Washington, DC— Wednesday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing and America’s continued spirit of exploration in a House Floor speech. Congressman Brooks represents the Tennessee Valley of Alabama, home to Marshall Space Flight Center, the birthplace of America’s space program.
Click on the above image or HERE for video
of Congressman Brooks’ speech
Full text of Congressman Brooks’ House Floor speech follows:
Mr. Speaker, this week, America celebrates the 50th anniversary of one of mankind’s— and America’s— greatest achievements— walking on the surface of the Moon.
Although then only a child, I well-remember the Earth shake and the dishes in our kitchen cabinets rattle as the Apollo V engines were tested nearby.
Even now, 50 years after watching the Moon landing, I get chills remembering when Apollo astronauts landed and later planted the American flag on the Moon’s surface.
It was American ingenuity, boldness, technical prowess, and economic might that made this historic achievement possible.
I’m proud to say the legacy of the Apollo 11 Moon landing lives on in the Tennessee Valley of Alabama that I represent.
Some history is in order.
The Tennessee Valley’s Marshall Space Flight Center is the birthplace of America’s space program.
Americans generally, and Alabamians in particular, designed and engineered the Saturn V rocket that launched the historic Apollo 11 and took American astronauts to the Moon.
I will never forget the flames and the roar as our Saturn V rocket was launched and carried the Apollo 11 crew and vehicles to the Moon.
I remember with tremendous pride American Neil Armstrong’s words as he to set foot on the Moon, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
That giant leap, meant to benefit all mankind, is a prime example of American exceptionalism and helped cement America’s status as the best, most powerful, and most influential nation in world history.
When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted America’s flag on the Moon’s surface on July 20th, 1969, there was no doubt that America’s space program had passed the Russians and become the preeminent leader in space exploration, a position America maintains today.
This week, America not only reflects on the miraculous achievements of the Apollo 11 mission, but we also honor those who played a critical role in its ultimate success.
The Tennessee Valley is immensely proud of our pivotal role in landing a man on the Moon and, equally importantly, returning them alive to Earth.
Reflecting our pride in America’s achievement, there are two— that’s two— Saturn V rockets displayed at the United States Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
These Saturn V displays help inspire the next generation to reach for the stars and achieve what now may be thought impossible.
While it is important to remember the historical achievements of the Apollo missions, it is also important to honor those who sacrificed their lives in the effort to achieve American greatness.
In that vein, Huntsville has named schools after Apollo Command Pilot Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White, and Pilot Roger Chaffee, each of whom died during a capsule fire during an Apollo 1 ground test.
After the Moon landing and return of Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins to Earth on July 24, 1969, Huntsville’s streets were awash with revelers.
German Rocket Scientist Wernher Von Braun said on the Huntsville courthouse steps that day, [quote] “My friends, there was dancing here in the streets of Huntsville when our first satellites orbited the Earth. There was dancing again when the first Americans landed on the Moon. I’d like to ask you, “don’t hang up your dancing slippers.” [End quote]
Von Braun’s words remind us that mankind’s greatest achievements are yet to come, that America will continue to accomplish the unimaginable in space for the benefit of all humanity.
As we reach for the stars, I have confidence that the Tennessee Valley, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Huntsville, where we say “The Sky is NOT the Limit”, will be instrumental in carrying American astronauts back to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond!
Washington, DC— Wednesday, during House Floor debate on Socialist Democrat efforts to dictate a $15/hour minimum wage to help offset suppressed wages Americans are suffering from Socialist Democrat open borders policies, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) forcefully argued that, if Socialist Democrats truly cared about American workers, the way to raise wages is by securing America’s porous southern border and reducing the surge in cheap illegal alien labor that undercuts American wages. Securing the border stops the tsunami of cheap, illegal foreign labor that is flooding the labor market and driving down American wages. Instead, Socialist Democrats seek to dictate a $15/hour minimum wage that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will cause as many as 3.7 million American to lose their jobs!
Click on the above image or HERE for video
of Congressman Brooks’ speech
Full text of Congressman Brooks’ House Floor speech follows:
Mr. Speaker, Socialist Democrats support open borders. Open borders mean a literal tsunami of illegal alien labor that artificially inflates the labor supply and suppresses American wages.
