Mo Brooks

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testified before the House Armed Services Committee that America ``is maintaining nearly historic fiscal deficits and national debt. Indeed, I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near term, our national power will erode, and the costs to our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great.'' Admiral Mullen is right: debt caused sequestration. Debt and sequestration will slash our uniformed personnel to their lowest levels since before World War II; will reduce our Navy to the smallest number of operational vessels since World War I; and will cut our Air Force to the smallest number of operational aircraft in its history. In sum, debt is putting America's national security at risk. Last week, on January 17, the Comptroller General of the United States delivered to President Obama a Government Accountability Office report on America's financial health. I have reviewed many government audits and financial statements during my three decades in public office. I have never seen warnings as stark as those given by the GAO to President Obama. Some lowlights of the GAO report are striking and deserve emphasis. In fiscal year 2012, the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reported about $85 billion in net valuation losses. The Federal Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's liabilities exceeded its assets by about $34 billion. The Postal Service ``finished the year with a reported net loss of almost $16 billion.'' The Federal Housing Administration reported that its liabilities exceeded its assets by about $15 billion. Mr. Speaker, America is on a path to insolvency and bankruptcy, an event that will debilitate our country. America has incurred four consecutive, unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits and is in the midst of a fifth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit. America's national debt exceeds $16 trillion. Interest on our debt is well in excess of $200 billion per year. To put our debt service burden in perspective, that is more than four times what the Federal Government spends on all highway and transportation infrastructure projects in America each year. Unless Washington becomes financially responsible, future debt service will escalate and even more money will be spent on debt service rather than on programs that serve Americans. America's Comptroller General issued a stern warning to President Obama: The comprehensive, long-term fiscal projections show that, absent policy changes, the Federal Government continues to face an unsustainable path. Over the long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to the continued growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP. This means the current structure of the Federal budget is unsustainable. America's current path and Federal budget are unsustainable. Absent changes, Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy are certain to result and cause an economic disaster unrivaled in America's history. This week, the House of Representatives faces a vote to increase America's debt ceiling. Pending legislation raises the debt ceiling by roughly $300 to $400 billion. What protection from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy does America get in return? Are there any spending cuts? No. Are there policies that spur economic growth and result in revenue increases? No. Does this proposal help fix in any way the trillion-dollar deficits that threaten America with financial ruin? No. Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for me. I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless significant efforts are made to fix the underlying problem of deficits and accumulated debt that force debt ceiling votes and risk America's future. I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless, first, Congress passes a substantive balanced-budget constitutional amendment that solves the debt problem for future generations or, second, we implement sizable spending cuts that help get our financial affairs in order. I take this stance full well knowing the adverse economic effects of a failure to raise the debt ceiling but also knowing, Mr. Speaker, that those effects pale in comparison to an insolvency and bankruptcy of the America I love.

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed a fiscal cliff bill this morning without time for Senators to adequately consider it and, more importantly, without giving the American people time to understand it and share their insight with Congress. Senator Mitch McConnell observed, ``This shouldn't be the model for how we do things around here,'' and then the Senate proceeded like a bull in a china closet anyway. The Senate boasts it is America's deliberative body. Today, that claim rings hollow. Mr. Speaker, the House must postpone this vote until Congress and the American people have time to study and evaluate this extraordinarily complex legislation and its impact on taxes, revenue, the economy, our debt, and a myriad of other issues. It is better to get it right than to act in haste. Mr. Speaker, if we vote on the Senate fiscal cliff bill today, I will vote against it because this is not the way to do the people's business. I will not condone with my vote a process that denies the American people an opportunity to participate in their Republic on issues of this magnitude.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cuts' history illuminates why American families face huge tax increases on January 1. The Bush tax cuts had two purposes. First, stimulate the economy, create jobs, cut unemployment, and cut the deficit. Second, cut taxes to help American families take care of their own needs. In just 3 years, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, unemployment dropped from a high of 6.3 percent in 2003 to a low of 4.4 percent in 2006; 7 million American jobs were created between 2003 and 2006. Most importantly and paradoxically to those who do not understand economics, this robust economic growth cut America's deficit 60 percent--from $413 billion in FY 2003-2004 to $161 billion in FY 2006- 2007. By every economic measure, the Bush tax cuts were a spectacular success. The Bush tax cuts, part 1, became law in 2001. Republican Congressmen and Senators voted 258-2--99 percent--to cut taxes and protect family incomes. In contrast, Democrat Congressmen and Senators who now say they are for protecting family incomes voted 184-40--a whopping 81 percent--against American families and for higher taxes. The Bush tax cuts, part 2, became law in 2003. Republican Congressmen and Senators voted 272-3--that's 99 percent--to cut taxes and protect family incomes. In contrast, Democrat Congressmen and Senators who now say they are for protecting family incomes voted 245-9--an eye-popping 96 percent--against American families and for higher taxes. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats had enough votes to prevent the Bush tax cuts from being permanent. But for these Senate Democrats, America would not be facing a fiscal cliff today. President Obama and a radically different Congress, controlled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, revisited the Bush tax cuts. In two separate votes in February 2009 and December 2010, Democrats could have increased taxes on the wealthy if they'd really believed what they now say. Did they raise taxes on the wealthy? No. Why not? Democrats could have permanently protected lower- and middle-income families from higher taxes if Democrats had really believed what they now say. Did they? No. Why not? Mr. Speaker, why would a Democrat Congress and White House say they want to tax the wealthy but not do it? Why would a Democrat Congress and White House say they want permanent tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers yet not give it? The answer is simple: Washington Democrats voted twice against tax increases on the wealthy and twice voted against giving permanent tax relief to lower- and middle-income families so that they could run campaigns on base human emotions like greed, envy, and class warfare, and campaign against the very tax policies Democrats kept in place, thus deflecting attention from the Democrats' abysmal record on the economy--trillion-dollar deficits and a $16 trillion national debt. To their credit, in 2012, their strategy worked. Democrats won the White House and the Senate. Ultimately, however, American voters will learn from history and truth will prevail. Ultimately, the American people will look at their property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and every other tax that they are being forced to pay, and they will ask: Who taxes and undermines my ability to take care of my family? History proves Democrats raise taxes whenever they believe they can get away with it. Conversely, history proves that Republicans protect as many American families as possible from Democrat tax increases. Mr. Speaker, that is the fight the Republican House fights today. Republicans will fight today and Republicans will fight tomorrow to protect as many American families as possible from the tax increases Democrats passed when they controlled Congress and the White House, and it is that difference, Mr. Speaker, that caused American voters to give Republicans in the 2010 and 2012 elections their largest number of House of Representative victories in more than six decades. Fighting Democrat tax increases: now that's a mandate.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Alpha Delta Kappa International Honorary Organization for Women Educators on its sixty-five years of dedicated service and proclaim October 2012 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 65 years of unparalleled success and wish them well and salute them as they embark on their next 65 years.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly, United States Army and Director of the Missile Defense Agency. Lieutenant General O'Reilly will be retiring from the United States Army after 38 years of honorable and faithful service to the United States of America: four years as a cadet at West Point, and for 34 years as a Commissioned Officer. His service to this great nation spans nearly four decades that witnessed dramatic changes to the strategic national security landscape, organizational structure of the United States Army, and military services. From humble beginnings growing up in Richland, Texas, to working long hot summers as a teenager on his mother's family farm in Davey, Nebraska, General O'Reilly recognized and believed that service to country was not only an obligation, but a calling. He entered West Point in 1974, at a time when many Americans shunned military service and military values as the United States exited the Vietnam War. He started his commissioned Army career as a Maintenance Officer; he later served as an Ordnance Officer and a Physics Instructor at West Point. He then transitioned to the Army Acquisition Corps where his contributions and leadership have strengthened the security of the United States, our friends, allies, and international partners. Like all distinguished military careers, General O'Reilly has served in many assignments, including joint assignments that culminated with his service as the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. General O'Reilly helped make missile defense a reality. He served as the Project Manager for the Directed Energy Directorate and as Program Manager for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense Missile Project of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, which later became the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. He also served as the Product Manager for the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 Program. His outstanding work as an acquisition specialist and his engineering expertise earned him a career assignment as the Executive Officer to the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. The Army, the Joint Staff, and the nation recognized his talent and expertise and appointed him to be the Program Manager for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system in 1999. The Army later assigned him to be the Program Executive Officer for the Combat Support/Combat Service Support Program to provide Up-Armored vehicles to combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He returned to the Missile Defense Agency in 2005 and served as the Program Manager for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD). In this role, General O'Reilly oversaw the development and acquisition of one of the most important weapon systems in the history of the United States, one designed to defend the homeland against long-range ballistic missile attacks. General O'Reilly was instrumental in successfully advancing the program following a challenging period. During his tenure as Program Manager, the Missile Defense Agency conducted the first successful flight test of the operationally configured Ground-Based Interceptor, and executed the first successful intercept flight test of the GMD system. General O'Reilly's work as the GMD Program manager directly contributed to the fielding of the nation's first limited defense capability, the operational Ground-based Midcourse Defense System that was part of the initial Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This was the first ever deployed system to protect the United States homeland against a limited ICBM attack. His achievements and technical missile defense knowledge were well recognized by civilian and military leadership, and as a result, he was assigned in January 2007 to be the Missile