Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you. We call you Judge Carter here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has earned a great deal of respect in this institution because he is not only a man that brings judicial experience to this body, but he is someone that we can all trust. He is someone that we know has a heart that burns with patriotism, for love for his country, for love for his fellow human beings and just a commitment to human freedom. And I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is my precious honor to serve with a man like Judge Carter, we call him. You know, and perhaps that is all too appropriate tonight as we speak of judges, because we talk sometimes of judges legislating from the bench. Maybe Judge Carter comes to this body with just the kind of experience he needs to have. But we are grateful that he is a man that did not legislate from the bench, and that he understands the difference between the judiciary and the legislative body. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pay a few words tonight of tribute to a towering figure in our country, Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The era of the Rehnquist Court has come to a close, and William H. Rehnquist has stepped quietly into the arms of God. Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of America's great Chief Justices. This Nation has suffered a great loss with his passing, and as twilight falls upon this remarkable man's career, the most notable elements of his extraordinary legacy must not be lost to revisionist history, Mr. Speaker, because in his tireless defense of the United States Constitution, Chief Rehnquist strongly advocated for a judiciary that applies the law rather than legislates from the bench. We, as Americans, should be very grateful for our Founding Fathers and for the genius of the constitutional system that they left to us. It was a framework that protects human dignity and individual freedom by enforcing limits on government power. It is incumbent upon ours and future generations to jealously guard that precious gift bestowed upon us by our forebears. Chief Justice Rehnquist spent decades on the highest Court in the land acting as the Constitution's protector. He was a constitutional originalist, defending the process of interpretation of the law that is constrained by the text and the original meaning of that great document. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental reason why we, as a self- governing people, so carefully put pen to paper to memorialize our Constitution and our laws and our great founding documents. They are written words that have become an agreement between the people and the government. We write it all down to keep a record and an understanding of the limits placed on government by the will of the people. Chief Justice Rehnquist's efforts to advance this understanding that at times the Federal courts must enforce limitations on Federal power while recognizing the preeminent role of democratically elected institutions at both the State and Federal levels, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a valiant defender of States' rights in recognition of the superiority of a federalist system when governing peoples of divergent views, divergent faith and cultures. He was an influential man in leading the Court back toward the original intent of the Constitution after decades of abuse by a liberal activist Court born of the Roosevelt era and the New Deal philosophy. Mr. Speaker, that New Deal activist Court actually delivered such bizarre rulings as in Wickard v. Filburn, a ruling that a man in Ohio who was growing wheat in his own backyard as a means to feed his family and his own livestock had somehow violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because of the quantity of wheat that he grew could have actually been sold. Moreover, in their unanimous decision, this liberal activist Court affirmed, ``If we assume it is never marketed, homegrown wheat competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitive and quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon.'' Mr. Speaker, what a circuitous and false logic. The stage was then set of course by this activist Court for massive expansion of Federal power. Year after merciless year a liberal Supreme Court, drunk with self-imposed power, delivered an unprecedented assault upon the rights of the States and of the people. During his years on the court, especially his early years, Mr. Speaker, Justice Rehnquist was often called the lone dissenter to outrageous decisions, even once receiving a Lone Ranger doll awarded by his friends. But yet his adherence to the Constitution, faithfully expressed in some of his earliest dissents, had great influence upon the Court as evidenced in later majority opinions where he was vindicated in his previous conclusions. In 1973, when the Supreme Court illegitimately bestowed its imprimatur on abortion on demand, it was Justice William Rehnquist who wrote a scathing dissent to that majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. He said, ``To reach its results, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment.'' How very eloquent. Chief Justice Rehnquist was also instrumental in fighting back assaults on religious freedom in his efforts to make clear that the Constitution ensures government neutrality in matters of religious conscience, but not the requirement to move religion altogether from the public square. He understood the Constitution. In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the Rehnquist Court marked the first time in over 50 years, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of States, ruling against the expansion of Federal power and finding a Federal law in violation of that now woefully distorted commerce clause of the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was often found standing in the breach of defense of the Constitution, endowing this Nation through the years with a noble legacy of resistance to a liberal, activist Court determined to make its own law and enact its own agenda. Mr. Speaker, he gave the American people his last full measure of devotion and stayed at his post through great personal pain and sacrifice while he was fighting cancer. To the very end, he led a brave and good-natured effort to restore the Supreme Court to its ethical grounding. Mr. Speaker, as we bid loving farewell to this stoic champion, I reflect upon the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson in tribute: ``Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength in which the old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are, one equal-temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' Mr. Speaker, when the final battle with illness and physical weakness came to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, he resolutely remained at his post for his President, for his country, and for the future of all mankind. He did not yield.