This is Economics 101. If the supply goes up, everything else being constant, the price goes down.
The way to raise wages is simple.
America must stop importing cheap foreign labor that takes American jobs from American workers and suppresses the wages of hard-working Americans who need that money for their families.
The question is, do we care enough about American family incomes to secure our borders and stop the flood of illegal alien labor that suppresses American wages?
Of course not. Instead, there are those who seek an imperial decree for a $15/hour minimum wage.
While that all sounds fine and good, Socialist policies always have a cost, and, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that cost is a loss of as many as 3.7 million jobs!
You heard right!
The policies being advocated today really are advocating the firing of as many as 3.7 million American workers from their jobs!
That’s like firing the entire population of the State of Oklahoma!
Mr. Speaker, if the advocates of this legislation really cared about American workers, they would not fire them!
Rather they would help secure our borders . . . save American jobs . . . save American incomes . . . and, as an added bonus, help prevent the deaths of over 30,000 Americans who die each year because of America’s porous southern border.
But that is not what the advocates of this legislation prefer. Rather— out of a lust for political power— they prefer open borders and the firing of 3.7 million American workers.
Mr. Speaker, I say yes to border security, I say no to killing jobs, and I say no to this job-killing Socialist legislation.
Washington, DC— Tuesday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) praised the Third Country Asylum Interim Final Rule issued yesterday by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. By way of background, the rule denies individuals asylum in America who have not first applied for asylum in at least one country they passed through en route to America.
Congressman Brooks said, “Congress has proven itself ineffective at addressing one of the key drivers of America’s current border crisis, our flawed asylum policies. So, I’m pleased the Trump Administration is taking action to reform asylum policies with this new rule. The rule denies individuals asylum in America who have not first applied for protection in at least one country they passed through en route to America. This will reduce the amount of fraud and abuse that has so often plagued America’s asylum system.”
Brooks continued, “Asylum is a discretionary benefit given by nations to those with clear justification. Too often, aliens— without credible asylum claims— are coached by open-borders attorneys to say ‘magic words’ that help them misuse the asylum process to enter our country. Let me be clear, wanting an American job is not justification for asylum. Only individuals fleeing persecution or war-torn nations should be granted asylum.”
Brooks concluded, “False asylum claims pose a huge problem for America’s immigration system. The median asylum grant rate across all immigration courts is around 11 percent, meaning only about 1 asylum claim in 10 is credible. Plus, asylum applications have skyrocketed as illegal alien tsunamis flood America’s porous southern border, increasing from 42,836 in FY 2008 to 162,060 in FY 2018—a 278% jump. What’s worse, America’s immigration courts are experiencing an unsustainable backlog, currently at more than 900,000 cases. I applaud the Trump Administration for taking decisive action that gets at the heart of the border crisis.”
 U.S. Department of Justice Third Country Asylum Rule Fact Sheet
Washington, DC— Tuesday, citing the recently thwarted terrorist bombing attack on a Pittsburgh church by a Muslim Syrian refugee, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) delivered an impassioned House Floor speech warning of the dangers to American lives posed by Socialist Democrats’ mass importation of unvetted people from terrorist-plagued nations.
Click on the image above or HERE for
video of Congressman Brooks’ Floor speech
Full text of Congressman Brooks’ Floor speech follows:
The President is Commander-in-Chief. His highest Constitutional duty is protecting American lives.
As of 2016, so-called “refugee admissions” from the Middle East, Near East, South Asia, and Africa accounted for 80% of so-called “refugee” admissions into America.
I say “so-called refugees” because the United Nations states no country is obligated by international law to take refugees from a country in which they are already protected.
The result of America’s flawed policy? America is the world’s top refugee resettlement country on the planet.
In a 2015 Breitbart interview, I opposed these dangerous refugee policies and stated, [Quote] “Barack Obama wants to endanger Americans by importing people, some of whom undoubtably will resort to terrorism and killing Americans at some point in the future.” [End Quote]
Consistent with my view that importing unvetted people from terrorist-laden countries threatens American lives, the House in 2015 passed a law requiring a full FBI background investigation for alleged Iraq or Syria refugees. The bill died in the Senate while under an Obama veto threat.
