Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. We have introduced the Children's Hope Act, and the gentleman is a cosponsor. All of us are very appreciative of that. The Children's Hope Act is essentially a bill in Congress designed to create an incentive for other States to create their own scholarship tax credit such as the ones in Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania. The idea, of course, is to empower the States, the local governments, and the parents exactly in the opposite order: the parents, the local governments, then the States, and then lastly have the Federal involvement. Instead of trying to create a monolithic program here that we control, and as has been demonstrated, we do not control things very well from this body, if we can empower the parents in the greatest way possible, we can do the States the greatest favor possible in my judgment. The Children's Hope Act will create a Federal tax credit. It would simply allow people to pay less Federal income taxes if they contributed to educational efforts in their own State. This is especially focused on the scholarship tax credit programs for tuition organizations that give tuition to children to go to the schools of their parents' choice.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I will be happy to do that. I thank the gentleman. The single most important difference between vouchers and tax credits is the fact that with the tax credit, all of the contributions that go into the system are entirely voluntary and they never go through government coffers. Now, you say, well, that is a simple difference; but it creates all kinds of ripple effects, all kinds of ancillary differences. For instance, those people who are concerned that if they send their child to, say, a faith-based school down the block and that if they send them with a voucher that somehow the scary, insidious hand of government will come in and tell them to take down their cross or Star of David or whatever the case might be. Under the scholarship tax credit approach they would have very little to worry about because there is simply no connection to government in that regard. The moneys go into a private charity, which 90 percent of those moneys then go to the scholarship for the child. When you consider the expenditures there, there is a significant difference. I mean, about 56, 55 percent of our dollars that come appropriated from this body go into the classroom; but overwhelmingly, when people contribute on the private scholarship tax credit, about 90 percent of those go directly for tuition of the child.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Absolutely. I find it fairly telling that from the Federal Government perspective that we supply about 7 percent of the funding for education that goes to the States. In other words, the total funding that it takes to educate a child in the public school system, about 7 percent of that money comes from the Federal Government; but when you consider that over 55 percent of the paperwork that the school has to do is mandated by the Federal Government and there is something horribly wrong about all that, because it just underscores everything that you said, and if you consider across the country, on the average, private schools cost approximately half, if you just measure them all out and average them all out, about half what the public school systems cost, and yet on the average they will educate a child academically about one to two grade levels higher in the same respective area. There is something to be learned there. Oftentimes people say that is because the private schools skim. Now, I think there are some other differences. First of all, classroom size; second of all, certainly in Arizona, for every two teachers, we have more than one administrator, but when you look at the private settings, you have about one administrator for every 19 teachers. So there is an entirely different overhead dynamic, and I just think sometimes we need to look at just some of the financial dynamics there.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that this body is essentially the school district for the Washington, D.C. schools. Perhaps the nomenclature is a little different, but the reality is we are in charge of trying to make sure that the Washington school districts here in the District of Columbia operate effectively. Now, in Arizona, just to give a comparative, about $6,800 per year in the public school system is what it takes us to educate a child, when you add maintenance and operations along with the cost of facilities. But here in Washington, D.C. it is over $12,000. It is the highest in the Nation. If we know what we are doing here in terms of educational policy, why is the one school area that we are most in charge of costing the most and have some of the poorest schools in the Nation?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I cannot agree more. Several things occur when we empower parents as essentially the customers of education. We say education should not be a customer-driven thing. I suppose we can say that about anything; but one thing is sure, when we do have a market- driven situation, we get better quality, greater innovation, and a drastic reduction in costs. I am convinced that those same things would happen for the educational system in this country if we injected parental empowerment and competitive excellence into the system. But a fourth thing occurs, which is when we empower parents to choose their children's education, those parents with a philosophy of one kind are able to direct their children in that direction. Those with a philosophy of a different kind can do something else. I am afraid if we do not start looking into some of these hard issues, deeper issues in our educational system, we may grow a generation with great academic skills, but very little concern for their fellow human beings. It is especially difficult when some, forgive me, some intellectual pigmy masquerading as a Federal judge says that children in the public school system cannot say the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. That essentially vitiates much of the efficiency of the system entirely. I am concerned if we do not begin to realize it is not just academics, that academics are important, but it is not just academics, that we are going to see a new generation that does not know who Abraham Lincoln is, that does not who George Washington is and what they stood for and the things that made this country the greatest Nation in the history of the world. That is why I am so deeply committed to seeing that education is given a greater sense of parental empowerment and competitive excellence. It will be the salvation of the public school systems, and in my judgment it will be to the betterment of the coming generations.