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think my primary reason for being here tonight was just to not let this man's towering contribution to the judicial process slip away into history. There is an old quote by Dostoevski. He said, ``He who controls the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future.'' Of course, as somebody was saying, there are a lot of revisionists out there trying to rewrite history in order to affect the future, but this man's history is very important to our country. I will make a prediction tonight that a lot of the decisions, where he found himself in dissent, in the next 20 or 30 years will turn in the other direction, and we will see that this man was before his time. There is a saying that if you fail without succeeding, if you struggle without succeeding, it is so someone else might succeed after you. And if you succeed without struggling, which I think some of our modern-day justices are going to do, it is because someone has struggled and succeeded before you. This man, I believe, is going to be vindicated in society, because he did not find a lot of these hidden things that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) talked about. We have seen judges say that somehow the words in the Pledge of Allegiance, ``under God,'' might be unconstitutional; or that it is unconstitutional to protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography, or it is unconstitutional to protect an unborn child from partial-birth abortion. With regard to all of these insane notions, he did not see them. One woman said, Maybe these judges who find all these things ought to be out looking for Osama bin Laden if they are that good at finding things that are not there. This judge saw the Constitution for what it was. He did not try to make a new revolution. He simply tried to affirm the one we already had. I think that tonight we celebrate the life of a man that many justices of the future will stand on his shoulders and look back and say, you know, Judge Rehnquist was right, Justice Rehnquist was correct. The ship of state turns slowly sometimes, but this man had his hand on the rudder long before the rest of us even knew. And I again just wanted to join with all of my colleagues and honor this man's life.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), although he is in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) really was able to get to the heart of the purpose of my amendment, and that is very simply that the Balkan region is one that is fraught with great historical tragedies, with enough heartache and hurt to go around for every ethnic group that is in that area. It certainly is obvious to the world that the ethnic and cultural tensions there are responsible for some incredible tragedies. It is my contention that the process that takes place there now or is in the imminent process of occurring is important to allow it to go forward in a way that the people on the ground have the greatest control over. My concern is that if the Congress should try to impose from the top down prejudicial language, that it could only exacerbate some of the problems that have caused such tensions there that have led to such death and suffering already. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that even though it is true that Kosova has appeared in our bills a number of times in the past, it is in conflict with U.S. policy and with the U.S. official position on Kosovo; and consequently, I do not think that the mistakes of the past would be a foundation for repeating them here today.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In a controversial and sensitive environment, section 1019 requesting a report on consular and visa services is not a diplomatic or prudent congressional action at this time. In the hour of future negotiations between Belgrade, Pristina, and the international community on the status of Kosovo, congressional action of this nature will be perceived as one-sided and prejudicial. Further, moving towards giving authority to the Secretary of State to empower the U.S. Mission in Pristina to render U.S. visas would be a dangerous precedent to set because the United States cannot render visas within the territory of a country without that country's consent in accordance with the Vienna Convention. Therefore, conducting such a ``report'' is to ignore Serbia's role entirely and sends the wrong message. Kosovo remains within the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, and, therefore, citizens of Kosovo should go to the appropriate place to obtain visa and consular services, which is not prohibitive and, since it is only a 2-hour bus ride, is certainly in keeping with most of the applications that need to be made by those seeking visas across the world. The text of section 1019 is itself prejudicial, Mr. Chairman. The name of the province, in international use and the official U.S. use, is ``Kosovo,'' not ``Kosova.'' The term ``Kosova'' is a one-ethnicity- based pronunciation of the name of the province. It would be highly prejudicial for the U.S. Congress to refer to Kosovo as ``Kosova,'' which by it would recognize and imply that the province is only Albanian and would ignore the minority populations living there. Albanians would have the same objections to the U.S. Congress referring to Kosovo as ``Kosovo-Metohija.'' Mr. Chairman, Congress should not send the wrong message at the wrong time, and I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I am both saddened and angered by the terrorist attacks on the people of London on July 7, 2005. I extend my sincere and most heartfelt condolences to the families of victims. It is shameful that innocent citizens can no longer live in peace throughout the world. It is because of such attempts to derail our united fight for human liberty that we must continue to hold steady and strong in this War on Terror. I will in all ways continue this fight to protect our inherent rights to live free of fear from radical extremists. It is for such reasons that I supported the supplemental spending bill to aid our troops in this War on Terror. We must never falter or retreat. The lives lost in the tragedy of July 7, 2005 will remain etched in our memories as proof that fear tactics must never win. Our prayers remain with the families of the victims and all the people of London.