In 2017, a newly-elected President Trump stated [Quote] “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own).” [End Quote]
As expected, Socialist Democrats and their fake news media allies reacted by calling President Trump names rather than support policies that save American lives.
For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, [Quote] “This week, I joined my colleagues on the steps of the Supreme Court to fight the President’s reprehensible order. … The values illustrated were in stark contrast with the President’s unconstitutional, immoral, and dangerous ban on refugees and citizens of Muslim countries coming into the United States.” [End Quote]
Predictably, a radical, leftist judge restrained President Trump from protecting American lives.
Fortunately, a later President Trump refugee and travel policy was approved by the Supreme Court as [Quote] “squarely within the scope of presidential authority.” [End Quote]
As would be expected, this decision was ridiculed with hysterical headlines from the left. NBC News stated, [Quote] “The Supreme Court’s travel ban decision adds to its legacy of legitimizing racism.” [End Quote]
Protecting Americans from terrorism is “Reprehensible”? “Immoral”? “Racism”?
This is all ignorant and baseless Socialist Democrat and fake news media slander intended to stifle rational debate. But truth eventually wins out.
Recently, an unvetted, so-called Syrian refugee who entered America three years ago was charged with terrorism.
According to an affidavit in Pittsburgh federal court: [Quote] “The FBI … investigation of Mustafa Mousab Alowemer … revealed that Alowemer plotted to bomb a church located on the North Side of Pittsburgh … using a weapon of mass destruction (i.e., an explosive device). According to Alowemer, his motivation to detonate a device at the Church was to support the cause of ISIS and to inspire other ISIS supporters in the United States to join together and commit similar acts in the name of ISIS.” [End Quote]
Fortunately, the FBI stopped Alowemer from blowing up a church and slaughtering innocent American Christians. Unfortunately, American lives are still at risk from terrorists masquerading as refugees.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, “How many dead Americans does it take to cause open borders advocates to secure our borders and protect American lives?”
Unfortunately, no one knows because Socialist Democrats have shown there is no amount of American blood on their hands that will cause them to protect American lives by securing America’s borders.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Washington, DC— Tuesday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) announced he will vote against Socialist Democrat Tom Malinowski’s (NJ-07) H.Res. 489, a resolution that purports to condemn President Donald Trump for racism when, in fact, H.Res. 489 insidiously interjects racism charges into a dispute that has nothing to do with skin pigmentation or race and everything to do with whether Socialist Democrats should be held accountable for promoting Socialism, making hateful statements about America, or spewing religious prejudice against Israel and the Jewish people.
Congressman Brooks stated, “President Trump hammered various Socialist Democrats for their support for evil Socialism; repugnant, non-stop invective and hatred shown for the foundational principles which have made America the greatest nation in world history; open disdain and dislike of Israel; and religious prejudice against the Jewish people.”
Brooks continued, “Socialist Democrats have no legitimate defense of Socialism, hatred for America’s foundational principles, open disdain and dislike of Israel, and religious prejudice against the Jewish people so, instead, they do what Socialist Democrats candidate schools train them to do: divert public attention by hollering racism despite the facts being crystal clear that President Trump was motivated by a lot of things, but none of them had anything at all to do with race or skin pigmentation.”
Brooks added, “I will proudly vote against H.Res. 489 because it falsely injects race as a motivation without any supporting proof whatsoever. Just as a person’s skin pigmentation should not be wrongly used as a sword against him, a person’s skin pigmentation should also not be wrongly used as a shield that deflects from proper political discourse. Socialist Democrats are wrong, sinister and insidious to interject race as a motivation for President Trump’s tweets when those very same tweets show on their face a variety of motivations that have nothing to do with race or skin pigmentation.”
Brooks concluded, “The Socialist Democrats’ imputing false, racial motive to President Trump without supporting evidence and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is malicious and vile conduct that insidiously divides America on racial grounds while undermining the credibility of legitimate racist claims made in American society. Revolting and malevolent conduct that promotes racial division for political gain must be condemned and opposed. With my vote, I do both.”
Webster’s Dictionary defines “racism” as:
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
According to Webster’s Dictionary, racism occurs when the driving force or motivation for an act or belief is another person’s race or skin pigmentation.
