this problem? Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies in 2012 reflects that at least 130,000 households headed by self-identifying illegal aliens live in public or subsidized housing. That is potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being illegally taken by illegal aliens with the tacit or open consent or even the encouragement of the United States Government. Think about that for a moment. While American families struggle to make ends meet, while America faces a debilitating and destructive insolvency and bankruptcy, while American families and lawful immigrants are being forced to wait in line for public housing, this administration ignores the law to spend potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing illegal aliens, thereby encouraging their illegal conduct. Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It prohibits funding to subsidized housing in violation of section 214(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act that, for clarity, bars HUD from providing taxpayer assistance for the benefit of an applicant ``before immigration documentation is presented and verified'' by DHS' automated Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system or a subsequent successful appeal. Unfortunately, this administration ignores the law and permits illegal aliens to move into public housing before the legality of their status is finally determined. Also, unfortunately, the administrative and legal process being what it is, it takes as much as 2 years to evict illegal alien tenants after their illegal alien status is discovered. Madam Chair, it is unacceptable that, in a time of out-of-control United States debt and deficit, HUD violates the law to give limited public housing benefits to illegal aliens, rather than needy American citizens and lawful immigrants. Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that, first, denies public housing subsidies to illegal aliens; and, second, underscores the sense of Congress that the law must be obeyed and that it is wrong to use public housing subsidies to reward illegal aliens for their illegal conduct. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the argument that this would end rail service is absolutely false and is not supported by history. Nothing in history supports the gentleman's argument. However well-intentioned, the evidence is clear. Freight rail, the same kind of argument was made. Subsidies were ended. It went into the private sector. It survives and thrives today. There is an argument that buses and air carriers are somehow or another subsidized. I would submit that what we are talking about, there are user fees and there are gasoline taxes and diesel taxes that pay for those roads that buses use, and there are air passenger charges that pay for the cost of those airports that air carriers use. So with that as a backdrop, I would submit that it is time for Amtrak passengers to pay their own way. It is time for Amtrak passengers to quit riding on the backs of other taxpayers. They have the ability to pay their own way. The rest of the country is expected to pay their own way when they travel. As such, I would ask this body to adopt my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my first amendment, Brooks No. 19, strikes $288.5 million in operating subsidies for Amtrak. This second amendment, which is Brooks No. 21, strikes capital and debt service subsidies that total $850 million per year to get to the point where we can strike all taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak. I would rely on the arguments previously made with respect to my first amendment to support this second amendment. I would add, however, that I have heard some comments about the safety associated with Amtrak. I would emphasize at this point that if you want safety with rail service, probably the best thing to do is to put it in the private sector and eliminate Amtrak altogether. Look at airlines, air carriers; they are private sector and are much safer than Amtrak. Look at buses; they are private sector and are safer than Amtrak. And I would submit that if lives are what concern the opponents to these amendments that they would propose putting Amtrak into private hands in order to have the same kind of safety record that we have with buses, air carriers, and other modes of private transportation. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that there is no factual basis for the gentlewoman's comments that have just been made. Socialism does not work. We need to get Amtrak passengers off the backs of all taxpayers, including those that are poor, that can't afford the taxes that they are already having to pay to benefit those Amtrak riders. Let's set them free. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, America recently suffered four straight trillion dollar deficits. In the past few months, America's debt blew through the $18 trillion mark. America pays over $200 billion per year in debt service, which is more than four times what the Federal Government spends on highways, bridges, and interstates each year. America's Comptroller General warns that America's deficits and debt paths are unsustainable. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that our debt service cost is on a path to increase by another $600 billion within a decade, to more than $800 billion per year. That is more than America spends each year on national defense. The CBO also warns that, within a decade, if current trends continue, America will face yearly trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity. Per then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, debt is America's ``greatest threat to our national security.'' As a result of America's debt, in a few short years, America's uniformed military personnel numbers will be our smallest since before World War II, America's Navy will have the smallest number of operational naval vessels since World War I, and America's Air Force will have its smallest number of operational aircraft in its history. Debt, not our enemies, is slowly but surely stripping America of its ability to defend itself. In sum, Washington's financial irresponsibility, this House of Representatives' financial irresponsibility, is pushing America into a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that will destroy the American Dream for our children and grandchildren. It is in this setting that I beseech this House of Representatives to be financially responsible by supporting my amendment that eliminates Federal Government operating subsidies of Amtrak, thus forcing Amtrak to operate in the black. How bad is the Amtrak subsidy problem? The Congressional Research Service reports that, from 1971 to 2015, Federal Amtrak subsidies totaled $78 billion in constant 2015 dollars. In fiscal year 2014, Amtrak had a net loss of $1.1 billion. Who paid for that loss? America's children and grandchildren, that is who. How so? It is because America does not have the money and had to borrow every penny of that $1.1 billion, thus burdening Americans for generations to come. Mr. Chairman, a business that relies on subsidies and tax dollars to cover losses has little incentive to operate efficiently or effectively or, for that matter, as safely as it should. It is appalling that the Federal Government undermines and threatens the future of America's children and grandchildren in order to subsidize Amtrak passenger service that would be self-sufficient if Amtrak riders stopped mooching off of hard-working American taxpayers and, instead, simply paid for the actual cost of their rides. Amtrak supporters often claim that Amtrak will go out of business if it is not subsidized by American taxpayers. That is bunk unsupported by facts. This same ``woe is me'' argument was made about freight train subsidies; yet, when freight rail subsidies ended and freight rail was sold to private investors in the 1980s, freight rail did not go out of business and still operates today. Similarly, the Federal Government does not operate or subsidize national airlines or national bus services; yet airlines and buses operate profitably in the private sector, despite Federal Government subsidies for Amtrak, their competitor. Just as airlines, bus services, and freight rail operate without government subsidies, Amtrak will do the same if this House of Representatives has the courage to wean Amtrak from the taxpayer nipple. Mr. Chairman, after more than 40 years, it is time to stop the runaway Amtrak train. It is time to force Amtrak riders to pay their own way by ending their subsidized rides on the backs of American taxpayers. I urge adoption of my amendment to do just that. I reserve the balance of my time.