Mo Brooks

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Command Sergeant Major Ronald T. Riling II, the 14th Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, on the occasion of his retirement following 31 years of exemplary service to the United States Army. He is one of only four Command Sergeants Major of Four Star Commands in the United States Army. Command Sergeant Major Riling began his Army career in February 1983 as a 19D Cavalry Scout, completing his One Station Unit Training at Fort Knox, KY and will conclude his career as the personal advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Materiel Command on all enlisted-related matters; primarily focusing on the quality of life for Soldiers, Civilians and Families across the command; and Command Sergeant Major Riling has performed admirably and honorably at home and abroad. His career achievements include three successful combat tours, two in Iraq and one in Haiti. CSM Riling's awards and decorations include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit (2nd OLC), Bronze Star (1st OLC), Meritorious Service Medal (Silver OLC), Army Commendation Medal (3rd OLC), Army Achievement Medal (4th OLC), and many other awards; and as Command Sergeant Major Riling's career winds down, he will be remembered for many of his attributes--strength of character, steadfast courage and superior and compassionate leadership. He will also be remembered and admired for being a ``Soldier's Soldier". As Command Sergeant Major Riling and his wife, Melinda, begin the next phase of their lives, I am pleased that they are retiring in my Congressional district. I want to express the warmest regards and heartfelt gratitude of the Nation for all that they have done and all that the Riling family has sacrificed to support the defense of the United States of America. On behalf of all those touched by his service, we wish Command Sergeant Major Riling good luck, good ground, and Godspeed. Army Strong!

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee recently held a hearing on www.healthcare.gov cybersecurity threats. Our bipartisan expert witness panel included Dr. Frederick Chang, a computer science professor at SMU; Dr. Aviel Rubin, a computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University; David Kennedy, formerly chief security officer of Diebold Incorporated and currently the principal security consultant for TrustedSec; and Morgan Wright, formerly with Cisco security and now CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations. Now, I am not a cybersecurity expert, but I can read the words of those who are. The SST committee's hearing charter informs members that, in order to fully use www.healthcare.gov, American citizens must input or verify highly personal information, such as: date of birth and Social Security numbers for all family members, household salary, debt information, credit card information, place of employment, home addresses, and the like, information that is a treasure trove for cybercriminals and identity thieves. Further, the ObamaCare Web site interacts with the IRS and Social Security Administration databases, thereby exposing Americans to even greater risk of theft of their most private personal information. In their written testimony, these experts warn the following about the www.healthcare.gov Web site: ``There are clear indicators that even basic security was not built into the www.healthcare.gov Web site.'' ``The vast amount of www.healthcare.gov code also means applying industry standard security practices is a task that can have no real chance of success.'' Www.healthcare.gov ``creates massive opportunity for fraud, scams, deceptive trade practices, identity theft, and more.'' Mr. Speaker, these threats to American family finances prompted me to ask the panel of cybersecurity experts whether, under ObamaCare, Americans could seek compensation from the Federal Government for financial losses caused by their use of www.healthcare.gov. In reply, not one expert--not one--indicated ObamaCare requires the Federal Government to compensate American citizens for cybersecurity financial losses caused by their forced use of the www.healthcare.gov Web site. If these experts are right, and if you are an American citizen who obeys ObamaCare dictates, and you suffer from identity theft or other financial losses, the White House response is essentially, Tough luck; you are on your own. Well, that is unsatisfactory and insufferable. I next asked the bipartisan panel of experts, ``Given www.healthcare.gov security issues and assuming for the moment that you would be personally responsible for all damages incurred, if any, from your advice, would any of you advise an American citizen to use this Web site as the security issues now exist?'' Their bipartisan response was a stunning and unanimous, No; do not use the Web site because the security risks associated with www.healthcare.gov are simply too great. Mr. Speaker, the ObamaCare Web site, www.healthcare.gov, is the mother lode for identity theft, Internet fraud, and other criminal activity. For emphasis, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan panel of cybersecurity experts publicly warns that the www.healthcare.gov cybersecurity threat is so great that no one should use it. Based on their expert advice, I concur and encourage all Americans to avoid www.healthcare.gov, the ObamaCare Web site, in any way, shape, or form, until its cybersecurity risks are fixed.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on January 15, 2009, in order to get ObamaCare passed, President Obama promised America: If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. On June 28, 2012, in order to get reelection votes, President Obama promised: If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already has health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable. President Obama, in his recent apology for his deceptions, has not stopped the cancelation of millions, millions of Americans' health insurance plans nor slowed the ObamaCare-caused skyrocketing health insurance costs. ObamaCare forces families to, on the one hand, pay higher ObamaCare health insurance costs and cut spending for food, shelter, and clothing or, on the other hand, go without health insurance and pay tax penalties while risking health-caused bankruptcy. Montana Democrat Senator Max Baucus, the Senate sponsor of ObamaCare, warned us earlier this year that ObamaCare was a train wreck waiting to happen. Well, the verdict is in. ObamaCare is dysfunctional and threatens the lives and finances of millions of real hardworking Americans. Mark Templeton of Huntsville, Alabama, writes: I just received a notice from BlueCross/BlueShield of Alabama yesterday, indicating my Total Blue plan was no longer available due to the Affordable Care Act. My family coverage increased from $450 a month to $1,187 for similar coverage. They were kind enough to offer the