President Trump’s Tweets
On Sunday, July 14, 2019, President Trump issued the following tweets:
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion. Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, “RACIST.” Their disgusting language.....
....and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged. If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!
On Monday, July 15, 2019, President Trump issued the following tweets:
When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!
If Democrats want to unite around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the U.S.
“We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of Communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own Country, they’re calling the guards along our Border (the Border Patrol Agents) Concentration Camp Guards, they accuse people who support Israel as doing it for the Benjamin’s,....
....they are Anti-Semitic, they are Anti-America, we don’t need to know anything about them personally, talk about their policies. I think they are American citizens who are duly elected that are running on an agenda that is disgusting, that the American people will reject......
....What does it mean for America to have free Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants, no criminalization of coming into our Country - See how that works for controlling Immigration! They talk about Israel like they’re a bunch of thugs, not victims of the entire region. They wanted...
.....to impeach President Trump on DAY ONE. Make them the face of the future of the Democrat Party, you will destroy the Democrat Party. Their policies will destroy our Country!” @LindseyGrahamSC Need I say more?
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them. That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!
The Democrat Congresswomen have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate, & yet they get a free pass and a big embrace from the Democrat Party. Horrible anti-Israel, anti-USA, pro-terrorist & public.....
.....shouting of the F...word, among many other terrible things, and the petrified Dems run for the hills. Why isn’t the House voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said? Because they are the Radical Left, and the Democrats are afraid to take them on. Sad!
It is clear from a careful reading of President Trump’s tweets that there is no direct or indirect mention . . . nada . . . zero . . . of any person’s race or skin pigmentation. Hence, there is no evidence that President Trump actions were motivated by race.
To the contrary, the tweets, on their face, clearly identify what motivated President Trump to hammer Socialist Democrats. Motivating words and phrases include:
How do the Socialist Democrats respond to President Trump? Do they debate President Trump on Socialism, Israel, Anti-Semitism, or the like? No, the Socialist Democrats respond as they are trained to respond when they are on the wrong side of a losing argument: they play the race card and, without supporting evidence, let fly with the racist accusation. In this instance, the conduct of Socialist Democrats is nothing less than deplorable.
 See “House Dems trained to make race the issue” by Joel Gehrke, May 11, 2012: “House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs, according to training materials obtained by The Washington Examiner. … “House Democratic Caucus and staff . . . will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias.” The Democrat training materials emphasized that “It’s emotion connection, not rational connection that we need. … To that end, Wiley proposed the use of ‘race explicit’ anecdotes to illustrate problems like the economic crisis.”Read More
Washington, DC— Friday, conservative talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh (who has a weekly radio audience of 13.25 million unique listeners and whose show is the most listened-to talk-radio program in America) praised Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) as “brilliant” on air. Limbaugh called Congressman Brooks’ questioning of a panel of scientists (click HERE for news release) in yesterday’s House Science, Space, and Technology hearing on climate change “one of the best attempts at persuasion I have seen.”