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 14, 2005, I was unavoidably detained and rendered unable to vote on H. Res. 356, condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in London, England, on July 7, 2005. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 199 to recognize the horror suffered by those who lost their lives at Srebrenica and the loss to their families. However, the resolution falls far short in that it does not recognize the horrors, tragedies, and losses suffered by all sides. For example, for several years early in the conflict, the Serbian population of Srebrenica and scores of nearby villages were either killed or forced to flee because of Nasir Oric, a Bosnian Muslim warlord, according to UNPROFOR Commander General Phillip Morillon. Nasir Oric also carried out many attacks on nearby villages and towns, including an attack at Kravica on Orthodox Christmas Eve. Reporter Joan Phillips commented in the South Slav Journal that by March 31, 1993, at least 1,200 Serbs had been killed and another 3,000 wounded by Oric's forces, adding ``Today there are virtually no Serbs left in the entire Srebrenica municipality. Out of 9,300 Serbs who used to live there, less than 900 remain. Out of 11,500 Serbs who used to live in Bratunac municipality, more than 6,000 have fled. In the Srebrenica municipality, about 24 villages have been razed. The last major Serbian villages in the vicinity of Bratunac and Skelani were attacked and destroyed on January 7, 1993.'' In the interest of justice and truth we must have a day of reckoning where we acknowledge that no one side was entirely at fault in the Balkan wars, and even evaluate where United States' policies exacerbated the tragedies suffered. For example, Operation Flash was an attack on the civilian Serb population of a U.N. Protected Area and was directly authorized by then-President Bill Clinton. Likewise, it is my express belief that we should do more to achieve reconciliation and mutual trust between the ethnic groups in Bosnia- Herzegovina.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of this House tonight with great hope in my heart for the future of this country, because even a cursory survey of America's history should impart hope to all of us. By the time the 1860s had come to America, the world had marked 7,000 years of powerful societies enslaving their fellow human beings. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this was also true of America. However, this country was never truly at peace in her heart with the hellish institution of slavery. So it was that slaves began to earnestly pray in America for God to intervene. Mr. Speaker, it seems that God sent them Abraham Lincoln, a man who understood the true meaning of those magnificent words: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote those words down for us because they did not want us to forget their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately destroy it. This has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents or agreements or declarations or, Mr. Speaker, constitutions in the first place, to preserve their original meaning and intent. When the smoke of a horrible Civil War finally drifted from the air, 7,000 years of the world accepting the unrequited toil and misery of human slavery was over. The prayer of slaves had been answered, and the United States of America began to emerge as the true flagship of human freedom in the world. But only 100 years later, we began to stray from that path. We began to think only of ourselves; and in 1973, Roe v. Wade was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court and brought wholesale abortion-on-demand to the land of the free, and a veil of darkness fell upon America. In that darkness we heard, but disregarded, the mortal cry of one little baby in the womb, and then another, and even another was heard, until that sound had become the soul-wrenching cry of tens of millions. And we found ourselves and our national conscience disoriented and awash in the blood of our own children. Millions of prayers called out for yet another leader to remind us of those forever words that speak the divine message of human dignity: all men, all men are created equal. Mr. Speaker, from the time we are conceived, all human beings are created equal. We do not become equal when we reach a certain age or status. This is America's creed. This is our foundation. And how grateful we should all be that our Founding Fathers wrote those words down, and how desperate our commitment should be to remember what they mean. And now that test has come upon us, for there is soon an opportunity for the President of the United States to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court who understand that all men are created equal. And Mr. Speaker, I believe in my soul that this President truly understands those words. Indeed, it is his commitment to their meaning that has given him the courage to stand resolutely against terrorists to protect innocent human life. But this president and each one of us must never forget that Roe vs. Wade has taken more than 15,000 times the number of lives lost on that tragic day on September 11. And we now live in a time when there is a glimmer of light breaking on the road before us. But the curve just ahead, Mr. Speaker, is sharp, and to miss it may be to forever plunge into that darkness. And the voice of destiny calls to this president, to our president and to all of us in these decisive days to steel our hearts and to ask anew, is it still true in America that all men are created equal? Mr. Speaker, our legacy to future generations and the survival of human freedom in the world will depend upon our answer. May God bless America and may God bless President George W. Bush.