more affordable and considerably worse Silver plan for only $937 per month. I don't qualify for any subsidies, so this will directly hit my household finances. Please make every effort to stop the Affordable Care Act from affecting any more Tennessee Valley families and businesses. Jessica Moore of Ardmore, Alabama, writes: I am writing about the not-so Affordable Care Act. My health insurance premiums are going up by 118 percent with BlueCross/BlueShield. The Health Care Marketplace will be of no help to me, as I make ``too much'' money. I am a single Iraq veteran. I am my sole income. I am perfectly healthy. The amount which my premium was raised is how much money I have left in the bank at the end of the month. I do not live beyond my means. I am a faithful taxpayer. The Affordable Care Act premium hikes are not affordable to me, nor to many other honest taxpayers. Please help the already ``taxed to the max'' middle class on this issue. ObamaCare has caused millions of Americans to receive health insurance cancelation letters, leaving them to struggle with how to protect their families. Thanks to ObamaCare, a year from now, tens of millions more Americans risk losing their health insurance once ObamaCare's employer mandate kicks in. Mr. Speaker, while ObamaCare is dysfunctional and threatens American lives, there is a better way. The American Health Care Reform Act, which I have cosponsored, unleashes the power of free enterprise competition to deliver quality health care at prices Americans can better afford. Among other things, this bill, first, forces lower health care costs by legalizing interstate competition among insurance companies; second, reforms medical malpractice laws so that health insurance is paying for health care, not frivolous lawsuits; third, lets Americans deduct health care costs and gives Americans a standard deduction for health insurance costs; four, protects Americans with preexisting conditions by bolstering State-based high-risk pools. Mr. Speaker, health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not Washington bureaucrats. Quite frankly, Big Brother bureaucrats have no business butting in and forcing Americans to buy health insurance Americans cannot afford or do not want. ObamaCare denies hardworking American taxpayers their right--yes, their right--to choose the health care policy best tailored to their needs. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare should be repealed, and America should debate health care solutions based on truth, not deception.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America's veterans protect America and our liberties, which begs the question, does ObamaCare keep our promises and obligations to veterans? Marcus Langford, a veteran from Huntsville, Alabama, wrote me the following: I am a married father of two and a disabled vet after three tours in Iraq and over 2 years in Afghanistan supporting our military. My health care costs are $399 a month, but because of the Affordable Health Care Act, my bill will go up to $741 a month as of January 2014. Mr. Speaker, America's veterans deserve better than the 60 percent increase in health care costs that the White House and its Democrat congressional allies obstinately impose on hardworking Americans like Marcus Langford. The way to do better is to repeal ObamaCare so that America can debate health care solutions based on truth, not deception.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, in a bold and agile display of legal sophistry, United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act by declaring it a tax, while failing to address whether the tax complied with the Origination Clause of our Constitution. The case of Sissel v. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals and headed to the Supreme Court. Sissel challenges the constitutionality of roughly 20 tax increases that fund government-run health care. Constitution article I, section 7 is the Origination Clause. It states, in part, that ``all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House.'' I have joined 40 Members of Congress in a friend of the court brief filed this week that urges the court of appeals to obey the Constitution and declare the Affordable Care Act taxes unconstitutional because they violate the Origination Clause. On October 8, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, a six-page bill. H.R. 3590 raised no taxes or revenue of any kind. To the contrary, H.R. 3590 cut taxes for veterans buying homes. The Senate took H.R. 3590, deleted its substantive provisions and substituted a six-page bill with a 2,074-page bill, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, that raised roughly $50 billion a year in new taxes, making it one of the largest tax increases in the history of America. None of these ObamaCare tax increases were in the original House bill. Hence, all of these new tax increases originated in the Senate, not the House, thereby violating the Origination Clause requirement that tax increases originate in the House. The Origination Clause was subject to significant debate during America's 1787 Constitutional Convention. Massachusetts convention delegate and America's fifth Vice President, Elbridge Gerry, stated that the Origination Clause was ``the cornerstone of the accommodation'' of the Great Compromise of 1787 that persuaded a majority of the States to ratify the Constitution. Stated differently, but for the Origination Clause, there would have been no Constitution and no United States as we know it. The Origination Clause was that important. Virginia Delegate and coauthor of our Bill of Rights, George Mason, explained opposition to Senate tax originations when he declared: The Senate did not represent the people, but the States in their political character. It was improper, therefore, that it should tax the people. Again, the Senate is not like the House of Representatives chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. They are chosen by the States for 6 years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of Government, will pursue schemes for their aggrandizement, will be able by wearing out the House of Representatives, and taking advantage of their impatience at the close of a long Session, to extort measures for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, America's Founding Fathers did not trust the Senate to originate and raise taxes because Senators sat unchallenged for 6 years, the greater part of a decade, and were too insulated and unaccountable for the taxes they forced on American citizens. Mr. Speaker, no American court in history has ever upheld the constitutionality of taxes under the circumstances presented by ObamaCare. Doing so now would undermine and nullify the letter and spirit of the Origination Clause in a Constitution that has served America so well for so long. Mr. Speaker, every Federal judge and justice took an oath to defend, protect, and uphold our Constitution. If these judges will put their partisanship and egos aside, if these judges will apply the Constitution as it is written and intended, if these judges will simply honor their oath of office, then ObamaCare will be declared unconstitutional because it violates the Origination Clause, and America's dangerous and failing experiment with socialized medicine will have ended. ObamaCare will be dead, and quality health care for Americans will survive.