Click on the above image or HERE for audio
of Rush Limbaugh praising Congressman Brooks
Full transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s praise for Congressman Brooks follows:
Limbaugh: So, yesterday there was a hearing in Congress. Mo Brooks, Congressman Mo Brooks, issued a press release yesterday— bipartisan panel of scientists confirms humans not responsible for the past 20,000 years of global warming. This is not a spoof, this is not a joke, it's brilliant. It is one of the best attempts at knocking sense into people I have ever heard. It is one of the best attempts at persuasion I have seen. In a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Mo Brooks, Alabama District Five, four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are not responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years. Why the past twenty thousand years? Because that is when the Earth's last glacial maximum occurred. The point is... well the points are these: average global temperatures were roughly eleven degrees Fahrenheit colder than they are today, 20,000 years ago. Stated differently, global temperatures have risen on average, one half a degree Fahrenheit every one hundred years for the past twenty thousand years. Sea levels, sea levels were roughly four hundred and ten feet lower 20,000 years ago than they are today. This is according to the United States Geological Survey, which the global warming crowd loves and cites often. Stating this a different way, sea levels have risen on average roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years— roughly double the global warming advocates’ claimed average sea level rise of one foot per century since 1993. Almost all of Canada, almost all of Northern Europe, and almost all of America, north of the Missouri and Ohio rivers, east of New York City, were under glacial ice and uninhabitable 20,000 years ago. The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the Earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the warming that has been going on for 20,000 years. This is one of the most brilliant ways of nuking this entire silly notion that man is destroying the planet that I have ever seen. It points out the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, New York City, most of America north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers was uninhabitable because it was under ice. For 20,000 years we have been warming, sea levels have been rising, parts of the world that were uninhabitable have become habitable. They have become filled with vegetation and agriculture. Areas that were useless are now feeding entire populations. This warming has been going on for 20,000 years and there hasn't been enough activity by man to be responsible for it at all. There weren't enough human beings on the planet twenty thousand years ago to affect any kind of change, according to current theories which are bogus. Such as industrialization, the output of CO2, the driving of SUVs, and everything else they claim that we're doing now that destroys the planet. If the Earth has been in a warming trend, and it has obviously been in one, if we had the last glacial maxim 20,000 years ago and we are not under ice now we have obviously been dealing with a lot of warming. 20,000 years, that is a longtime, people can't comprehend it because the life span is eighty-five. 20,000 years. But the fact of the matter is that the Earth has been warming for 20,000 years and man has had nothing to do with it. Now all of a sudden, the warming continues as it has been, and here comes a bunch of left-wing liberal Democrat partisans and charlatans who want to now claim that at all of this is the result of manmade activity, going back to the industrial age, it's bogus. I love this way that Mo Brooks did this to illustrate this. Now this is a press release, it got picked up on a couple websites, but it's not going to go mainstream because it nukes the entire political premise of climate change, so of course it is not going to be widely distributed or broadcast, it's going to be shelved and ignored. But I want you to know about it because we are always looking at ways to persuade people here, always looking at ways to cut through the stupidity, to cut through this ignorance, it's a dangerous thing.
Washington, DC— Friday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) voted “No” on H.R. 2500, the hyper-partisan, badly-flawed FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) on the House floor. The FY20 NDAA passed the House 220-197, (Socialist Democrats voted in favor 220-8, Republicans unanimously voted against).
Congressman Brooks previously voted “No” on House Armed Services Committee passage of the FY20 NDAA on June 13th. Click HERE for Congressman Brooks’ June 13th statement on HASC passage of the FY20 NDAA.
By way of background, the NDAA has been signed into law 58 consecutive years and the House of Representatives usually passes the NDAA by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. For example, when Republicans were in charge, the House passed a bipartisan FY19 NDAA on a 351 - 66 vote (131 Democrats voted “Yes”).
Congressman Brooks said the following:
“America faces grave global threats. Iran is increasingly aggressive. China is building up its military. Russia is working to undermine NATO at every turn. America cannot afford to weaken our military standing. The relative world peace of the past seven decades relies heavily on America maintaining its military strength.”
“Frankly, it’s dangerous for Socialist Democrats to weaken national security at this time. I joined my Republican colleagues and voted ‘No’ on the FY20 NDAA because, on the whole, it undermines America’s border security and national security. It’s unfortunate Socialist Democrats in the House in bad faith refused to support constructive Republican floor amendments that were repeatedly and overwhelmingly voted down on party-line votes.”
“President Trump issued a veto threat against the FY20 NDAA because it is so partisan and so badly flawed in its current form.”
“While the FY20 NDAA has good parts, ALL Republican Members of Congress, including myself, concluded that this FY20 NDAA simply puts too many American lives at risk.”
“For starters, Socialist Democrats— blinded by their hatred for President Trump and crass lust for political power— blatantly used the FY20 NDAA to promote open borders by attacking, thwarting, and undermining President Trump’s existing border security powers and policies. To be clear, border security IS national security. The FY20 NDAA blocks President Trump from using existing law and existing funding to build a border wall or otherwise promote border security that protects and saves American lives. In so doing, Socialist Democrats support the deaths of over 30,000 Americans each year (2,000+ American deaths/year via homicides by illegal aliens on American soil [per Immigration and Customs Enforcement data] plus another 30,000+ American deaths/year from overdoses on poisonous drugs shipped across America’s porous southern border [per Center for Disease Control and Drug Enforcement Agency data]).”