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today in support of a statement entered into the Record June twenty- first by my friend and colleague, Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado, to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, Vernon Parker, who is the kind of man that represents the backbone of the American way of life. Vernon is first and foremost a husband to Sylvia, a father to Jim and Joe and a grandfather to Jennifer and Nicholas. He has been a teacher, an elementary and junior high school principal and an outstanding civic leader. But it was as the school superintendent in Briggsdale, Colorado, that our life paths intersected. There were eleven children in my third grade class. The entire school system, kindergarten through twelfth grade, had only one hundred and two students. In that idyllic setting, Vernon Parker made the third grade a special place of learning for me. As I look back upon those years, it is easy to recognize that Vernon Parker planted more than just a garden we could always find him tending. He planted hopes and dreams into the minds and hearts of the children of Briggsdale, Colorado. As I reflect on the impact that educators have on the lives of their students, I think not only of scholastic standards but of their ability to instill the invaluable desire to learn--to reach for something greater than ourselves. For many years, as a teacher, a principal and school superintendent, Vernon Parker touched literally all of the lives of the children in the small town of Briggsdale. That is quite an honorable legacy in itself. Yet we also as Americans owe a debt of gratitude to this man for his service to our country in the Korean War where his efforts as a member of the ``Wolfpack,'' a special unit which aided friendly North Koreans, helped save American lives. He served from 1949 until 1953. He was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action, and during one battle he used a bazooka to destroy a Communist North Korean tank. Also in that battle, he was wounded by a mortar shell and was awarded the Purple Heart. When Vernon retired from teaching and then oversight of the school system, he opened and ran a small business. He was a member of the Lions Club and the V.F.W., a Boy Scout leader and a volunteer fireman. Vernon Parker has dedicated his life to public service and most importantly to children. I am greatly privileged to count myself among those children whose lives he touched and encouraged, motivated and disciplined on my childhood journey to that better day in life. May God Bless our educators, may God bless our veterans, may God bless America and may God bless Vernon Parker!

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero--Sergeant Kenneth J. Schall of El Mirage, Arizona. On May 22, 2005, we tragically lost this soldier of freedom when his military vehicle was involved in an accident. Kenneth was nobly serving his country in Yusafiyah, Iraq as a vital and supportive member of Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the young age of 22, Kenneth has marked history as a true American hero. He sacrificed his life to protect the citizens of this great Nation and the cause of human freedom. Today, we deeply honor his memory with our profound gratitude and extend our most loving condolences to his family and parents, Mr. and Mrs. John and Terri Schall.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in April of this year, my office expressed a deep and sincere concern to the State Department over agreeing to the designation of Bisera Turkovic as the new Bosnian Ambassador to the United States. At that time, State was postured to recommend an agreement on this appointment. After several discussions, the State Department asked me not to go public with my concerns because there was a pending deal with the Bosnian government to send Bosnian troops to Iraq in July. In good faith, Mr. Speaker, my office agreed not to publicly raise our very grave and sincere concerns. But, Mr. Speaker, our office was surprised and profoundly disappointed when we learned this past Wednesday, after literally months, that the State Department had granted agreement on this outrageous appointment without contacting us or informing us in any way. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has repeatedly and strongly stated that in this fight against terrorism, that you are ``either with us or you are against us.'' Yet, I am beginning to wonder if our own State Department is with us. Bisera Turkovic is one of the founders of the radical Islamist Muslim SDA Party in Bosnia, a party that has had, since its foundation, strong links with al Qaeda, numerous other terrorist organizations, and even the intelligence mechanisms of Iran. In 1939, Bisera Turkovic's father, Alija Izetbegovic, started a group called the Young Muslims. After World War II, they were prosecuted as Nazi war criminals and spent time in prison together. Over the years, Dr. Turkovic was promoted by Izetbegovic and then founded the SDA Party in 1990. Alija Izetbegovic was a close confidante of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And when he became President Izetbegovic, he recirculated his 1970 Islamic Declaration and openly espoused his view that ``there can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith.'' Mr. Speaker, soon after the beginning of the Bosnian civil war in 1992, Dr. Turkovic was accredited as Bosnian ambassador to Zagreb. It was this post, coordinating with others, that was constantly used by the SDA and their leadership to provide Bosnian passports, visas, humanitarian worker status, and logistical support to radical Islamist mujahideen coming into Bosnia to fight their own jihad there. Individuals such as Anwar Sha'ban, the spiritual leader of al Qaeda in Bosnia and the cousin of Osama bin Laden, Abu al-Madani, who was killed fighting soldiers in Sarajevo, and even Osama bin Laden himself entered Bosnia through Zagreb. In violation of a U.S. embargo, the SDA also organized a massive flow of weapons from Iran through Croatia