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once advised: When you run in debt, you give to another power over your liberty. Washington is in an epic political battle that controls America's destiny for decades to come. The fight is between those who are financially responsible and have the understanding and backbone needed to prevent an American bankruptcy, and those who do not. Last week, mainstream news media pundits declared a great win for Democrats and President Obama when the Federal Government reopened and the debt ceiling was raised. To the contrary, and for reasons I will explain, last week was a major loss for the American people. America's economy suffers from a $17 trillion debt--the worse in history--and 5 years of deficits averaging more than a trillion dollars per year. Again, the worst in history. During the past 5 years, the Federal Government borrowed 30 percent of its spending. How many families and businesses can avoid bankruptcy if, year after year, 30 percent of their spending is borrowed money? Not many, and not for long. Yet that is exactly what our country, America, is doing. 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. Mr. Speaker, America has been warned. President Obama's Comptroller General Dodaro warns America's finances are on an ``unsustainable path.'' Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warns that our greatest national security threat is not Iran, al Qaeda, China, or Russia; it is our debt burden that undermines our ability to pay for America's national defense and thus risks our national security. Detroit and Stockton bankruptcies mean retirees may lose their pensions. Greece, another debtor nation, has a 27 percent unemployment rate--worse than any year in America's Great Depression. There are good and bad ways to fund the Federal Government and raise the debt ceiling. Last week, Washington chose the worst way by not fixing the underlying problems: deficits and debt. Instead, Washington again kicked the can down the road, forcing America to revisit government funding issues in January and the debt ceiling issues in February, with one major difference: America will be financially weaker and less able to face the problem because we will be burdened by another half-trillion dollars in debt. Mr. Speaker, another half-trillion dollars in debt. I wonder why you didn't hear that from the media pundits. What did America get for another half-trillion dollars in debt? Not one penny in spending cuts, not a single economic policy that creates jobs and grows our economy, and nothing that fixes our deficit and debt problem. What Washington did last week is akin to a sick patient going to the emergency room and getting pain-killing drugs that help the patient feel good, yet do nothing to cure the disease that ultimately kills the patient. In the real world, that is medical malpractice. Similarly, Washington's refusal last week to cure our deficit and debt disease was governing malpractice. Mr. Speaker, America enjoys prosperity today because past generations sacrificed to make us who we are. We have the same obligation to our descendents. President George Washington once 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 gave prudent advice in 1793. It is prudent advice now. Washington must cut out-of-control spending and balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals out of control and is so great that we cannot recover. Failure risks a bankruptcy that will destroy the America it took our ancestors generations--centuries--to build. Mr. Speaker, the fight for America resumes in January on properly funding the government and in February on properly raising the debt ceiling. Ours is a fight America must win. Congress and the White House must rise to the challenge and be financially responsible when funding the government and raising the debt ceiling. America's future as a great Nation and a world power depends on it.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am gravely disappointed at the lengths the White House has gone in order to manipulate American lives as they seek to coerce America's elected House of Representatives into spending money America does not have on a dysfunctional, socialized medicine program that does not work, that threatens American lives, and that a majority of Americans do not want. Congress and the White House agree on, roughly, 99 percent of Federal Government spending. We should fund that 99 percent, reopen the Federal Government, and debate our disagreements on the remaining 1 percent, but the White House and Senate refuse to do that. Instead, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their Democrat allies force a Federal Government shutdown. They hold 99 percent of the Federal Government hostage to support their all-or-nothing demands. The lengths the Democrats and the White House will go in order to manipulate American lives and public opinion is most disheartening. The Obama administration ordered the closings of all Washington, D.C., monuments, thereby denying World War II veterans access to their memorial. Never mind that, in the history of all Federal Government shutdowns, no President has ever ordered and spent taxpayer money to barricade and close Washington's open-air memorials. The Obama administration disregarded the Pay Our Military Act and illegally ordered furloughs of, roughly, 400,000 Department of Defense civilian personnel for a week, thereby disrupting their lives and, more importantly, jeopardizing America's national security. The Obama administration followed that up with illegally ordering furloughs for who-knows-how-many thousands of defense contractors and their employees. Never mind that, in doing so, the Obama administration violated the Pay Our Military Act that President Obama, himself, signed--an act that fully funds all defense workers and contractors who ``are providing support to members of the Armed Forces,'' which, by the way, is all of them. Yesterday, America woke up to yet another political manipulation by the Obama administration. America's Commander in Chief denied death gratuities to the families of four soldiers and a marine who were killed in Afghanistan. Adding insult to injury, America's Commander in Chief refuses to pay the cost of the burial expenses of our men and women in uniform who have given their lives for their country. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. It must not stand. The Obama administration claims: As a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time. I respectfully disagree. The Pay Our Military Act expressly states: There are hereby appropriated sums for fiscal year 2014, such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces. Death benefits and burial expenses are part of our military's compensation package, a part of the ``pay and allowances'' the Pay Our Military Act says the Obama administration must pay. Congress should not have to pass yet another bill today to force the President to do what the law already says he should do. Instead of punishing America's military by illegally furloughing defense workers and contractors, instead of dishonoring our World War II veterans, our Korean war veterans, our Vietnam veterans by spending taxpayer money to barricade their memorials and by denying them access to their memorials, I yearn for a Commander in Chief who supports our veterans and our men and women in uniform rather than using them as pawns to be sacrificed in partisan, political games. I cannot help but think of the contrast between our current Commander in Chief and our first one. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington lived with his troops, fought with his troops, and sacrificed for his troops. When the Continental Army was faced with hardship, inadequate food and clothing, George Washington reached into his own pocket and sacrificed his wealth to help the men who fought under his command. Mr. Speaker, I pray our current Commander in Chief will study and understand the graciousness, the leadership, and the sacrifices of George Washington as he makes decisions on whether to treat our veterans, our troops, and our defense workers with the respect they have earned and deserve.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the ``Band of Brothers'' episode, ``Why We Fight,'' reminds me of an experience my father, Jack Brooks, shared with me. At age 23, dad was a combat engineer in General Patton's army. Near war's end, dad was ordered to help at a German concentration camp. Dad and his fellow soldiers saw human bodies decomposing and stacked like cordwood, 5- and 6-feet high, with lime sprinkled on them to retard the spread of disease. Those concentration camps helped my dad, and America, understand why we fought in Europe. Today, Washington is in an epic political battle that will affect America's future for decades and centuries to come. Some see a fight between Republicans and Democrats. I see a fight between those who are financially responsible and those who are not, between those who have the understanding and backbone needed to prevent an American bankruptcy and those who do not. Why do I fight? I fight for America's children and grandchildren. I fight for America's future. President Obama's five deficits have averaged $1 trillion per year, the worst in history. America soon will blow through the $17 trillion debt mark, the worst in history. Mr. Speaker, it is challenging to grasp trillion-dollar deficits and a $17 trillion debt. Let me simplify. In each of the last 5 years, the Federal Government borrowed 20 to 30 percent of its operational costs. How many American families or businesses could avoid bankruptcy if, year after year, 20 to 30 percent of what they spent was borrowed money? Not many, and not for long. Economic principles don't care if you are a family, a business, or a country. If you borrow more than you can pay back, you go bankrupt. America has been warned of the consequences of financial irresponsibility. Greece is further down the debt path than America. Greece's unemployment rate is 27 percent, worse than any year in America's Great Depression. Earlier this year, Cyprus confiscated as much as 60 percent of their citizens' savings and checking accounts. The Detroit and Stockton municipal bankruptcies risk retirees losing their pensions. President Obama's former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, warned Congress that America's greatest national security threat is not Iran, not al Qaeda, not China, not Russia; it is our debt. Admiral Mullen is prophetic. In recent history, no enemy has done as much damage to America's military and national security as have debt and sequestration. President Obama's Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, warned Congress and the White House earlier this year that America's deficits and debt are unsustainable, which brings us to today's fight involving a government shutdown, debt ceilings, and socialized medicine. No question, a government shutdown hampers the economy. Between 1976 and 1995, there were 17 government shutdowns. Yet, America's economy boomed in the 1980s and 1990s. Shutdowns can be overcome. No question, not raising the debt ceiling poses economic risk. No one knows for sure how much risk, because America has never crossed this threshold before. Whatever it is, it can be overcome. Knowing these risks, why do I fight over funding bills, the debt ceiling, and socialized medicine? Because too many Washington politicians pander to the next election's voters without caring one whit about America's future--because appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, the debt ceiling, and the like are the only leverage I have to cajole financially irresponsible Washington politicians into doing what must be done to prevent an American bankruptcy. It is because, as bad as government shutdown and debt ceiling risks may be, they are relatively inconsequential compared to the economic devastation resulting from an American bankruptcy. Think about the chaos and hardship that will ensue if America has no national defense, no FBI, CIA, or DEA, no Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare, no NASA, no justice system because an American bankruptcy has deprived us of the money needed to pay for them. Why do I fight? I fight to minimize the risk of America suffering a debilitating bankruptcy that can destroy the America it took our ancestors centuries to build. Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to use any tools I can to win that fight, because this is one fight America cannot afford to lose. That is why I fight.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I speak on the House floor for the third straight day to request that President Obama obey the Pay Our Military Act that fully funds, also, defense workers who support the Armed Forces. Since every defense worker, by definition, supports the Armed Forces, furloughs for every defense worker should end. Over 60 Congressmen and I are highlighting this issue in hopes of returning 400,000 furloughed defense workers to their jobs. I am pleased to announce that we're making progress. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel agreed that ``there's no job in our Department of Defense that doesn't support the military.'' Hence, the Pay Our Military Act's only furlough-ending requirement has been met. Mr. Speaker, President Obama must end all defense worker furloughs. Why? Because it's the law, and because America's national security is at stake.