Defense Agency's Deputy Director. Just a little over a year later, following his elevation to Deputy Director, the Department of Defense hand-picked General O'Reilly to be promoted to Lieutenant General. He was then nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate to become the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. As the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, General O'Reilly successfully applied his insightful and decisive leadership to a series of national and international challenges as the Agency developed, tested, fielded, and expanded the BMDS to protect the United States, its deployed forces, and allies and friends against the growing and diverse threat posed by ballistic missiles. As Director, he completed the construction of an additional missile field in Alaska for the GMD infrastructure to ensure a more robust defense of the homeland. As part of this plan, he made a commitment to Congress and the American people to field and deploy 30 Ground Base Interceptors by the end of 2010, and he fulfilled this important milestone in September 2010. He also initiated a Ground Based Interceptor fleet refurbishment and reliability enhancement program that resulted in upgrades and improvements to 10 Ground Based missiles deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska. Moreover, under his direction, the Missile Defense Agency completed the upgrades and integration of the Thule Early Warning Radar in Greenland, and the Clear Early Warning Radar in Alaska. In January 2009, strategic direction on how the nation would deploy missile defenses in Europe directed a renewed focus on the ballistic missile threat from the Middle East to our NATO European allies. General O'Reilly was called upon to work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the Department of State to develop and implement a four phased plan for the deployment of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). His work resulted in a unique solution to phase and convert shipped- based SM-3 missiles for land-based use. In December 2011, General O'Reilly and the Missile Defense Agency achieved a historical milestone by issuing a technical declaration for EPAA Phase 1 in December 2011. As a result, the United States has now successfully deployed a command and control battle management system in Germany and a forward-based radar in Turkey, and has assigned an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. During his tenure, his organization further completed BMD installations on 11 Aegis warships, including the upgrade of three ships from 3.6 to 4.0.1, giving them a ballistic missile defense capability utilizing the most capable interceptors available. During this time the Aegis BMD program delivered 66 SM-3 IA interceptors and four SM-3 IBs for flight testing. At the tactical level, he oversaw the delivery of the United States Artny's first two operational THAAD batteries, initiated production of two additional THAAD batteries, and managed the delivery of 51 THAAD interceptors to meet the needs of our Combatant Commanders and the needs of our allies. General O'Reilly's missile defense vision extended far beyond the current set of fielded and planned capabilities. During his tenure, the nation witnessed the Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB) demonstrate revolutionary technology by achieving two historic shoot-downs of two short-range ballistic missile targets using directed energy technology. He also advocated and began program implementation to provide Precision Tracking Space System satellites to one day provide persistent overhead coverage from space as well as birth to death tracking of enemy ballistic missiles. Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the many accomplishments in General O'Reilly's storied and distinguished career. As I reviewed his experiences and contributions, I am reminded that his career has made national security history, and that he has also provided a vision for future generations of military officers. I also believe all distinguished careers are helped, aided, and encouraged by friends and family. As a nation we also owe a debt of gratitude to General O'Reilly's wife, Judith, and his two daughters, Siobhan and Brighid. General O'Reilly and family, thank you for your service to God and Country. General O'Reilly, you have held true to your West Point Class of 1978 motto--``Proud and Great `78.''

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I represent Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, home to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, home to the Saturn V rocket that carried American astronauts to the Moon. Today, the Fifth District's talented scientists, engineers, and others work tirelessly to develop the Space Launch System for manned space flight both to and beyond low Earth orbit. In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy challenged America to do the impossible, send an astronaut to the Moon and safely return him. As a young boy in the 1960s, I vividly remember the Earth tremble, dishes rattle, and windows pulsate as America tested our Saturn V rocket on nearby Redstone Arsenal. In 1969, America's hard work paid off. I will never forget watching the grainy, black-and-white footage on TV as American astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped on to the lunar dust. The thrill of that moment, our pride in America, our awe of what Americans could do have belonged to all Americans ever since. Armstrong's walk on the Moon helped define America and changed world history as we left Earth behind and ventured into the mysteries of space. Neil Armstrong was an accomplished aerospace engineer, Navy pilot, astronaut, and the first man to walk on the Moon. Neil Armstrong will be forever immortalized as a brave and great explorer. Toward the end of his life, Neil Armstrong spoke frequently and passionately about the future of manned space flight. Neil Armstrong understood that American exceptionalism is in jeopardy and may be lost to future generations. As a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I recently had the privilege to meet Neil Armstrong during a public hearing on NASA's Space Launch System, the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, and America's role in space. During that hearing, Neil Armstrong expressed concerns about the direction of America's space program. Neil Armstrong testified, and I quote: The past year has been frustrating to NASA observers as they tried to understand NASA's plans and progress. NASA leadership enthusiastically assured the American people that the agency was embarking on an exciting new age of discovery in the cosmos. But the realities of the termination of the shuttle program, the cancellation of existing rocket launcher and spacecraft programs, the layoffs of thousands of