during Bisera Turkovic's time as ambassador. When my office raised these concerns, Mr. Speaker, we were told that the actions during the war were Bosnian government policy at that time and that it was a long time ago. But, Mr. Speaker, can it possibly be the position of our State Department that despite the fact that we know that Iranian weapons were smuggled into Bosnia in contradiction to a U.N. embargo, and that foreign mujahideen were given documentation to enter Bosnia to fight a jihad, often fronting as humanitarian workers, that that is not enough evidence to deny diplomatic status to someone who was centrally involved and who remains a senior level official for the party that instituted these very policies? My office has also raised issues of concern with regard to Bisera Turkovic's ethical fitness, Mr. Speaker; and the State Department has said that ``we can't deny appointees on the basis of being corrupt.'' Mr. Speaker, these actions on the part of our State Department are a disservice to our President, they are a disgrace to the United States of America, and they are a betrayal to the cause of human freedom. It is past time that the State Department start acting like it represents the interests of America and the citizens of this Nation. The people of this Nation deserve better than to be served by a State Department that aids our enemies and then lies to cover its actions.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, allow me to address a very deep and growing concern about American policy in the Balkans. The policy of the United States should be predicated upon its own interests and its own sovereignty and security. Defying reason, somehow we keep hearing that the current administration plans to continue the former administration's policy in Southeast Europe. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand this, given the fact that we have learned so much about the nature of the foreign fighters that have come into Bosnia-Herzegovina to fight the Serbs, and now we have encountered them ourselves in Iraq. To observe the current unemployment and socialist economic structure in Kosovo is to recognize that the previous administration's so-called policy there has been an absolute and utter failure. I certainly agree that we should be looking for a workable solution for all in that region; but in order to do so, we cannot disregard the fact that there have been over 300 mosques constructed in Kosovo since 1999, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, while at the very same time, 150 Serbian churches, Orthodox churches, about 10 percent of all the churches in Kosovo, have been destroyed. And I am wondering if this is the legacy that we want to leave for the United States involvement, Mr. Speaker. Further, we can now clearly see that many of the most dangerous terrorists that the United States has encountered in the fight against terrorism have had some connection to the Balkans and particularly Bosnia. For example, two of the September 11 hijackers fought in the wars in Bosnia. Sohel al Saahli fought in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya; and he later became a leader in Iraq and was killed in a U.S. air strike in March of 2003. Abdel Aziz al Muqrin, al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, personally decapitated Paul Johnson; and he had fought in Bosnia, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, there is an alarming pattern here. Abu Anas al Shami fought with other Jordanian extremists to fight jihad in Bosnia. He was the right hand of Abu Masab al Zarqawi fighting against U.S. forces in Iraq until he was killed in September, 2004. And, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our Balkans policies helped these terrorists. And now there is data found on Mr. Zarqawi's laptop computer indicating that terrorists have the means and the plans to use WMDs here in Europe and perhaps even here someday, in the United States. Mr. Speaker, given these disturbing details, the fact that we are now moving troops out of Bosnia and out of the Balkans is a profound concern to me. Further, as a guarantor of the Dayton Peace Accords, we have a duty to reaffirm them and to ensure a sense of comity and fair play. We should not seek to change them through a coercive top-down pressure, as has been recently attempted in the talks in Bosnia under the auspices of the High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, and this with the approval of our U.S. Ambassador Douglas McElhaney. I am also very concerned that, according to news reports, our ambassador incited public opinion against the Republic of Srpska's chief of police by insinuating that he should be removed from office for statements he made concerning the nexus between Bosnia and the Madrid bombings. Mr. Speaker, the police chief's statements concerning the relationship between certain individuals and materials in Bosnia and the horrific Madrid bombings that took place last year deserve our attention and our investigation rather than our rebuke. I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time we take a second, very serious look at the realities and the growing terrorist danger in Bosnia.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in the life of America. Our colleagues in the United States Senate are imminently approaching a crossroads that will forever impact the future of this Republic. They will choose the road that will restore the constitutional balance of power that our Founding Fathers so carefully constructed, or they will travel down that path that rewards a shameless behavior that has deliberately injured this delicate balance by transferring the executive power of judicial appointment to the legislative minority. The Constitution's advice and consent has been twisted into mockery by the Senate minority. Men and women of outstanding character have come forth as judicial nominees to be undeservedly maligned, smeared, ridiculed and then left in nominations limbo indefinitely by this unprecedented, unconstitutional and outrageous judicial filibuster. Mr. Speaker, this is a show of disregard and contempt for the world's flagship of freedom and toward her people and toward the time-honored principles of the United States Senate. We will recapture the civility that once presided over