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Defense, ``of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.'' That means President Obama, our Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, publicly declared that roughly 400,000 DOD civilian employees are not ``essential'' to America's national security. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's furloughing 400,000 civilian Defense workers violates the law while putting national security at greater risk. Let me explain. If any one of three circumstances exist, then America's Defense workers should not be furloughed. The first circumstance is if Congress passes a Defense appropriations bill, then the military is funded and the President has no legal basis for using the shutdown as an excuse for furloughing Defense workers. Unfortunately, this first circumstance does not exist. While the House of Representatives, 4 months ago, passed the National Defense Authorization Act on a 315-108 bipartisan vote that included 103 Democrats, and while the House, almost 3 months ago, passed the Defense appropriations bill on a 315-109 bipartisan vote that included 95 Democrats, President Obama, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their allies refused to allow the Senate to vote on either bill that would both fully restore Defense funding lost because of sequestration and fully fund America's national security. The second circumstance exists if President Obama declares workers ``essential.'' While I disagree and question why any Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, would slight 400,000 Defense workers by declaring them superfluous to America's national security, President Obama did just that. Hence, the second circumstance does not prevent furloughs of civilian Defense workers during this shutdown. This brings us to the third circumstance, the Pay Our Military Act. This act not only forces the President to pay our men and women in uniform; it does more, much more. It also bars the President from furloughing civilian Defense workers even if there is a government shutdown, even if they are not declared ``essential,'' and even if Congress has not passed its Defense appropriations bill. For those who wish to read it, google the Pay Our Military Act to confirm that what I say is true. The Pay Our Military Act states, in part: There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 . . . such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to . . . civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . whom . . . are providing support to members of the Armed Forces. Let me repeat that for emphasis. It states: There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 . . . such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to . . . civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . whom . . . are providing support to members of the Armed Forces. There is no requirement that civilian Defense workers be essential. The only requirement is that they provide support to members of the Armed Forces. For emphasis, there is also no requirement that the support be for Armed Forces who are in combat. Mr. Speaker, every single civilian Defense worker supports the Armed Forces. By definition, that is their entire job. Hence, as a matter of law, there should be no furloughs of any civilian Defense workers. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, on October 1, I joined 67 other Congressmen in a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security reminding them of the Pay Our Military Act and emphasizing that we are: Disheartened that the administration chose to needlessly furlough workers against the intent of Congress and that since all DOD civilian employees serve to support the uniformed services, all of these civilians should be returned to work without further delay. Mr. Speaker, the President, our Commander in Chief, is actively violating the Pay Our Military Act. The Obama administration must immediately return all 400,000 furloughed DOD workers to work. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because it's the law.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent Redstone Arsenal, one of America's premier military bases and home to the Army Materiel Command, Aviation and Missile Command, Security Assistance Command, Contracting Command, Expeditionary Contracting Command, Space and Missile Defense Command, and numerous other program executive offices, agencies, and centers. According to the Department of Defense, ``of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.'' That means President Obama, our Commander in Chief, in his sole discretion, publicly declared that roughly 400,000 DOD civilian employees are not ``essential'' to America's national security. While I disagree and question why any Commander in Chief would, in his sole discretion, slight 400,000 defense workers by declaring them superfluous to America's national security, that is not why I address the House of Representatives today. What I want to know is: Why do President Obama, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their allies pointlessly insist on shutting down the DOD? Let me elaborate. On June 14, 2013, almost 4 months ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act, on a 315-108 bipartisan vote; 103 House Democrats, a Democrat majority, joined 212 Republicans to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. On July 24, 2013, almost 3 months ago, the House passed H.R. 2397, the Defense appropriations bill on a 315-109 bipartisan vote; 95 House Democrats joined 220 Republicans in passing the Defense appropriations bill. I publicly thank the House Democrats who supported the programs and funding that help America's warfighters protect American lives. Collectively, these defense bills restore funding lost because of sequestration and fully fund America's military and national defense. If these defense bills become law, then national defense is exempt from President Obama's shutdown orders. Unfortunately, there is an unhappy ending to the House's bipartisan support for national defense. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needlessly obstructs votes on both bills, thus causing them to languish 3 and 4 months in the United States Senate. Senate intransigence means the Department of Defense is subject to President Obama's shutdown orders and 400,000 defense workers are, as of today, barred from helping our warfighters who risk their lives for America both here and abroad. Each day these 400,000 defense workers do not work is another day America's warfighters are without their help, is another delay that denies our warfighters the cutting edge in high- tech weaponry needed to defeat America's enemies with minimal loss of life. Mr. Speaker, Democrat Senator Harry Reid should stop his obstructionism and allow a vote--just a vote--on the defense bills that have passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. If he does, both bills will pass and become law and national defense will be fully funded and exempt from President Obama's shutdown orders. Mr. Speaker, the Senate, White House, and Congress agree on close to 99 percent of our appropriations bills. The White House and Senate must stop using a Federal Government shutdown and the loss of 400,000 national defense jobs to coerce the House of Representatives into spending money America does not have on a socialized medicine program that does not work and that a majority of Americans do not want. The responsible thing to do is to fund the 99 percent, end the Federal Government shutdown, and then debate and negotiate the 1 percent that we legitimately disagree on. Mr. Speaker, I urge Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to join our bipartisan House effort to compromise--yes, compromise--and pass the National Defense Authorization Act and Defense appropriations bill, thereby securing America's national security while at the same time restoring 400,000 jobs America's economy sorely needs.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this week the Pay Our Military Act became law. It states, in part, and I quote: There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014 such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to: Members of the armed services, civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are providing support to members of the armed services, and contractors of the Department of Defense whom are providing support to members of the Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, every single DOD civilian worker and contractor supports the armed services. Hence, as a matter of law, there should be no furloughs of any DOD civilian personnel and no payment delays to any DOD contractors. Yet, a DOD memo states, ``Of the Department's 800,000 civilian workers, about half will be furloughed.'' Mr. Speaker, that violates the Pay Our Military Act, and the Obama administration must immediately return all 400,000 furloughed DOD employees to work and pay all DOD contractors on time. It's the law.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is shut down, thereby damaging America's economy generally, and the Tennessee Valley's economy in particular, where thousands of defense and NASA and other Federal Government employees have been furloughed because the President, in his discretion, designated them non-essential. I hope my remarks add clarity about the shutdown, its cause, and the efforts to fund the government. City, county and State governments across America pass one bill, called a budget, that funds services for their fiscal years. In contrast, Washington uses a three-step spending process. First, Washington should pass a bill that is called a budget, yet, does not, in fact, spend a dime. Rather, in Washington, the word budget is more like a game plan. It is much like a football coach's playbook. It lists the team's plays but does not, in and of itself, gain a single yard. Second, Washington should pass authorization bills that describe the programs the Federal Government is to operate. For example, the NASA authorization bill authorizes NASA to work on the Space Launch System so that America can have a human space flight program. Like budgets, authorization bills spend no money. Third, Washington must pass appropriation bills to actually spend money on the programs authorized. If Congress fails to pass appropriation bills, then Congress uses continuing resolutions as crutches for our failure. There are 12 appropriation bills that, collectively, fund the Federal Government. So far this year, the House, months ago, passed appropriation bills for national defense, energy and water, homeland security, military construction, and veterans affairs. If the Senate passes these appropriation bills, then each of these Federal programs are fully funded and exempt from the Federal Government shutdown. That's correct: exempt from the shutdown. Unfortunately, the Senate inexplicably refuses to vote on any of the 12 appropriation bills. Senate intransigence is why we are here today debating a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the Federal Government. For emphasis, continuing resolutions are the worst way to fund the Federal Government. By definition, continuing resolutions are for a short period. Speaker Boehner's CR is for 2\1/2\ months. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's CR is for even less, 1\1/2\ months. Each CR kicks the can down the road and forces America to quickly face yet another shutdown risk. Each CR means Federal agencies cannot plan long-term, and contracting officers are restricted in their ability to let contracts for services and goods provided by the private sector to the Federal Government and American citizens. Generally speaking, continuing resolutions fund at prior-year spending levels, which means spending does not change to reflect changing priorities, circumstances and challenges. In sum, continuing resolutions are inherently inefficient, waste tax dollars, and retard proper Federal government operation. Hence, I have historically voted against less-than-year-end continuing resolutions in hopes of forcing Congress to do the compromising necessary to pass authorization and appropriations bills. This work will not be done so long as the continuing resolution crutch protects Congress from failure. Which brings us to today. The Senate, White House and Congress agree on roughly 99 percent of the appropriation bills. Let me emphasize that. The Senate, White House and Congress agree on roughly 99 percent of the appropriation bills. The solution, therefore, to our impasse is simple. Congress and the White House should fully fund the 99 percent we agree on, end the government shutdown, and work out our differences on the remaining 1 percent. Instead, the Senate and White House use a Federal Government shutdown to coerce the House of Representatives into spending money America does not have on a socialized medicine program that does not work and that a majority of Americans do not want. Yesterday, I spoke with House leadership, and I urged them to pass bills that, one at a time, fund the 99 percent of the Federal Government that we agree on. I thank the House leadership for doing exactly that yesterday and today. Each bill we pass exempts yet another part of the Federal government from the shutdown. I urge my friends across the aisle to stop using the 99 percent as a hostage, to stop punishing citizens across America in their effort to coerce the House of Representatives into funding the 1 percent we have a legitimate disagreement on. I urge my friends across the aisle to join us, to join America, to compromise, yes, to compromise, and pass as many funding bills as we can to minimize and eliminate the harmful effects of a Federal Government shutdown.