aerospace workers, and the outlook for American space activity throughout the next decade were difficult to reconcile with the agency assertions. Neil Armstrong continued, and again I quote: So, much has been accomplished. But NASA, hobbled by cumbrous limitations, has been unable to articulate a master plan that excites the imagination and provides a semblance of predictability to the aerospace industry. Neil Armstrong concluded by testifying, and again I quote: Predicting the future is inherently risky, but the proposed Space Launch System includes many proven and reliable components which suggest that its development could be relatively trouble free. If that proves to be so, it would bode well for exploration. In the midst of America's current economic malaise and deficit-ridden Federal spending on programs that do nothing or little to advance technology or humanity's condition, I share Neil Armstrong's concern for the future of NASA and whether Washington has the inspirational leadership exhibited by President Kennedy in the 1960s, or ``the right stuff'' that is essential for space exploration. Today, American astronauts hitch a ride from Russia. Oh, how far we have fallen. Quite frankly, America and the human condition beg for the White House leadership once shown by President Kennedy, but which now is sorely lacking. Mr. Speaker, there is a whole universe out there waiting for us to explore. Just as America did in the 1960s, today's Americans can accomplish what is seemingly impossible. All America lacks is the vision needed to help us understand where we should go and the leadership needed to get us there. Mr. Speaker, America will best honor the memory of Neil Armstrong and his achievements by striving for the American exceptionalism exemplified by Neil Armstrong in continuing his dream of manned space flight and exploration.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, in Egypt our Embassy walls were scaled and the American flag ripped apart. In Libya, America's Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered. Ironically, our own Embassy in Egypt apologized by condemning Americans who exercised their religious and free speech rights as ``misguided individuals who hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'' The White House, rivaling the Keystone Cops of lore, distanced itself from its own State Department apology. Let's be clear. In Libya, this White House spent American treasury and risked American lives to topple Muammar Qadhafi, thus empowering those who killed our Ambassador. Not one to learn from history or its own mistakes, this White House says, America ``will work to support a Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls.'' Mr. Speaker, we 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. Mr. Speaker, I pray the President is listening.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and applaud the achievements of Dr. Carol Lowman, who serves as the deputy to the commanding general of the U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC). Headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, ACC includes more than 6,300 military and civilian employees across the globe who provide support to our warfighters by acquiring equipment, supplies, and services vital to our Soldiers' mission and daily needs. Dr. Lowman will soon retire after more than 20 years of distinguished service to America's Army. Throughout her career, Dr. Lowman has demonstrated the highest level of professionalism, initiative, and selfless service in the execution of programs supporting the total force of quality Soldiers and Department of the Army civilians. The distinctive accomplishments of Dr. Lowman reflect great credit upon her, the Army Contracting Command, the U.S. Army, and the Department of Defense. Dr. Lowman began her Army career as a contracting intern with the Information Systems Command at Fort Richie, Maryland. She has served with distinction at virtually every level in the Army contracting community. Prior to her ACC Headquarters assignment, she was the acting director of the Mission and Installation Contracting Command at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. She has also served as the director and principal assistant responsible for contracting and chief, Business Systems Division for the Army Contracting Agency Southern Region in Atlanta, Georgia and as chief, Management Branch for the Contracting Division at the U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia. While her career accomplishments are many and significant, I wish to highlight Dr. Lowman's contributions to the establishment of the Army Contracting Command on March 13, 2008. She was one of several senior Army leaders who worked tirelessly to create a new major command from the ground up in record time. Her wisdom, insight, and vision were essential elements in building the foundation of a global enterprise that awarded and managed more than 198,000 contractual actions valued at more than $86.9 billion in fiscal year 2011. Dr. Lowman also played a key role last year in the relocation of ACC Headquarters from Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to Redstone Arsenal. This move followed the transfer of ACC's parent-Command, the Army Material Command (AMC) Headquarters to Redstone from Fort Belvoir, as directed by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's decision in 2005. While AMC had several years to plan for and transition to its new Alabama home, ACC completed its relocation in less than 18 months. This tremendous accomplishment was a direct result of Dr. Lowman's inspired leadership, foresight, and team building skills. Dr. Lowman assumed leadership of the ACC, as executive director, on September 27, 2011. This was the first time a female Senior Executive Service member was designated the senior leader of a military command and was a true testament to the faith and confidence Army leadership had in her ability to support Army acquisition requirements during a time of war. Dr. Lowman resumed her deputy duties on May 17, 2012 when ACC welcomed its first commanding general. On September 20, 2011, the President appointed Dr. Lowman as the Army representative on the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled. The committee is an independent federal agency that administers the AbilityOne program which is the largest employment resource for people who are blind or have other significant disabilities. I also wish to acknowledge and thank Dr. Lowman's husband, Mark, a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, for supporting his wife and for his service to our country. The Lowmans have been blessed with five children and five grandchildren. We wish Dr. Lowman and her family all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I have seen Federal overregulation stifle research