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps one of the greatest dynamics of this debate is the whole cost structure. On the average, and I will speak for Arizona because that is the State I am from, about $6,800 per student when we educate that child in a public school, whether it is an inner city school or rural school. If you average it all together, it is about $6,800. In Arizona, the average private school is approximately half of that, and yet, again, they outperform the public schools on the average. In Arizona, the average home schooler is approximately half of that, and yet they are the most outstanding academic children. They perform academically better than just about any other children in the State. Consequently, I think that the obvious inference there is it is not just the money. In fact, it seems like we have to pay more for worse results on a regular basis. I am just convinced that rather than trying to argue about which system is better, we need to start looking at home schooling and the private schools and see what are they doing that the public schools are not doing. What are they doing that government can learn from, rather than to compete so much all of the time? Let us find out what they are doing that is making things work for children. I am convinced that that would have a big impact here.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I think that sometimes when we begin to debate an issue that is before us, it is always important to ask ourselves why we are really here. And if there is any foundational purpose for this Congress, it is to protect the innocent in humanity. Sometimes we complicate that greatly. Perhaps one of our greatest abilities as human beings is to hide from something that we would rather not face, and I think that that is indeed the situation that we face today. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been distorted in the minds of many people. It has been distorted in the speeches that have been made from this well to a great degree. I find that people on both sides of the aisle, on my side of the aisle, they try to say, well, this has nothing to do with abortion; and that is true. On the other side of the aisle they try to say, well, this is just a disguised pro-life bill. In a sense, both of those things are true, and I think it is time for us to face it directly. The truth is, this bill is not about abortion. But the fact is, if it were not for abortion on demand, we would not even be debating this bill. We would not even be questioning whether or not this was important. Because most of the opposition to this bill comes from those who try very hard, and I understand their problem, I understand their difficulty; they try very hard to put this bill aside as a nonserious issue because it makes them face the reality of the humanness of this little unborn baby child. And that is a difficult thing to face, because, after all, when we consider America's history since Roe v. Wade, we have taken the lives of 10,000 times as many babies as people who died on 9/11. So I understand the hesitation to face the reality here; but sometimes, there has to come a point in all of our lives where we just put aside those things that we know in our hearts are not true and embrace what is obviously a self-evident truth. The fact is that there really are two victims in this situation. When a mother is assaulted and her child is killed, there are two victims, and I speak to some degree from personal experience. I used to live in Albany, Kentucky, many years ago, and this is far before such a bill like this was even contemplated. There was a situation where a man had, with his bare hands, killed an unborn child of a mother on the streets of Monticello, Kentucky, and try as they might, the prosecutors had a great difficulty in being able to bring the right kind of charge against this person. They brought a charge of manslaughter, but again, Roe v. Wade was mentioned as a defense. They said, well, there is no child here. Everyone in the court, everyone connected to the case knew there was a child, and I would suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the mother knew there was a child, and perhaps as tragic as it was that this child died in the streets alone, I do not think anyone felt the reality and the horror and the tragedy more than that mother. For us here in Congress to say to her that her child was not real, that her grief was not real, is just beyond description, in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we recognize the truth here. It is time we all asked the real question, and that is, is there really a baby here? Mr. Speaker, an honest look at the truth reflects the unavoidable reality that there is a child, and if there is a child, how can those of us in this body, whose primary, principal purpose for being here is to protect the innocent, how can we ignore that fact? I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that people on both sides of the aisle will simply recognize the reality of the humanness of the child and the great mourning of a mother that loses that child to someone that would deliberately take that child's life or take that child's life incidentally to trying to assault her. It is time we stood up and did what was right, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we will do that. I just want to remind all of us that if we do not have the courage to protect the innocent, in the final analysis, no matter how erudite we are, we will never really find the true courage to protect that kind of liberty for anyone, and I pray that we respond in that manner.