“To be blunt about America’s border security threat, more Americans have died as a result of America’s porous southern border than have been killed in any American military conflict, excepting World War II and the Civil War. Yet, Socialist Democrats insist on promoting their own electoral prospects by enticing and importing illegal aliens— and poisonous drugs they bring— to America.”
“Further dangerous weaknesses in the FY20 NDAA include, but are not limited to:
“Notwithstanding that this FY20 NDAA has an overall detrimental effect on both America’s border security and national security, I am pleased my office helped successfully insert into the FY20 NDAA draft provisions beneficial to both America and Redstone Arsenal, including:
“Other plusses include authorization of the Space Corps (popularly known as the Space Force), lifting of the prohibition on standing up U.S. Space Command, support for the MDA’s request to develop a space sensor layer to detect and track hypersonic weapon threats, and a provision ensuring the Phase 2 National Security Space Launch program remains on schedule.”
“It is unfortunate Socialist Democrats refused to work in a bipartisan manner— as Republicans did when we held the House majority— to craft a bill that both Republicans and Democrats could support. After voting “No” on the FY20 NDAA in the Armed Services Committee, I held out hope the bill would be improved on the House floor. Unfortunately, the bill was made even worse by radical Democrat amendments that were accepted and pro-defense Republican Amendments that were rejected by the majority party. Maybe the eventual Senate-House compromise bill will be worthy of a ‘Yes’ vote. Such is life in a House of Representatives governed by radical Socialist Democrats, many of whom consider Nancy Pelosi ‘too conservative’ to be House Speaker.”
Washington, DC— Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum).
By way of background, during the last glacial maximum of roughly 20,000 years ago:
The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the Earth’s global warming that began 20,000 years ago.
Click on the image above or HERE for video
of Congressman Brooks’ questioning
Responding Panel Witnesses:
Dr. Robin E. Bell, Lamont Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Dr. Twila A. Moon, Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Dr. Gabriel J. Wolkon, Research Scientist and Manager, Climate and Cryosphere Hazards Program, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Dr. W. Tad Pfeffer, Fellow, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder
Full transcript of Congressman Brooks’ questioning follows:
Brooks: Thank you Madam Chairman. Is anyone on the panel not familiar with the Earth’s last glacial maximum roughly twenty thousand years ago? Okay everybody is, good. For those in the audience who are not, by way of background, during the last glacial maximum Northern Europe was under ice, roughly 90% of Canada and almost all of the continental United States of America north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and east of New York City were under ice. According to the United States Geological Survey, during the last glacial maximum – again 20,000 years ago – sea levels were roughly 410 feet lower than today. Stated differently, for 20,000 years sea levels have risen, on average, two feet per century versus the much less roughly one foot per century rising rate since 1993 that is reflected in Dr. Alley’s written testimony. Finally, per Zurich University of Applied Science, Earth’s average temperature 20,000 years ago was 48 degrees Fahrenheit versus 59 degrees Fahrenheit today. That’s an 11 degree increase in global temperature average over the last 20,000 year period. So, my question to each of you is – and we will start over here with Dr. Pfeffer and move from my right to left – did human beings cause the global warming that started 20,000 years ago and continues through today? Or, if not, what did?
Pfeffer: So, the examples from 20,000 years ago that Mr. Brooks gave us, are excellent examples of the kind of natural variability that the Earth experiences. There is no question that in the past there have been changes in temperature, and sea level rise and weather patterns and climate generally as dramatic or more dramatic than what you may be experiencing in the future and of course they weren’t human caused 20,000 years ago or the last million years. All of these variable events have been occurring throughout the Earth’s modern history.
Brooks: Well my first question was, in your judgment, did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum?
Pfeffer: No. No. Absolutory not. It is an example of spontaneous natural variability— one of the many ways that this whole system was— whether you look at it in terms of sea levels rise, temperature, storms— can be varied.
Brooks: Are you familiar with the phrase: snowball Earth, or slush ball Earth? Roughly 600 million years ago, when we were almost entirely ice or slush…
Pfeffer: Entirely natural variation.