universities. Earlier this year, the National Research Council of the National Academies released its report entitled, ``Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation's Prosperity and Security.'' This report examined Federal regulatory burdens on America's research universities. On June 27, the Research and Science Education Subcommittee held a hearing on that report and whether regulatory red tape stifles scientific research. I asked our witnesses how we can enhance university scientific research capabilities. Their responses are instructive: Mr. Chad Holliday, chairman of the National Academies Committee on Research Universities testified: Federal policymakers and regulators should review the costs and benefits of Federal regulations, eliminating those that are redundant and ineffective, inappropriately applied to the higher education sector, or impose costs that outweigh the benefits to society. Dr. John Mason, Auburn University associate provost and vice president of research, testified: A comprehensive review of policies and regulations is perhaps the most important in this report. Streamlining the process, relieving unnecessary and costly administrative burdens, and coordinating research priorities among disparate Federal agencies will invigorate research universities exponentially. Dr. Jeffrey Seemann, Texas A&M University chief research officer and vice president for research, testified: Federal agencies and Federal regulators must reduce and/or eliminate unnecessary, overly burdensome, and/or redundant regulatory and reporting obligations for universities and their faculty in order to maximize investments more directly into research priorities and allow faculty time to be optimally utilized. Dr. Leslie Tolbert, University of Arizona senior vice president for research, testified: The growing burden of compliance with the increasing numbers and complexity of Federal regulations consumes increasing amounts of time and money, leaving less for more direct support for research. Finally, Dr. James Siedow, vice provost for research at my alma mater, Duke University, testified that research universities have been subjected to a: Growing number of research-related compliance regulations that have flowed down from Federal agencies over the past 10 to 15 years. In that regard, the research-related and quality assurance costs to Duke between 2000 and 2010 rose over 300 percent. This perceived piling on of new reporting requirements has led to negative responses on the part of faculty, who see more and more of their time being committed not to actually carrying out the funded research but to a myriad of mundane administrative duties. The extreme to which some of these regulations have gone of late seems well beyond that needed to accomplish the original regulatory ends. Consistent with their views, the National Academies recommended: Reduce or eliminate regulations that increase administrative costs, impede research productivity, and deflect creative energy without substantially improving the research environment. I asked our witnesses to identify specific regulations to amend or repeal. They are preparing their lists. I look forward to receipt of their recommendations and working to repeal counterproductive red tape that does more harm than good. According to the National Academies, if we successfully cut wasteful regulations, we: can reduce administrative costs, enhance productivity, and increase the agility of research institutions. Minimizing administrative and compliance costs will also provide a cost benefit to the Federal Government and to university administrators, faculty, and students by freeing up resources and time to support education and research effort directly. With greater resources and freedom, universities will be better positioned to respond to the needs of their constituents in an increasingly competitive environment. Mr. Speaker, America's research universities are essential to America's scientific innovation. If we clear the red tape from their path and free them up, they will produce the fundamental research that fosters American exceptionalism and, equally important, results in economic growth and jobs.

Mr. BROOKS

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

Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank Representative Mike Turner, chairman of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and Representative Trent Franks, cochair of the Missile Defense Caucus, for their support of this amendment. This amendment prohibits the administration from using funds to share the United States' classified missile defense information with Russia. It is similar to an amendment which passed with bipartisan support in the House version of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. In light of recent statements by President Obama that he wanted ``more space'' from the Russians in regards to missile defense, and his statement that he would ``have more flexibility'' on this issue after the elections, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the United States' hit-to-kill and other valuable missile defense technologies may become pawns in a political chess game of appeasement with the Russians. Statements by Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov have increased my concern. In reference to the United States' desire to strengthen our missile defense sites in Europe, General Makarov threatened the use of military force against the United States, declaring that ``A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens.'' Mr. Chairman, if Russia's defense staff is willing to blatantly threaten the United States, why should the United States hand them the keys to technology that gives America's warfighter a decided advantage. The danger to national security is obvious, but there is more to this picture. The Congressional Research Service estimates the United States has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. A vast majority, roughly 90 percent, was spent on hit-to-kill technology. It makes no sense to spend $153 billion of taxpayers' money on advanced weaponry just to give it away. This amendment builds on a letter that had broad bipartisan support in the United States Senate and was signed by 39 senators in April 2011 expressing concern about giving the Russians sensitive missile defense data and technologies. These Senators were concerned, as I am, that the White House must not use America's missile defense technologies as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia. This amendment helps the United States lead the world in missile defense technologies, preserves investments of billions of dollars, and ensures the viability of current and future missile defense technologies. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and good friend, Congressman Turner from the great State of Ohio.