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 5 years since the International Religious Freedom Act was signed into law, and our view of the world has changed very dramatically since then due to a number of factors, primarily September 11 and the war against terrorism. The fundamental right of religious freedom is one of the very most critical foundations of this Republic. Mr. Speaker, we must never forget that our Nation was founded by those who fled their country to preserve the inalienable right to religious liberty; and throughout the history of our Nation, people have left their homes in the cover of night to escape to the United States due to the religious persecution in their own countries. Unfortunately, in many places in the world today, the right to choose and practice one's faith is still not protected. Mr. Speaker, it is so vitally imperative that we as a Nation continue to work to eliminate violations of religious freedom and human rights. One of the most compelling and pressing issues at this moment, and one where we have a great deal of leverage, is our responsibility to help establish true freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. True freedom in those nations is absolutely impossible a,part from provisions in their new constitutions that absolutely guarantee full religious freedom for every one of their people. Our principal efforts in those countries, if we do nothing else, must center on preserving the right of religious freedom for every individual. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, even to the war on terrorism because constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom creates a vital framework for discussion and debate. It has the power to turn the war of weapons into a war of words. May we not forget that critical truth. Mr. Speaker, Patrick Henry stated it this way. He said, ``I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.'' He understood the urgency and nature of the battle when he declared, ``There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!'' Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have fought but we now must ask ourselves what it was we were truly fighting for. I believe we fought, as President Bush said, for the ``advance of freedom'' because ``we believe that freedom, the freedom we prize, is not for us alone; it is the right and capacity of all mankind.'' Guided by the lamp of our own experience of our own Nation, in those words, the President makes the most compelling argument that I can imagine for the United States to renew its commitment to eliminating violations of the right to religious freedom and to protecting fundamental human rights for every human being across the world.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, on October 16, 2003, the Chair sustained Mr. Kolbe's point of order against H. Amdt. 408, an amendment offered by Mr. Pence, to H.R. 3289. Had there been opportunity to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Amdt. 408 to H.R. 3289, which sought to make the first 50 percent of Iraq reconstruction funding available immediately as a grant giving priority consideration to the emergency purposes of security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public works, water resources, transportation, telecommunication infrastructures and other emergency needs, and also provide that once the Administration informs Congress that a democratically elected government in Iraq has been established, the balance of funding would be made available in the form of loans from the U.S. Government, under terms determined by the President.

Mr. FRANKS

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of President Bush's designation of this week as ``Marriage Protection Week.'' I commend the President for his exemplary leadership in the vital effort to preserve and strengthen America's families. It is with complete respect to the Constitution as--according to George Washington-- ``the guide which I will never abandon,'' that I feel compelled to speak on behalf of a federal marriage amendment. Judicial recklessness has become the breeding ground for challenges against the institution of marriage. Recent court decisions, like Lawrence v. Texas have set a dangerous precedent. Sadly, America's courts continue to abuse their power by legislating from the bench, and usurping the will of the people. I am concerned that the state laws that define marriage between a man and a woman are in jeopardy of being struck down by the court's total disregard for the law as it is written. However, there is good news concerning the sanctity of marriage from my home state of Arizona. Recently, a three-judge court-of-appeals panel in Arizona upheld a 1996 state law that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They said in their decision [and I quote], that ``the fundamental right to marry protected by our federal and state constitutions does not encompass the right to marry a same sex partner.'' Here, the courts simply read the state and federal constitutions as they are written, and applied them without prejudice. Across the Nation, support for House Joint Resolution 56, ``The Federal Marriage Amendment''--a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a sacred institution between a man and woman--is rapidly growing. A recent poll taken by the Associated Press showed that 54 percent of Americans are in support of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This same poll showed that 53 percent are also opposed to so-called ``civil unions.'' House Joint Resolution 56 is coming close to obtaining 100 cosponsors, and support for the sanctity of marriage is building on both sides of the aisle. I commend my friend and colleague from Colorado, Mrs. Musgrave, for having the courage to introduce H.J. Res. 56. It is my hope, that this body will take a bold stand and defend the definition of marriage as the sacred union of a man and a woman. Thank you Mr. President, for your leadership.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that I stood here in June to tell the story of little Samuel Alexander Armas, the little boy who was operated on at 21 weeks for his spina bifida condition. Baby Samuel's famous grasp of the doctor's finger as he reached out of the mother's womb gave us all a new and profound gratitude for the miracle of life. And now, Mr. Speaker, just this month, doctors in England have recorded the smiles of unborn children at just 24 weeks through advanced ultrasound. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, without this legislation, how many smiles will we miss having the privilege of sharing? But, Mr. Speaker, an historic day is nearly upon the United States Congress, for tomorrow we will extend the hand of hope to the unborn. We will vote to protect unborn children from this unspeakable and horrifying procedure called partial-birth abortion. Seven years ago, such a bill was first passed by Congress, but then, tragically, it was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. Since then, unborn children numbering in the thousands have been unmercifully killed by this barbaric, nightmarish procedure. There is no greater mark of shame or disgrace upon the Clinton administration. But now, thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this Nation has a new President, and President George Bush will sign this bill into law and a new day will have dawned in America. Because even though this bill will not protect the other 4,000 unborn children that die each day in America from abortion on demand, it marks a turning point in the soul of this Nation, because it points to a day when that warm sunlight of life will finally break through the clouds and shine once again on the faces of unborn children in this country. When that day comes, and it will, Mr. Speaker, history and coming generations will remember that it was George Bush and Members of this Congress who found the courage to reach out and take the tiny hand of an unnamed baby and refuse to let go until the storm was gone.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, George Washington said, ``It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be coextensive with the world.'' Bob Stump, a beloved Arizonan and a champion of liberty, extended his gallant views beyond himself and furthered the cause of American freedom in this country and throughout the world. As a courageous soldier in our Nation's armed forces, Bob exemplified the kind of impassioned and steadfast patriotism that every true American dreams to be. Serving 26 years as a Member of Congress, Bob Stump left us all a policy legacy of a stronger and more secure America. He also left us a rich personal legacy. Bob was a servant-leader and a man of great personal decency. He was a man who desperately loved and cherished his family. He was also a man of deep abiding faith in Jesus Christ. And now he has walked hand-in-hand with his Savior across the threshold of eternity and stepped into the light of everlasting victory. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Bob Stump's conduct indeed affected his country in a profound way. I am so very honored today to pause with Arizonans, and Americans everywhere, to pay tribute to this true American hero. And to Bob Stump, from all of us, I would simply say, ``Rest easy, gentle warrior. Thank you for passing this way and walking so kindly and so nobly among us. We shall never forget you.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, American Founder Benjamin Rush once said, ``The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty . . .'' Listener-supported KFLR has been educating and communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ to listeners throughout Arizona for 25 years. The commitment of Family Life Radio to communicating the message of Christianity through the spoken word and through music has been unwavering. Each day KFLR strikes a chord of hope in many listening hearts that will continue to resonate throughout eternity. I could never count the moments listening to KFLR that have dispelled discouragement and lifted my own heart. Family Life Radio truly is a family in Arizona, and I have been profoundly blessed to be part it. Congratulations, KFLR, on your silver anniversary. May you continue to shine for another 25 years in such a way that ``all may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, a wise man once said, ``markets are more powerful than governments.'' Ronald Reagan believed in the power of a free market system. He believed that the market is a model for growth throughout the world. That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I believe this bill breaks open a market that currently does not exist. We live in a terrible anomaly where Americans continue to pay drug prices that are 30 to 300 percent more than in European and other industrialized nations. Over the next 10 years, seniors will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs. That is a shocking statistic--one that will cause prescriptions to go unfilled because prices are too high in the United States. But, if seniors had access to world market drugs, they would save 35 percent, or $630 billion. We, as American consumers, have the power to knock down this unfair barrier to growth and freer access to pharmaceuticals. The Opponents of this legislation will tell you that this legislation will bring dangerous drugs into this country. They will tell you that it allows for faulty packaging and poor shipping conditions. They will tell you that this legislation forces American consumers to risk their own health. None of these claims are true. The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act contains language written by people at the FDA that requires that each pharmaceutical shipment be tested, unless the package already uses counterfeit-resistant technology. This kind of technology is the same technology that the U.S. Department of the Treasury uses to secure U.S. currency. And, more importantly, market access would be limited to 25 industrialized nations, such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand. The FDA will implement a system to allow Americans access to FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. Today, we prohibit Americans access to other markets, but other products in the consumer chain--like, fruit or meat--are allowed. This is or opportunity to codify our fundamental right to open pharmaceutical markets and allow seniors to keep more of their hard- earned dollars in their pockets. This is our opportunity to give pharmaceutical companies the leverage that they need to knock down barriers, and more importantly, to knock down price controls. In the long run, this will be better for pharmaceutical companies and better for American consumers. I commend Mr. Gutknecht for being a champion of this important issue and I urge my colleague to support this effort.