judicial appointments or we will forever surrender what Abraham Lincoln called ``the angels of our better nature'' to this bitterly partisan tactic that threatens the constitutional prerogative of the President of the United States to appoint good, decent and honorable men and women to the Federal judiciary. Advice and consent is clearly written in the United States Constitution. This judicial filibuster to prevent a fair up-or-down vote is neither advice nor consent and, Mr. Speaker, it is not in the United States Constitution. Never before 2003, in 214 years of U.S. Senate deliberations, has any judicial nomination supported by the majority of the Senate been denied a fair up-or-down vote. Yet the minority would have the public believe that the majority is the one trying to change the rules here, calling it the nuclear option. It is the Senate minority, Mr. Speaker, that has launched this unprecedented, quote, nuclear option by devastating the constitutionally required just consideration of judicial nominees duly appointed by the President of the United States. What the majority seeks is the constitutional option that is totally in keeping with 214 years of the rules, traditions and dignity of the United States Senate. Senate Democrats have strongly and arrogantly and openly threatened to shut down the operations of the government if Republicans insist on the constitutional option. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is far better to let the Democrats shut down this government temporarily than it is to allow them to shut down this Republic permanently. In this critical struggle for the future of this Republic, one of two things will occur. Either the time-honored and tested provision of advice and consent, written in the Constitution, will prevail or unprecedented judicial filibuster and obstructionism will take its place and become the tragic legacy of these days. Mr. Speaker, I should not have to remind my Republican colleagues that the people who have entrusted us with this majority have spoken with resounding voice on the issue of judicial nominations. They hear it and I hear it everywhere I go. The people of America have a profound sense of fair play and they are tired of some of their United States Senators cowering behind a distorted version of the true and impeccable auspices of the United States Senate. The people want their Senators to have the courage to take a stand on judicial nominations. The people want a fair up-or-down vote on judges, Mr. Speaker, and they will remember those who have the courage to do so and, sir, they will remember those who did not. The people understand how important this really is. They understand that it is truly about the Constitution itself, and they innately embrace the core message of those magnificent words by Daniel Webster when he said, ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution, and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' Mr. Speaker, the stakes could not be higher and this Republic truly hangs in the balance. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to pass this miracle of the American constitutional Republic on to future generations that are yet to be. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to those future generations and we owe it to that vision of human freedom that our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to entrust to us. Mr. Speaker, we must not fail.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be on the floor of the House of Representatives during the last series of votes on May 4, 2005. If I had been, I would have cast a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1185, Final Passage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, and a ``yes'' vote on H. Res. 233, Recognizing the 60th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (V-E) Day.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues in the Senate in the coming days will approach a crossroads that will forever impact the future of this Republic. They will choose the road that will restore the constitutional balance of power that our Founders so carefully constructed, or they will travel the path that rewards a shameless behavior that has deliberately injured this delicate balance by transferring the executive power of judicial appointment to the legislative minority. The Constitution's advice and consent has been twisted into mockery. Men and women of outstanding character have come forth as judicial nominees to be undeservedly maligned, smeared, and ridiculed, and then left in nominations limbo by this unprecedented, unconstitutional, and outrageous judicial filibuster. Mr. Speaker, this is a show of disregard and contempt towards the world's flagship of freedom and toward her people and toward the time- honored principles of the United States Senate. We will recapture the civility that once presided over judicial appointments, or we will forever surrender what Abraham Lincoln called ``the angels of our better nature'' to a bitterly partisan tactic that threatens the constitutional prerogative of the President to appoint good, decent, and honorable men and women to the Federal judiciary. Advice and consent is clearly written in the United States Constitution. This judicial filibuster to prevent fair up or down votes is neither advice nor consent, and it is not in the United States Constitution. Never before 2003, in 214 years of U.S. Senate deliberations, has any judicial nomination with clear majority support been denied a fair up or down vote. And yet the minority would have the public believe that the majority is the one trying to change the rules here. They call it the ``nuclear option.'' It is the Senate minority that has launched the unprecedented ``nuclear option'' by devastating the constitutionally required just consideration of judicial nominees by the President of the United States. What the majority seeks is the ``constitutional option'' that is in total keeping with 214 years of the rules, traditions, and dignity of the United States Senate. Senate Democrats have arrogantly and openly threatened to shut down the operations of this government if Republicans insist on the constitutional option. Mr. Speaker, far better it is to let the Democrats shut down this government temporarily than it is to allow