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

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the White House decreed partial amnesty for an estimated 3 million illegal aliens and mandated acceptance of illegal alien work permit applications. The White House decree is bad for America. First, Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable for the White House to pit unemployed Americans against illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs. In 2009, the Pew Hispanic Center found that 7.8 million struggling American families have already lost job opportunities to illegal aliens. America suffers an 8.2 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, Hispanic Americans suffer an 11 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, African Americans suffer a 14 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, American teenagers suffer a 25 percent unemployment rate. All are hammered by a White House decree that grants as many as 3 million illegal aliens work permits. I understand heartfelt compassion for illegal aliens, but where is the compassion for millions of Americans who are unemployed and suffering from jobs lost to illegal aliens? Where is the compassion for American taxpayers who must pay higher taxes to support millions of extra unemployed? Second, the White House decree grants amnesty to illegal aliens. Webster's defines ``amnesty'' as ``the act of an authority, as a government, by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.'' Further, ``pardon'' is defined as ``a release from the legal penalties of an offense.'' A penalty for breaking America's immigration laws is not lawfully getting a job. The White House releases illegal aliens from this penalty; hence, the White House grants amnesty. While the amnesty is admittedly partial, it is amnesty nonetheless. Third, Mr. Speaker, the 1980s amnesty taught foreigners that America won't enforce its immigration laws. The result is over 10 million illegal aliens in America and an immigration mess that is destructive to America. A 2011 Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform study found that illegal aliens cost American taxpayers a net loss of $99 billion a year. Illegal aliens overcrowd our schools and need costly English interpreters. In 2011, illegal aliens drove up America's K 12 education costs by $49 billion per year. Illegal aliens overcrowd our emergency rooms, delay treatment for Americans, and drive up health care costs. Illegal aliens commit crimes, sometimes heinous, against American citizens and burden taxpayers with higher jail costs. In my home county, more Madison Countians have been killed by illegal aliens than have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mr. Speaker, amnesty did not solve America's illegal alien problem in the 1980s, nor will it today. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Mr. Speaker, America must never again give blanket amnesty to illegal aliens. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, the White House decree is of questionable constitutionality. The Constitution states, and I quote article I, section 1, ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,'' and ``the Congress shall have the power . . . to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The Constitution does not empower a President to make law. Hence, the only change to immigration law is as our Constitution demands, through Congress, not by imperial decree. Mr. Speaker, in 2011, when it was not an election year, President Obama agreed. On March 28, 2011, the President stated: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. For me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. Last September the President again stated: I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of the DREAM Act that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. Mr. Speaker, the President's own words speak volumes about the constitutionality of a White House decree that undermines America and the rule of law.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, last week Barack Obama unilaterally and unlawfully changed America's immigration law by ordering the Federal Government to accept illegal aliens' applications for work permits. I am deeply alarmed that America's President so blatantly undermines the rule of law. Article I, section 1 of our Constitution states: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Article I, section 8 states: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Article II defines executive branch power. It does not give any President the power to make his own laws. In America, we elect Presidents, not Caesars. The only way to change America's immigration law is as our Constitution demands, through Congress, not by imperial decree. In America, no one, not even the President, is above the law. I urge Congress and all law-abiding Americans to protect our Constitution from White House attacks. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, today I call on the White House to get off the campaign trail, show leadership, do the President's job, and aggressively pursue the leakers of America's state secrets. These leaks have ranged from implicating the United States in Stuxnet, a computer virus that targeted nuclear centrifuges in Iran, to revealing a detailed ``kill list'' for terrorists targeted for assassination. Not only do these leaks compromise America's efforts to preserve our national security, they teach our allies not to trust us. Look at the doctor who helped the United States gather DNA evidence to locate Osama bin Laden. His reward? His identity was revealed, and he faces 33 years in a Pakistan jail. Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage from the White House about these leaks? It's time for the President to plug the holes and protect America's national security.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. I support Representative Broun's motion to instruct. Let me explain why. For six decades, America has been the greatest Nation in history. We are blessed with a standard of living envied by the world, a military unmatched in history, freedoms that others can only dream of. Why is America great? Because Americans before us sacrificed so that their children, their grandchildren, their country would enjoy a better future. Our Founding Fathers exemplified America's spirit when they stated in the Declaration of Independence: And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. In contrast, today's Washington abandons America's foundational principles. Today's Washington supports unsustainable spending binges that abandon our children and grandchildren and America's future. Perhaps a refresher is needed to emphasize America's financial plight. Mr. Speaker, let me first direct your attention to this deficit chart. As the chart reflects, America suffers from three consecutive, record-breaking, and unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits, and