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the 852 employees of United Launch Alliance in Decatur, Alabama, for their hard work and commitment both to their jobs and to America. Because of their dedication, when using United Launch Alliance, America has secure access to space 100 percent of the time. Two days ago, on September 18, 2013, ULA completed their 75th successful launch using an Atlas V rocket at Cape Canaveral. This was ULA's fourth launch in 2 months, ninth launch this year, and 40th successful launch of the Atlas V rocket. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the United Launch Alliance workers of Decatur for their achievement that embodies American exceptionalism. It is an honor to represent them in Congress.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the story of a courageous Congressional Medal of Honor recipient living in Alabama's Fifth Congressional District. Pilot Lieutenant Colonel Leo Thorsness was on a mission over North Vietnam when he lost his wingman. As the crew members parachuted to the ground, Colonel Thorsness destroyed a MIG-17 that was threatening their safety. Low on fuel, Colonel Thorsness went in search of a refueling tanker, but upon hearing that the downed men were again threatened-- this time by four MIGs--he immediately returned to their aid. Low on fuel and perilously close to crashing himself, Colonel Thorsness attacked the four MIGs, damaging one, driving them away, and saving the downed men and their rescuers. Then he flew further afield to refuel, aiding another plane that needed the emergency fueling station. Lieutenant Colonel Thorsness' extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice, and personal bravery saved many lives, and our Nation is forever grateful for his service.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, President Obama, without consulting Congress or the American people, intervened in Libya's civil war, resulting in the murder of four Americans, including our Ambassador in Benghazi, while creating yet another fertile terrorist recruiting ground. Repeating its Libya mistake, in September 2012, the Obama administration declared that America will intervene in Syria's civil war and work ``to support a Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls.'' Shortly thereafter, I stood on this floor, stated my opposition to America's intervening in yet another civil war and argued that ``America must stop spending our treasury and risking American lives for those who neither appreciate our sacrifices, nor believe in basic liberties like freedom of religion and freedom of speech.'' I have participated in classified hearings with Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and many others. I have listened to President Obama. The arguments for attacking Syria are unpersuasive. Absent substantially different circumstances, and consistent with my 2012 opposition to intervening in Syria's civil war, I will vote against attacking Syria, if and when Congress has that vote. I reject the President's argument that the best way to keep Syrians from killing Syrians is for Americans to kill Syrians. America has peaceful options. We should pursue them more vigorously. There is not the required public support to attack Syria. Americans oppose attacking Syria by a two-to-one ratio. In Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, 1,272 citizens have contacted my office about Syria, and 1,267 citizens oppose attacking Syria. A scant five citizens out of 1,272 support attacking Syria. The President last night told America that there is no evidence that Syria is a security threat to America that supports preemptive military action. Yet an attack makes Syria and its allies a security threat. President Obama erred when he made Syria's chemical weapons a red line. But a President's verbal gaffes don't justify war. A Syrian war costs money America does not have. Every dollar spent attacking Syria worsens America's deficit and debt, weakens our economy, undermines our ability to pay for national security, and increases the risk of even more defense layoffs and furloughs. An American attack on Syria aids and abets Syrian rebels. Syrian rebels have beheaded Christians solely because they are Christians. One rebel leader killed a Syrian soldier, cut open his chest, took out his heart, ate it, and then bragged about. Another rebel leader personally executed helpless prisoners of war. I question the wisdom of helping rebels who may be even more evil and barbaric than Syrian President Assad. Yet that is exactly what President Obama proposes. The White House Syrian strategy is conflicting and amorphous. The President claims he does not seek regime change. Yet in 2012, his administration said the exact opposite. President Obama claims attacks will deter Syria's chemical weapons use, yet his Secretary of State insists that attacks will be ``unbelievably small.'' I have reservations about this administration's ability to handle a delicate foreign policy matter. This administration bungled its Fast and Furious gun-running program, killing hundreds of innocent Mexicans and an American Border Patrol agent. This administration botched Benghazi and threw in a coverup for good measure. This administration illegally uses the Internal Revenue Service to attack political adversaries. The list goes on and on. President Obama has cultivated cheerleaders but not players on the field whose militaries will help America attack Syria. America cannot perpetually be the world's only policeman. In sum, I believe attacking Syria unilaterally makes matters worse, not better. Absent a major international effort to punish Syrian President Assad for his inhumane and criminal use of chemical weapons, I cannot and will not in good conscience vote on the House floor or in the Foreign Affairs or Armed Services Committees to attack Syria.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to recognize Dr. William A. ``Bill'' Craig and his many accomplishments during his career. After receiving a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from Mississippi State University, Dr. Craig began his civil service career in 1960 with Dr. Werhner Von Braun's Astrionics Laboratory before moving to the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Agency in 1970, and then as a charter member to the Army Missile Command's Missile System Software Center when it was established in 1976. Since 1988, Bill Craig has served as the Director of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, Software Engineering Directorate (SED). Through his leadership, the SED, as an organization, attained a Level 4 rating against the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI's) Software Capability Maturity Model in 2000. During Dr. Craig's tenure, the SED has experienced significant growth, greatly expanding its customer base as well as enlarging its facilities. As one of only three Life Cycle Software Engineering Centers