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, President Calvin Coolidge wisely said, ``The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the government. Every dollar we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant.'' Mr. Speaker, the men and women of this country deserve fiscal responsibility and careful spending. They deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we are doing all we can to prudently save, and we are working to find ways to ensure life more abundant. I believe every department of government can and must examine ways to more efficiently use taxpayer dollars to improve the lives of all Americans. Today I would like to discuss specifically just one: the Department of Education. Citizens Against Government Waste say, ``the Department [of Education] now employs nearly 5,000 people, close to 1000 percent increase from 1979, yet ED spending for public schools accounts for less than 6 percent of total education spending. There are currently 780 education programs spread throughout 39 Federal agencies, costing taxpayers $100 billion annually . . . In addition, the average amount spent on each public school student has skyrocketed. In 1965, the average SAT score was 980 and slightly less than $3,000 was spent per student. More than 30 years later, the average SAT score is 910 and about $6,500 is spent per pupil.'' The reckless swelling of this Department is not an indication of success. Our children deserve money better spent, that is, taxpayer dollars going for what they were intended: a quality education. Pouring more money into a deficit system will not improve education. Instead, it will further weaken the kind of education that our young people deserve. In the state of Arizona, the average cost of an hour of tutoring at the Sylvan Learning Center is $40. Ending the practice of fraudulent disability loan deferment represents what could be one billion hours of private tutoring, quality one-on-one hours that could potentially make a profound difference in the education of a child. According to the Inspector General of the Education Department Lorraine Lewis, also in 1999, the Department of Education made a number of improper payments, including about $125 million in duplicate payments to 45 different grantees, $664,000 in duplicate payment to 51 different schools and a $6 million double payment to a single school. These duplicate payments are unacceptable and irresponsible. A double payment of $125 million dollars represents the opportunity for 869 Arizonans to attend four tuition-free years at Arizona State University. Some may say figures like $6 million, or $664,000, are not even worth mentioning or tracking in a system spending hundreds of billions of dollars. I think that line of reasoning is exactly why Department of Education is so fraught with financial mismanagement. It is time we examine how to better spend millions, hundreds of thousands, and even thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and set a new standard of accountability to those who ``toil to bear the cost of government.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, June 25, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures: S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes (#312). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 2474--To require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center (#313). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H.J. Res. 40--To recognize the important service to the Nation provided by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (#314). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Con. Res. 49--To express the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti- Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences (#315). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 199--To call on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes (#316). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 294--To condemn the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people in their fight against terrorism (#317). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, today I urge your consideration of the authorization of $14.3 million for land acquisition to preserve access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. This land acquisition would serve to prevent incompatible land uses and encroachment, and to increase the margin of safety in the Live Ordnance Departure Area located southwest of Luke Air Force Base. The Barry M. Goldwater Range, a 2.7 million acre land and airspace area in southwest Arizona, is the crown jewel of all flight ranges, providing the Air Force with the space necessary to conduct live-fire training and simulating realistically the dimensions of a modern battlefield. Luke Air Force Base-with its year-round idyllic weather-is the training home to the F-16 Fighting Falcon. With an average of 170 sorties flown each day, access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range is an essential part of the advanced training and practice required of the Air Force fighter pilots. The southern departure corridor from Luke Air Force Base is the only air corridor where live ordnance can be carried out by F-16 Fighters. The threat of advancement and increased pressure of residential development from what has traditionally been isolated farmland places the mission and the future of Luke Air Force Base at risk. The Air Force has also made this $14.3 million request stating, ``Continued residential development of the departure corridors could impair Luke [Air Force Base's] ability to support sorties carrying live ordnance and to fully utilize the [Barry M. Goldwater Range] . . . [and] further encumbering Luke [Air Force Base's] access to the [Barry M. Goldwater Range] may adversely impact Luke's mission and result in a degradation to the national security.