we are in the midst of a fourth trillion-dollar deficit that is projected for this year. Think about that for a moment. In fiscal year 2011, Washington borrowed 36 cents for every dollar it spent. No household or business could survive borrowing 36 cents for it to operate. Similarly, no nation can survive that either. As a result, America blew through the $15 trillion accumulated debt mark in November of last year. This year, America is going to blow through the $16 trillion debt mark. Mr. Speaker, the next chart reflects spending for FY 2010 and FY 2011. In FY 2010, the cost of America's debt service was $196 billion. In FY 2011, the cost of America's debt service was $221 billion. They're relatively small slices of those pies. However, in just 1 year, the cost to American taxpayers to service America's debt increased by $25 billion. To put that into perspective, $25 billion is more than NASA's entire budget--and this is at record low interest rates. If America's creditors become as insecure as the creditors of Greece, Spain, Italy, and any number of other nations and if interest rates go up accordingly, America's debt service would jump to the $800 billion-a- year range, making debt service more costly than our entire budget for national defense, our entire budget for Social Security, or our entire budget for Medicare. Consequently, if we had this small slice of the pie increase to $800 billion a year, every other service provided by the Federal Government would have to shrink. So that we are clear, reckless, out-of-control spending is the cause of America's deficits. In fiscal year 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker and when Harry Reid became the Senate Majority Leader, America spent $2.7 trillion. In FY 2011, America spent $3.6 trillion. In just 4 years, Federal Government spending went up $900 billion--a 33 percent increase. Simply stated, there is no end in sight to Washington's reckless and irresponsible spending. Mr. Speaker, if Washington does not gain wisdom and backbone, if Washington does not change its reckless spending habit, then there will be an American insolvency and bankruptcy. For emphasis, the question is not ``if.'' The questions are ``when?'' and ``how much damage will be done to our Nation from that insolvency and bankruptcy?'' President Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, gave insight when he stated, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.'' And he is right. Already, America's out-of-control spending threatens to force the firing of 700,000 national defense personnel starting in a mere 7 months, on January 1 of 2013. Let me emphasize that: threatened with 700,000 lost jobs. No enemy has ever undermined America's national defense so badly. But it does not end with the decimation of America's national defense, which may leave America at the mercy of our enemies abroad. America's insolvency and bankruptcy risk the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, thereby breaching our obligations to our elderly and leaving them impoverished and without medical care. To summarize the danger to America, think back to the Great Depression in the 1930s and imagine how bad it would have been if then the Federal Government had been insolvent. As you do this, remember the result of the Great Depression--an ensuing war that killed tens of millions of men, women, and children worldwide. All of this brings me to Paul Broun's motion to instruct. The transportation bill is a microcosm of what threatens America. We enjoy, roughly, $37 billion in expected highway revenue, yet some in Washington seek to spend, roughly, $51 billion. That's $14 billion a year that we don't have. Now, there are solutions to this budget gap that I could support. We could cut $14 billion in foreign aid and spend it on American roads, but my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. We could cut welfare and stop paying $14 billion a year to people to not work and instead pay $14 billion a year to people to work on buildings and bridges, but my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. There are plenty of solutions out there, but simply borrowing another $14 billion a year we don't have is not one of them. Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a transportation bill that spends, roughly, $14 billion we don't have, thereby accelerating America on its path to insolvency and bankruptcy. In that vein, I thank Congressman Paul Broun for filing his motion to instruct and for displaying the leadership America so sorely needs. Congressman Broun is a man of principle. He has the intellect to understand the economic disaster that awaits America if Washington does not live within its means. More importantly, Mr. Broun has the backbone to do something about it. It is an honor to stand with Congressman Broun and to support his motion to instruct.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend the United States Space and Rocket Center on its upcoming June 15 30th anniversary of Space Camp. Established in 1982, Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama, is a national leader in informal science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education and workforce development. Space Camp uses the leading edge of spaceflight technology simulation to teach campers real-world concepts and skills which translate into future academic and professional careers for students and teachers. The Space Camp program provides an essential public relations and support role to both government and private space programs by inspiring and training America's next generation of explorers, engineers, scientists, and leaders. For emphasis, with nearly 600,000 graduates of the program, Space Camp has a 30-year track record of success in inspiring young people to pursue successful careers, particularly in STEM fields. Space Camp alumni include NASA mission control directors, NASA scientists, NASA engineers, executives of corporations, State government officials, national news correspondents, as well as soldiers and aviators who defend America's freedom every day. Graduates of Space Camp include three NASA astronauts and one astronaut from the European Space Agency. Space Camp contributes to the future of America's exceptionalism in science, engineering, and research by instilling an exciting, life- changing educational experience with values of leadership, teamwork, and hard work. Space Camp's 30th anniversary is the perfect opportunity to recognize their important work and incredible achievements. I congratulate Space Camp on their 30 years of unparalleled success and wish them well and salute them as they embark on their next 30 years.