them to shut down this Republic permanently, because in this critical struggle for the future of this Republic, one of two things will happen: Either the time- honored tested provision of advice and consent written in the Constitution will prevail or unprecedented judicial filibuster and obstructionism will take its place and become the tragic legacy of these days. The people who have placed us here with their votes have entrusted us to act in principle and for the common good. They are exhausted by the mercenary partisanship of these attempts to destroy the reputations of decent men and women. This destructive behavior has so insidiously invaded every aspect of our political process that it will destroy this Republic if we foolishly continue to reward it. Mr. Speaker, I should not have to remind my Republican colleagues that the people who have entrusted us with this majority have spoken with resounding voice on the issue of judicial appointments. They hear it and I hear it everywhere I go. The people of America have a profound sense of justice and fair play; and they want a fair up-or-down vote on judges. Somehow, the people understand how important this really is, and they understand it is really about the Constitution itself. They seem to innately embrace the message of Daniel Webster when he said those magnificent words: ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster. And what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' Mr. Speaker, the stakes could not be higher, and this Republic hangs in the balance. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass along the miracle of the American constitutional republic to any future generations that are yet to be. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to those future generations, and we owe it to that vision of human freedom our Founding Fathers risked their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor to entrust to us. We must not fail.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the time. Mr. Speaker, my comments prepared for now had essentially to do with the point that has been made already here many times. Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for adult siblings, for cousins and uncles would not protect young girls who are made victims of incest by those very adult siblings, cousins or uncles; and it would be a terrible idea to add that to a bill whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of parents and their children. But I had a chance just to kind of step back here for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and ask myself why the intensity of this debate. I would have to step back and say that respectfully I would submit that maybe it is about the foundational issue here of abortion because if we were not talking about the surgery of abortion, there would be no debate here. No one would say it is not all right to take a young girl across the State line for an appendectomy. That would be an outrageous discussion. It really is about this whole notion of abortion, and I do not understand the intensity completely, but I believe it has something to do with the conscience in all of us collectively that we are beginning to realize that somehow, as Americans, we are bigger than abortion on demand; that 40 million dead children is enough; and that somehow we need to start asking the real question. The real questions is, does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, it is a nonissue. If it does, then we are in the midst of the greatest human holocaust in the history of humanity. I think somehow we collectively in our hearts understand that, and therefore, it creates all this acrimony on the finer points; but the real abuse of power is that this body has the power to protect these little babies, and instead, we are debating the finer points in a committee report, and I am ashamed of that. I pray that somehow we can get to the point where we can come together and not have to look back. The Fugitive Slave Act was a perfect example. We looked back and said how did we let that happen. That was an acrimonious debate, too. There was a little thing called the Civil War over it. We do not need to proceed down that line. Somehow may compassion and the simple truth prevail here.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, we are here to honor the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II, and I am joined by several of our colleagues here tonight. Mr. Speaker, we often get materials and letters from our constituencies, and sometimes even from other States. Although I represent Arizona, a close friend of mine from California, Kevin Rishell, wrote us a poem today related to Pope John Paul II, and it seemed appropriate to read. So I am going to start with that: ``Pope John Paul II. A man of simple convictions, A man of great love and peace; A father to the nations, A friend now at last released. Into the arms of his beloved Savior; Into history, With God's tender favor. `Well done' faithful servant, Echoes 'cross Heaven's portals; As John Paul is welcomed, By friends and other immortals. His life was a service to God, And to his neighbors; To the weak and to the poor, And dearly loved unbelievers. For he believed that all life, Had a godly purpose; That all life was special, And that God was never spurious. For he understood clearly, The vain rantings of men; How popular their wisdom, Seemed to change with the wind. But he held true to his course, In the most turbulent times; With God's Word as his pilot, And the Holy Spirit as his guide. In faith, he stood against evil, When it could have cost him his life; And for decades and more, He fought for what was right. For God was his center, And Jesus was his friend; And the Comforter never left him, From birth to honored end. For he was on a holy quest, Of nearly mythic proportions; A man with a great commission, Teaching truth and sacred traditions. He knew where he came from, And he knew where he would go; Secure in Christ, adored by the masses, This humble shepherd-soul. But now his journey's over, A final appointment he will keep; A righteous servant to his Master, In whose arms he will now rest and sleep. While leaving a beautiful legacy, Of honor and valiant grace; That will live on beyond this tribute, A priestly mantle so hard