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Father, John Adams, told us, ``Our Constitution was made for moral and religious people and that it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' Mr. Speaker, we are very privileged today to have among us a man, Reverend Timothy Smith. Reverend Smith reminds all of us of our spiritual heritage in this country, and we are greatly bettered because of his presence with us today. This gentleman has been offering spiritual counsel and leadership to Arizona residents for more than 30 years; and from children to senior citizens, thousands of Arizonians have benefited tremendously from the selfless ministry of this man. He has served as chaplain for the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and has pastored congregations in Sun City and Glendale and is currently offering a very touching and much-needed type of compassion on a daily basis as chaplain of Sun Health Hospice in Sun City. Mr. Speaker, we are indeed blessed to have this man with us because he somehow helps us know in our mortality that there is a high and lofty One that inhabits eternity that watches over all of us, and we are the better for his presence here; and I thank him for his commitment to God, his commitment to his country and his commitment to his fellow man.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is often repeated that a picture is worth a thousand words. A very powerful picture exemplifying that statement began circulating across America this last November. I would cite the commentary that accompanied it. It should be the picture of the year, or perhaps the picture of the decade, but it will not be. In fact, unless Members obtain a copy of the U.S. paper in which it was published, they probably never saw it. The picture was that of a 21-week-old unborn baby boy named Samuel Alexander Armas. He was being operated on by a surgeon by the name of Dr. Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida, and would not have survived if removed from his mother's womb. But little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, was an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta and she knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb. During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via the C- section, and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, this amazing little baby reached out his tiny but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was completely frozen and completely immobile. The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors title the picture ``hand of hope.'' They said that this tiny little hand seemed to emerge to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner, as if thanking him for the gift of life. Little Samuel's mother said they wept for days when they saw the picture. She said the photo reminds us that pregnancy is not about disability or an illness, it is about a little person. The operation was 100 percent successful, and little Samuel was born in perfect health. Mr. Speaker, abortion on demand has taken the lives of 43 million little Americans. That is 10,000 times as many innocent lives as were taken in the tragedy of 9-11. Before the sun sets in America today, 4,000 more will have died, nameless and alone. Mr. Speaker, it is time for those of us on both sides of this aisle to begin to ask ourselves the real question, and the real question simply is this: does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, then it is a nonissue. But if abortion really does kill a baby, then those of us in the seat of freedom standing here, given the charge to protect the innocent, are living in the midst of the greatest human holocaust in the history of humanity. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if we lose the courage to protect the innocent in this place we will never find the will or the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone. Mr. Speaker, today we were asked to protect a very small number of those children who were already partially born and only moments away from taking their very first breath. It beggars human imagination that voting to support such basic compassionate humanity is even debatable, and that it got 100 votes to the contrary is a disgrace beyond expression. Mr. Speaker, the tiny hand of hope reaches out to all of us today and asks only for mercy. God help us all to hear that little voice in our own hearts.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation offered by colleague, Mr. Chabot, to ban the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Over the past 30 years, abortion has placed 42 million separate scars on America's soul. Each time, a mother was never quite the same. Each time, a nameless baby died a tragic and lonely death and all the gifts the child might have brought to humanity were lost forever. Mothers were impoverished while doctors were enriched. I recently read the story about Samuel Armas, a three and a half year old from Villa Rica, Georgia. Samuel underwent experimental surgery at 21 weeks of gestational age to close a hole at the bottom of his spinal cord. An astonishing photo from this surgery shows Samuel's innocent and curious little hand emerging from his mother's womb during the surgery--an irrefutable example of just how precious and fragile a human life can be. The grasp of Samuel's five tiny fingers stunningly illustrates the miracle of life within the womb. The unspeakable and far-reaching cost of diminished respect for human life, born and unborn, is beginning to dawn in the hearts of us all. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation to ban this horrific procedure, and oppose any amendment that would allow for exceptions. I commend my colleague Mr. Chabot for this gallant legislation made in the interest of children and humanity everywhere.