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the achievements of the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program and the EELV industry team led by the United Launch Alliance. Just recently, ULA placed their 60th consecutive mission into orbit, the best record in the world. ULA's Alabama employees work tirelessly to produce launch vehicles that are the backbone of America's national defense satellite program. ULA's success and partnership with the government in achieving on-time delivery and success is a testament to the patriotic bond between the private sector and America's warfighters. ULA's 100 percent success record makes the challenging task of getting to orbit look easy, but, in fact, the company has built upon the expertise gained over 50 years, setting a standard for mission success that all others aspire to achieve. ULA's record is a testament to the quality of the EELV program. It is an honor to represent the men and women who work at ULA's Alabama facility.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to address a shortcoming in the manner in which ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, spends taxpayer dollars. In August 2011, the Department of Energy Inspector General released an audit report that disputed costs incurred by ARPA-E award recipients. For clarity, an ARPA-E award recipient is a private company or entity that seeks operational cost reimbursement from Federal taxpayers. The Inspector General disputes that private company expenses for ``meetings with bankers to raise capital'' and ``a fee to appear on a local television program'' are reimbursable costs that Federal taxpayers should pay for. The Inspector General report found that such spending violates Federal acquisition regulation subpart 31.2. ARPA-E disputed the Inspector General's finding and argued that such costs are allowable under ARPA-E's statutory authority to fund technology transfer and outreach activities. In February 2011, ARPA-E finalized Technology Transfer and Outreach guidance for awardees that explicitly encourages ARPA-E private company awardees to engage in and seek taxpayer reimbursement for these questionable expenditures. More specifically, the policy states that acceptable taxpayer reimbursement activities by private companies include: Marketing and other expenditures related to promoting an ARPA-E funded technology; Consulting and other expenditures related to developing ARPA-E-funded technologies, building business and identifying potential users, markets and customers, e.g., business plan development, market research, and Presentation and other expenditures relating to seeking additional funding from the private sector and government agencies. ARPA-E guidance suggests the inappropriate spending identified by the Inspector General may be significantly widespread. At a January 2012 hearing, the Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight examined ARPA-E guidance in spending. One day prior to the hearing, ARPA-E delivered to the committee an updated policy that omits mention of these questionable spending activities. Hence, ARPA-E's revision adds confusion, not clarity, to the pending question. In the absence of more explicit guidance consistent with the Inspector General's spending concerns, there is a significant risk to American taxpayers that ARPA-E private company awardees will incur costs that violate Federal regulations, yet which ARPA-E reimburses out of taxpayer funds. On February 10, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight Chairman Paul Broun asked ARPA-E Director Majumdar to clarify in writing whether ARPA-E considers the activities mentioned in the original ARPA-E policy as allowable spending. Responses to these questions were due on February 24, 2012, but the Department of Energy refused to provide a response, a response which is now well over 3 months past the deadline. This amendment does what ARPA-E should have already done, make it explicitly clear that the spending concerns identified by the Inspector General using taxpayer funds to raise private capital and using tax dollars to market, advertise, and promote private company-funded technologies are not allowable. ARPA-E tax dollars should not go to private company advertising, marketing and ``meetings with bankers to raise capital.'' Stated differently, in this era of deficits and accumulated debt that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy, American tax dollars should not be used to pay for the operational costs of private sector companies, particularly when the Inspector General has already determined they are improper.

Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chair, I oppose Representative Polis's amendment to cut Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) by $403 Million. Russia's most senior military leader recently threatened to pre- emptively attack U.S.-led NATO missile defense sites in Europe should America not kowtow to Russian demands. In light of these threats, and others from North Korea and Iran, a strong missile defense system is vital to the safety and security of America and American troops deployed overseas. And GMD works. For example, the CE1 interceptor, used by GMD, is three for three in successful testing. Hence, GMD is critical to America's national security. GMD must be adequately funded. I urge rejection of the Polis Amendment that puts American cities and American lives at risk.

Mr. BROOKS

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to General Ann E. Dunwoody, Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command, on the occasion of her retirement following 37 years of exemplary service to the United States Military. Being from Huntsville, Alabama, home to Redstone Arsenal and U.S. Army Material Command and as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I have had the honor of knowing General Dunwoody and witnessing her patriotism and dedication to this great Nation. General Dunwoody's service is marked by many firsts. She is the 82nd Airborne Division's first female battalion commander, she is Fort Bragg's first female general officer, she is the Combined Arms Support Command's first female commander, she is our Nation's first female four-star general, and she is the U.S. Army Materiel Command's first female commander. These historic achievements forever mark General Dunwoody as a true pioneer. General Dunwoody's many stellar achievements in uniform, including her deployment to Saudi Arabia with the 82nd Airborne in the Persian Gulf War, are a tribute to her character and ability, but she is admired most for her compassionate leadership and for the steadfast courage she has shown in the defense of our Nation. General Dunwoody is, first and foremost, a proud, fourth-generation U.S. Army Soldier. As General Dunwoody and her husband, Colonel Craig Brotchie (U.S. Air Force, Retired), begin the next phase of their lives, I want to express, on behalf of the American people, the warmest regards and heartfelt gratitude of the Nation for all that they have done and all that they are. On behalf of all those touched by her service, we wish General Dunwoody good luck, good ground, and Godspeed. Army Strong!