Brooks: …versus, the Paleocene and Eocene, thermal maximum of about 55-56 million years ago when the average temperature was roughly 73 degrees Fahrenheit which is 14 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now? If you don’t mind, Dr. Wolkon lets go to you. Did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago?
Wolkon: No, absolutely not. That was a product of natural variability in the climate system. Yeah.
Brooks: Dr. Moon?
Moon: Humans weren’t around in nearly the numbers we are today, so we certainly were not available to be combusting fossil fuels at the rate we are today are putting emissions into the atmosphere. You can consider, we have built America in the last 243 years and we’re changing things at a much more rapid rate.
Brooks: So, you also agree then that the global warming that has occurred over the last 20,000 years at 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, was not human caused, at least, when it began 20,000 years ago?
Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.
Brooks: Out of curiosity, why do you or how do you explain that the sea level rise average of the last 20,000 years has been 2 feet per century, yet we are down to 1 foot per century?
Moon: So, much of our rise in sea levels that you are talking about came earlier in that 20,000 years.
Brooks: Over six or seven thousand years.
Moon: Over this last 10,000 years, we have been sitting with vary stable sea levels and those stable sea levels have allowed us to develop the coast of the world.
Brooks: Okay, thank you Dr. Moon. And I only have about 30 seconds left for Dr. Bell. Dr. Bell, in your judgement, 20,000 years ago when it began was it caused by humans?
Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.
Brooks: Alright, I’m out of time. Madam Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I just wish I had sufficient time to actually get into what the cause of the global warming that began 20,000 years ago was— if not— humans. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson: Excuse me. Go ahead, doctor.
Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it.
Brooks: Dr. Pfeffer, thank you for that additional insight.
Washington, DC— Thursday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) announced his opposition to and voted against the Senate’s open-borders spending bill (incorporated into H.R. 3401) that spends billions of taxpayer dollars rewarding illegal aliens who break America’s laws.
Congressman Brooks said the following:
“There are two principal reasons why the Senate’s $4.5+ billion ‘emergency’ spending bill is horribly bad for America.”
“First, as is so often the case, the Senate’s spending bill blows through $4.5+ billion in taxpayer money that is not paid for in any way, shape, or form. As is so often the case, the one bipartisan thing Washington power brokers and special interest groups agree on is spending money America does not have, has to borrow to get, and cannot afford to pay back.”
“America has a $22+ trillion debt and an estimated $900 billion deficit for this year. Both risk a national debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that will destroy America’s economy and, in the process, take countless American lives. Washington politicians are far too often totally, blissfully, and dangerously economically ignorant of the threat these deficits and accumulated debt pose to America’s future. It has often been said that Washington is a math-free zone. Apparently, this bill, and others like it, establish that Washington is also an economics-free zone.”
“Second, and as I stated earlier this week about an equally bad Socialist Democrat bill, illegal alien tsunamis swamp Customs and Border Patrol resources on America’s porous southern border. Why is the problem so bad? Because Washington financially rewards and encourages illegal aliens to break our laws as their first act on America soil.”
“This so-called ‘bipartisan’ Senate monstrosity is all too symptomatic of the problem. While marketed as a border security bill, the fact is that only roughly 1% of $4.5+ billion spent in this bill arguably helps with border security. The other roughly 99% of spending makes America’s border security problem worse by rewarding illegal aliens who break America’s laws. In this legislation, American taxpayers are expected to shoulder the burden of paying border patrol agents to help, yes, HELP, illegal aliens come into America and, once here, reward them with free ‘Welcome’ mats, free health care, free ‘Happy Meals,’ free clothing, free shelter, and free transportation into America . . . all at American taxpayer expense.”
“The result of these horrific policies is a humanitarian and border security crisis. In the first half of Fiscal Year 2019, the number of illegal alien family units captured by Border Patrol roughly tripled over the previous year! Worse yet, the number of captured illegal aliens topped 100,000 in each of March and April. Further, the numbers of illegal alien caravans have skyrocketed from two in FY 2017, to 13 in FY 2018, to 104 large illegal alien caravans of 100 or more individuals— totaling 17,242 illegal alien captures— in just the first six months of FY 2019.”