in the Army, the SED provides software and systems engineering support for most of the Army's major weapon and aviation systems. Under the leadership of Dr. Craig, the SED organization is the responsible agent for the development and fielding of numerous Army Systems, including: Joint Battle Command-Platform and the Aviation Mission Planning System. Also, the SED, in partnership with the Program. Executive Officers and Program Mangers, has established numerous Aviation and Missile System Integration Laboratories for the analysis and test of tactical systems and software. These laboratories provide the capability for Joint Services Interoperability Certification as well as Intra Army Certification. The SED also is responsible for development and deployment of the America's Army Program. This program includes the public game, weapon systems trainers, and Army recruiting applications. The SED collaborates with a number of other organizations/agencies, including: Space and Missile Defense Command for Cyber Security, Jackson State University for Homeland Security, and as a Technology Transition Partner with the Software Engineering Institute. The SED has also made significant progress in workforce development, in partnership with the University of Alabama in Huntsville, including a very robust Co-op Program, and advanced degrees in Software Engineering and Systems Engineering. These opportunities allow the expansion and growth of the SED workforce to remain relevant in the complex areas of the digital world. Dr. Craig is a highly respected leader and visionary in the community and a strong proponent of the greater Tennessee Valley area. In 2004, he received an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Additionally he serves on the advisory board for the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Other honors include induction into the Order of Saint Barbara, an honorary military society of the United States Field Artillery Association, recognition as supervisor of the year in 1985 by the North Alabama Chapter of Federally Employed Women, and the first recipient of the Joseph C. Moquin Award given by the Huntsville Association of Technology Societies in 2006. In 2010, the Tennessee Valley National Defense Industrial Association presented Dr. Craig with the Medaris Award for demonstrating technical excellence in promoting the defense preparedness for the nation.

Mr. 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-six years of dedicated service and proclaim October 2013 as Alpha Delta Kappa Month. Established in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa's goals have been to establish high standards of education, give recognition to outstanding educators, build a fraternal fellowship among educators and to promote educational and charitable projects and activities enriching the lives of individuals everywhere. With a membership of over 33,000 educators representing all fifty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica and Australia, Alpha Delta Kappa is committed to educational excellence, personal and professional growth and for collectively channeling their energies toward the good of their schools, communities, the teaching profession and the world. Women in education constitute a great portion of the nation's working force and are constantly striving to serve their communities and nation in educational, cultural, and charitable programs leading to harmony, happiness, and peace among all people. Over the last few years, the members of Alpha Delta Kappa have given altruistically to the communities they serve by raising nearly $14.5 million dollars and volunteering over 2 million service hours. I congratulate Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on their many years of unparalleled success and wish them well and best wishes as they continue to educate our children.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

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

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to implement or execute any non-treaty executive agreement with Russia regarding missile defense or to provide Russia with information about America's ballistic missile defense systems, both classified and unclassified. The reason the amendment says classified and unclassified is to prohibit the administration from declassifying missile defense technology to skirt the law. A similar amendment was passed last year, with bipartisan support, and is included in the current continuing resolution that is funding our government during this fiscal year. Multiple news sources over the years have reported that the Obama administration may seek to share our missile defense secrets with the Russians. I am concerned these reports may be accurate. While the danger to national security is a serious concern, so is the loss of billions of dollars we have sunk into creating these exceptional technologies. The Congressional Research Service estimates the United States has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. Roughly 90 percent of that $153 billion, or $140 billion, has been spent on hit-to-kill technology. I ask the House to support this amendment to preserve America's lead in missile defense technologies, protect America's investment of billions of dollars, and ensure the viability of current and future missile defense technologies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. There have been numerous occasions in which the media has reported that the administration is considering, as a part of negotiations or other things, divulgence of our sensitive hit- to-kill technology to the Russian federation. I am thankful that my colleague across the aisle says that it takes away his breath, and I hope with that that he will support this amendment.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the appropriate way to gather the requested information is simply for the gentleman to Google what I have just stated. This issue arose in 2011 with numerous comments by the White House that were reported in numerous outlets. By way of background, my source is not FOX News in this particular instance, but all he has to do is Google it and he can find it. Also, there were numerous reports in 2012 where the President indicated--in what turned out to be an open mic--that once the elections were over with, he could more freely negotiate or give away information to the Russians. Those aren't the exact words used by the President. Unfortunately, I don't have perfect recall, but it was words to that effect. I would emphasize that this House has visited this issue previously. This has passed with bipartisan support. So I would urge this body to again, as a precautionary measure, adopt this amendment to prevent the sharing of our hit-to-kill technology with the Russian Federation to the extent that risk becomes a reality. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I yield back the balance of my time.