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Over the last 30 years, abortion on demand has left 42 million separate scars on the soul of America. Madam Chairman, every time one took place, a mother's heart was never quite the same, a nameless little baby died a tragic and lonely death, and all of the gifts that child might have brought to this world were lost forever. Madam Chairman, there are many lying out in the field of Arlington today that died for a basic principle, and that is the basic principle that we are here for today, which is to compile amendments and laws that will protect the innocent from those that would desecrate their rights and their lives. Madam Chairman, if we turn military clinics and hospitals into abortion clinics, we dishonor their memory; and we say to the world that we do not have the insight to find better ways to help mothers than killing their children for them. Madam Chairman, I hope we will defeat this amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has come before this Congress, and it simply seeks to protect unborn children from those who would inflict violence upon them against the will of their mother. Mr. Speaker, as Americans, there is nothing in this world that we love more than our children. Indeed, one of the great founding principles of this Nation is the God-given duty to protect the innocent and the oppressed and the helpless, especially while they are still little children. Yet we have made no statutorial provision on the Federal level to protect unborn children from brutal acts of violence. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in spite of what the pro-abortion groups may say, this bill does not protect those unborn children that may be subjected to the violence of elective abortion. But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we can find the humanity to protect expectant mothers and even a few of those, our defenseless little brothers and sisters today, perhaps tomorrow we can find the compassion and the courage to protect them all.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the States are the laboratories of the Nation. In Arizona at this time, when the special needs child comes into the public system, oftentimes the public system recognizes that they are not fully capable of meeting that special need at that time and they provide a certificate for that child to go to a private school or a private institution to meet that child's needs. All the Musgrave amendment really does is to allow this same option, and I emphasize the word ``option,'' to be given to public schools in the context of the IDEA legislation. This is not a Federal mandate. This is not what people call vouchers. This is simply an option for the local schools to do this. And in those cases where they do, it gives those parents the opportunity to direct the resources on behalf of their child. Mr. Chairman, no one knows and loves these children more than these parents. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering such a noble amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express a deep and abiding gratitude to the families living in the Second District of Arizona who have lost their children in the Iraqi conflict. Those families include Carol Howland of Kingman, who lost her son James Kiehl in battle; Sandy Watson of Peoria, who lost her son Michael Williams in battle; the Piestewa family, and the entire Hopi Nation, who today mourn the loss of their daughter Lori Ann. I have spoken to each and have been inspired by their unwavering faith and their enduring strength. Mr. Speaker, I know that the tragic stories of this war are not unique to Arizona. So many of this Congress have fallen heroes from their communities and they represent those noble families who personify the sacrifice of war, but America's sons and daughters have fought so bravely in this battle, and some have died defending their homeland and to bring freedom to a people they have never met. And today, Mr. Speaker, the American flag flies at half-mast in the hearts of all of us as this Nation tearfully lays these valiant sons and daughters of freedom in the loving arms of God. Mr. Speaker, words fail me to truly express the unspeakable debt of gratitude that we all owe to these families of America who have sacrificed their own loved ones to the cause of freedom. So may I respectfully appropriate the words of Abraham Lincoln, who found himself in a similar dilemma as he sought to offer comfort in a letter to a precious mother who had lost five of her sons on the battlefield. It is my prayer, Mr. Speaker, that these words can be received into the hearts of all of those who mourn the loss of their beloved soldier this day. Mr. Lincoln wrote: ``I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming, but I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic that they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and a solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid such a costly sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, may all of us this day take poignant personal inventory of American freedom and may we never ever forget those who gave their all to pay for it.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express a deep and abiding gratitude to the families living in the second district of Arizona who have lost children in the Iraqi Conflict. They include: Carol Howland of Kingman, who lost her son James Kiehl; Sandy Watson of Peoria whose son Michael Williams was killed in action, the Piestewa family--and the entire Hopi Nation--who mourn the loss of their daughter Lori Ann. I have spoken to each, and have been inspired by their unwavering faith and enduring strength. Mr. Speaker, the tragic stories of this war are not unique to Arizona. So many Members of this Congress can recall fallen heroes from the communities they represent, and those noble families who personify the sacrifice of war. America's sons and daughters have fought bravely in this battle and some have died defending their homeland and bringing freedom to a people they have never met. Today, Mr. Speaker, the American flag flies at half-staff in all of our hearts as this Nation tearfully lays these valiant sons and daughters of freedom in the loving arms of God. Words fail me to express the unspeakable debt of gratitude owed to the families of America who have sacrificed their own loved ones for the cause of human freedom. So may I respectfully appropriate the words of Abraham Lincoln who sought to offer comfort in a letter to a precious mother who had lost five sons on the battlefield. It is my prayer that his words can be received into the hearts of all of those who mourn the loss of their beloved soldier: Mr. Lincoln wrote: ``I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.'' May all of us this day take poignant inventory of American freedom, and may we never forget those who paid for it.