to replace. We will miss you Holy Father, We will miss your humor and your passion; We will miss your concern for personal details, And your courage to speak and to take action. But now you have fought your good fight, And you have finished your race; We thank you for your example, And pray God bless you for your faith. Via con Dios, my precious brother, Go with God my blessed friend; Shalom to you my loving confessor, Be at peace and as you always said, `Amen.' '' Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration and gratitude that I now personally rise to commend to the ages the life of Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II lived an intentional life. Too often today, we spend our lives in a reactive state, with daily events and crises drowning out the reflection and study which are required to live an intentional life. The Pope did not fall into this trap of the immediate. He instead considered his life's great questions and, after seeking guidance in Holy Scripture and through prayer, he steadfastly stayed wisdom's course. Mr. Speaker, by now the narrative of the Pope's life has become well- known. Growing up in Poland, he had firsthand experience with two of the 20th century's most horrible totalitarian creations, that being Nazism and Soviet Communism. Living under these systems as a young man, he saw in detail not only the physical corrosion wrought by these systems of government, but the spiritual and social decay they engendered as well. He looked beyond the jackboots and the tanks and saw that the real power of these regimes stemmed not from physical force, but from an intellectual climate that was stripping the humanness from humanity. Karol Wojtyla dedicated himself to fighting this evil, not with force of might, but through prayer, availing his heart, soul and mind unto God, and in serving his fellow human beings. He exemplified what the Holy Scripture exhorts from man: ``To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.'' He sought for justice to be done and the truth to be told by placing a handwritten acknowledgment of Christian sins against the Jewish people in a crevice of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and in his admonishment of the kneeling Father Ernesto Cardenal, the Sandinista Culture Minister in Nicaragua. He demonstrated mercy, and after recovering from his wounds from the assassination attempt on his life by Mehmet ali Agca, he visited this deranged Turk in prison. He visited him, and then he forgave him. And he walked humbly, Mr. Speaker, allowing all of us to watch as he deteriorated physically right before our eyes, believing that those who follow Christ, as Christ himself taught, must sometimes endure suffering. Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II in 1978, and held the Chair of Saint Peter for more than 26 years. At the beginning of his Papacy, the totalitarianism that had colored his youth was on the march throughout the world. Previously free people were being enslaved by Soviet Communism with alarming regularity. However, the Soviet Union had reached its zenith, and soon would crumble, due in large part to the efforts of a triumvirate of courageous and noble leaders: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and this new Pope, John Paul II. He chose to attack the intellectual moorings of totalitarianism; thus he could eliminate the power structure that it rested upon. He opposed abortion, believing innocent human life was sacred and that the casual elimination of the weak is the first step on the path that leads to the enslavement of all. One of the great teaching documents of his pontificate, ``Evangelium Vitae,'' stated: ``Life, especially human life, belongs only to God; for this reason, whoever attacks human life in some way attacks God himself.'' He opposed liberal theology, firmly believing that a Church which did not stand up for its core doctrines would be unlikely to stand up to evil in the world. And he encouraged us all to do the same, stating that ``freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.'' And kindly but boldly he encouraged us not to be afraid, stating: ``Have no fear of moving into the unknown. Simply step out fearlessly knowing that God is with you, therefore no harm can befall you; all is very, very well. Do this in complete faith and confidence.'' He demonstrated this full and complete trust in God, and from his first appearance on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica proclaimed that ``Christ, Christ is the answer.'' He was a friend of the United States, not out of blind loyalty, but out of a recognition that ``radical changes in world politics leave America with a heightened responsibility to be for the world an example of genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.'' And he admonished and cautioned us that it is not enough to speak about freedom, but that freedom must have a purpose, stating: ``When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.'' Perhaps one of the most fitting tributes to this great man can be found in the news coverage of his death. While the Free World celebrates his legacy and openly mourns his passing, states such as China, which still hold much of their population in the dehumanizing chains of Marxism, do the best to stifle these reports. It seems fitting that the only countries to bar a Papal visit were China, North Korea, Vietnam, and post-Communist Russia. Those leaders know that John Paul II lived a life in accordance with a view that rejected dehumanizing chains, because man was created to be free, and even though he has passed from this life and into the next, his world view remains, and his courage in the face of death is a powerful symbol of that world view. The oppressors realize that if their subjects witness this courageous man and embrace his vision of humanity that their days will be numbered. We should all pray that they do. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we should all take great comfort and gain great courage with the Pope's words of hope to all of us. He said, ``Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.'' I am certain that he is right now joined by a multitude of others singing ``Hallelujah'' to the One he dedicated his life to. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).