“The American people are baffled why Washington has failed so badly to provide Americans with the border security they deserve. Bills like this monstrosity are the problem. And, Congressmen and Senators who support it are the cause of the problem.”
1230 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
On November 6, 2012, Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) was re-elected as the Representative for Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. He proudly represents the people of North Alabama and serves on three important committees: Armed Services, Science, Space, and Technology, and Foreign Affairs.
As a sophomore member, Congressman Brooks is highly active and engaged in representing the interests of the 5th District. Brooks supports America’s missile defense technologies; he introduced successful legislation in 2011 and 2012 that blocked the White House from sharing classified missile technologies with Russia, and was adapted into the National Defense Authorization Act in FY2012. Rep. Brooks is also a vocal opponent of sequestration, voting against the Budget Control Act and called upon Administration officials to account for the consequences of sequestration in a HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on April 18, 2012.
During his first year on the Hill, Brooks founded and became co-chairman of the Army Aviation Caucus, a forum in which Members of Congress, staff, and Army leadership raise awareness for Army Aviation and seek to affect legislative priorities. The Caucus now includes more than 50 members and is one of the most active caucuses on Capitol Hill.
Growing up in North Alabama, Mo Brooks’ parents taught him early on that study and hard work were expected and required. They also taught him the importance of honesty, and to never be shy about speaking up and fighting for important principles. Brooks was born in 1954 in Charleston, South Carolina, and moved in 1963 to Huntsville, Alabama. Rep. Brooks’ father, Jack Brooks, retired from Redstone Arsenal’s Metrology Center. Brooks’ mother, Betty Brooks, taught economics and government for over 20 years at Lee High School. They still live in Madison County.
Rep. Brooks graduated from Grissom High School in 1972 (where he was all-city in baseball and an active member on two state championship debate teams). He graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School.
After graduation, Rep. Brooks worked as a prosecutor in the Tuscaloosa District Attorney’s office, where he built a solid “tough-on-crime” reputation. While there, he obtained guilty verdicts in every one of the 20-plus jury trials he prosecuted. He also organized and managed the grand jury.
Rep. Brooks left the Tuscaloosa District Attorney’s office in 1980 to return to Huntsville as a law clerk for presiding Circuit Court Judge John David Snodgrass. In 1982, Brooks was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives and became one of 11 Republican legislators (out of 140 total) and the only elected Republican legislator north of Birmingham.
Brooks was reelected to the Alabama House in 1983, 1986, and 1990. While in the legislature, he was elected Republican House Caucus Chairman three times and was ranked number one (out of 140 legislators) by the Alabama Taxpayers’ Defense Fund in the fight to protect family incomes from higher taxes. He was also ranked in the top 20 percent by Alabama Alliance of Business & Industry on pro-jobs, tort reform, and free enterprise issues and was recognized as one of the legislature’s most effective legislators by Alabama Magazine.
In 1991, Brooks was appointed Madison County District Attorney. In 1996, he ran for the Madison County Commission and unseated an eight-year incumbent Republican. He was reelected to the Commission in 2000, 2004, and 2008. During every year except when he was serving as a prosecutor or court clerk, Brooks held a second job in private practice. In 1995-1996, he was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General for then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and, from 1996-2002, was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General for then Attorney General Bill Pryor.
In 1976, Mo Brooks married Martha Jenkins of Toledo; they met at Duke University. Martha graduated from the University of Alabama with an accounting degree. She later retired as a certified public accountant and obtained a math and education major from the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2005. She taught math at Whitesburg Middle School. Mo and Martha are the proud parents of four children and grandparents of four grandchildren. Rep. Brooks was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives on November 2, 2010.
Retweeted by repmobrooks
'El Chapo' has now been charged & convicted by our government. Now's the time to bring my EL CHAPO Act for a vote &… https://t.co/2rHfEArndX
Retweeted by repmobrooks
Drug kingpin El Chapo was ordered to forfeit more than 12.6 billion in ill-gotten drug money today. 12.6 billion wo… https://t.co/mc8b2oqh5v
Retweeted by repmobrooks
Retweeted by repmobrooks
Socialist Democrats are set to pass a bill that would more than double the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. If Soc… https://t.co/ijsw5FGcRd