Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 618.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. He and I hold a deep, common conviction that Arizona is the most important and best State in the Union, and I don't think anyone here would debate that. Mr. Speaker, last Monday, October 30, we were delivered the over- hyped ``bombshell'' story that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would introduce some damning evidence about President Trump's collusion with Russia via indictments. On Friday, October 27, someone involved in the grand jury investigation--now, don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of a grand jury is secrecy, but someone in that organization leaked information to the press, specifically CNN, with no reasonable person being able to count as a friend to the President of the United States; and it caused every political pundit in the country to begin surmising who would be the first to fall. Reporters were assigned the story, revisiting campaign notes and combing through stacks of research and fact sheets about so-called evidence of Russia collusion. Then the big reveal: Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted for crimes related to their business dealings with a Ukrainian politician clinging to power in a country undergoing a revolution, back in 2014. The FBI had been trying to indict them ever since. There was no mention of the Trump campaign, not any whatsoever in the 12-count indictment. In other words, Mr. Speaker the announcement amounted to what many have called a ``nothing burger.'' Mainstream media members, who had spent all weekend promising the viewers and their readers some new damning evidence about Trump, were aghast. Mueller had let them down. How could they face their audience now with nothing to show? But wait, another indictment snuck in in the last few hours, only a few hours later, right in the nick of time. George Papadopoulos--now, here is our guy. This is the guy. He actually went to Russia, and he proposed Trump meet with Putin. We have got him now. Well, no. It turns out Papadopoulos was an unpaid intern who possessed a background in researching Russia. When he suggested Trump meet with the Russians, he was shot down quickly and firmly. The indictment against Papadopoulos didn't even have to do with his work on the campaign. He was indicted because he had lied to the FBI--again, no collusion with the Trump campaign found whatsoever. But that didn't stop the media from sensationalizing the news. After all, they have a job to do. But the American people didn't fall for it, Mr. Speaker. The New Yorker's legal writer, Jeffrey Toobin, and the liberal vox.com have suggested Mueller seems to be conducting his investigation like he is going after a mafia mob boss. The problem with treating the Trump campaign as an organized crime organization, clearly, is it presumes Trump's guilt. No matter how well-intentioned and full of integrity Mr. Mueller might be, if he is treating Trump like Al Capone, his tactics are wrong. When trying to pursue charges on a mafia boss, the FBI pulls in the street guys, threatens them with life in jail or some other steep charge, unless they spill the beans on their superior. Once they crack, they bring in the next level, all the way to the top. This is a well- known tactic, and it incentivizes those arrested to invent some spurious testimony against their superiors. Could Mr. Mueller be acting with vengeance or to vindicate his good friend and colleague, James Comey, who had a very public feud with the President? Well, we don't know, Mr. Speaker, but it is hard to take any charges with this investigation seriously when they are going about it in this fashion. The main point is this, Mr. Speaker: at least James Comey, the media, and the Democrats desperately want collusion to exist between Trump and Russia. And when you want something that bad, you might even begin to believe it is true, even if it is not. But there is good news. Anyone sincerely looking for the drama of American officials actually colluding with the Kremlin, need look no further now than the emerging scandal concerning the sale of American uranium reserves to Russia during Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department. The FBI, in 2009, under the Obama administration, began investigating Russia's use of bribery, kickbacks, and extortion to gain a bigger foothold in the American atomic energy industry. They knew this was happening. The record is clear. Of course, Mr. Speaker, American nuclear resources are a critical component of America's national security. So any detail between Russian companies and U.S. atomic energy resources would require a signoff from the State Department. After all, Russia is a hostile foreign government. Correct? Democrats certainly seem to believe so now, even though, in past years, most of them couldn't find Russia on a map. So when Rosatom, a Russian energy group, took control of the Canadian Uranium One, which had control of mining and uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West, that deal needed U.S. State Department approval. After all, this meant that Russia, a hostile foreign power, would control 20 percent of America's uranium industry. And, of course, as Obama's FBI was investigating Russia for bribes and extortion related to atomic energy, this deal should have raised a red flag for the State Department. Vladimir Putin really wanted the deal to go through because, per The New York Times, it would allow him to realize his goal of becoming one of the world's major atomic energy players. The only thing standing in his way was Hillary Clinton's State Department. The month the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin for a ``speaking engagement'' in Moscow. Then, Mr. Speaker, Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million. Now, being under agreement to disclose all of their foundation contributions publicly, the Clintons neglected still to reveal the Uranium One donations. That is pretty convenient, Mr. Speaker. Are we paying attention here? Now, since the media seems to have an insatiable appetite for Russian collusion, let's take a look at the Uranium One deal. That is a story worth looking into, Mr. Speaker. And I would bet the biggest stake in Washington, with anyone in this place, that if a special counsel was appointed to look into it, that investigation would bring some truly legitimate results.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment of our Constitution gives us this precious freedom of speech that we so cherish in America. Contrary to heated debate and public opinion, we, in the United States, rarely face the kind of persecution that necessitated this great protection. So I rise today to shed light on the abridgement of freedom of speech that is often widely discussed, but that few Americans ever have to endure. Across the world, Mr. Speaker, individual freedom of speech is frequently infringed. A posted critique or just sharing one's views freely on the internet can be punishable, even by death. Late one evening in September, a well-known Indian journalist, Gauri Lankesh, was murdered outside her home. She was ``an anti-establishment figure with a reputation for her fearless criticism of undemocratic elements within the parties in power.'' The circumstances of her death were ``strikingly similar'' to the murders of three additional Indian activists. Just weeks ago, another of India's most prominent political journalists, Professor Kancha Ilaiah, known for critiquing India's caste social order, was threatened by a Hindu member of India's parliament. This member of parliament, who is an ally of the current BJP government, issued a statement that Kancha should be ``publicly hanged.'' Kancha subsequently received numerous death threats. These threats had a significant effect. A mob tried to attack Professor Ilaiah with stones as he and a coworker were driving to a meeting. Kancha is now under self-imposed house arrest because he is simply not safe otherwise. Was Professor Ilaiah's crime significant? Kancha was called a modern-day Dr. Ambedkar, who is known as the ``Father of the Indian Constitution,'' and Professor Ilaiah's crime was he was the author of ``Why I am Not a Hindu.'' A recent translation of his 2009 book ``Post-Hindu India'' is what seems to have sparked the threats against him. This book described the polarized context of modern-day India specifically dealing with the productivity of the Dalits and the ``low'' castes and the seeming spiritual and monetary monopoly of the ``higher'' castes. These critiques became even more relevant in India's growing agrarian crisis, the resulting farmer suicides due to hopelessness, and the massive joblessness due to demonetization and economic slowdown. Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to state unequivocally that the United States and the entire global community is, and should be, deeply concerned about this threat to the life of Professor Kancha Ilaiah, one of the world's well- known intellectuals. Our trusted ally and friend, India, is better than this, Mr. Speaker. Professor Kancha Ilaiah's right and freedom to speak should not be infringed; and his protection, and that of those like him, should be of the utmost priority to the Indian Government. I am able to express freely this viewpoint because we have freedom of speech in the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. May we remember at what cost and for what purpose we were given this priceless freedom.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that yesterday this Chamber passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or Micah's Law. I am especially grateful to everyone who actually voted for it and had the courage and the humanity to do so. In the years to come, no matter what else they do in this Chamber, I believe they will look back on that day as a day they stood for those who cannot protect themselves, for the least of their little brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, it was just over 4 years ago that one Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a mother and murdering innocent late-term, pain- capable babies in his grisly torture chamber clinic even after they were born. When authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Gosnell, they found a torture chamber for little babies that defies description within the constraints of the English language. According to the grand jury report: ``Dr. Kermit Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies: he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it `ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called it `snipping.' Over the years, there were hundreds of `snippings.''' Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell's employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as 2-feet long that no longer had eyes or a mouth, but, in her words, was making like this screeching noise, and it ``sounded like a little alien.'' For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, this can't be America. Kermit Gosnell now rightfully sits in prison for killing a mother and murdering innocent children just like the one I just described. And yet there was and still is no Federal protection for any of them, and if he had killed these pain-capable babies only 5 minutes earlier and before they had passed through the birth canal, it would have all been perfectly legal in many of these United States of America. Now, supporters of abortion on demand have tried for decades to deny that unborn babies ever feel pain, even those, they say, at the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops the very second the child is born. Now that we have passed Micah's Law, Mr. Speaker, voices who have long hailed the merciless killing of these little ones as freedom of choice, freedom will now grow louder than ever, especially the ones who profit from it most. I pray when Senators hear those voices, they will search their own souls and remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln when he said: ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it.'' Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln called upon us to remember that magnificent declaration of America's Founding Fathers, and said: `` . . . their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the word to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.'' He reminded those he called posterity, that when in the distant future some men, some factions, some interests should set up a doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that ``their posterity''--that is us, Mr. Speaker--``might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their Fathers began.'' Wow. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to these little babies is real, and all of us here know that in our own hearts. So let me close with a final wise counsel from Abraham Lincoln, who stood so strongly for human dignity, and it desperately applies to all of us in this moment. He said: ``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered, in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation.'' Mr. Speaker, what if the words of the American Declaration of Independence really are true? What if there really is a creator? And what if these little pain-capable human beings really are his children?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, for the sake of all of those who founded this Nation and dreamed of what America could someday be, and for the sake of all of those since then who have died in darkness so that all of us as Americans could walk in the light of freedom in this moment, it is so very important that those of us who are privileged to be Members of this United States Congress pause from time to time and remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation, said: ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.'' The phrase in the Fifth Amendment encapsulates our entire Constitution. It says, no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' The 14th Amendment says, no State shall ``deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of all innocent Americans and their constitutional rights is why we are really all here, and yet today a great and tragic shadow looms over America. More than 18,000 very-late-term abortions are occurring in America every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and subjecting their little, pain-capable unborn babies to torture and death without anesthesia or Federal protection of any kind; this in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is the greatest and most insidious human rights atrocity in the United States today. Almost every other major civilized nation on Earth protects pain- capable unborn babies at this age, and every credible poll of the American people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting them, and yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act. Madam Speaker, it seems like we are never quite so eloquent as when we decry the crimes of a past generation. And how is it that sometimes we are so staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the worst atrocities in our own time? Today, Madam Speaker, I am especially thankful, because the winds of change are now beginning to blow and the tide of blindness and blood is finally turning in America. There is a new leader who lives in the White House, and he is deeply committed to protecting the least of these, our little brothers and sisters. Madam Speaker, today we are poised to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in this Chamber. No matter how it is shouted down or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs, distractions, divisions, gotchas, twisting of words, twisting of subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill and its supporters, this bill is a deeply sincere effort, beginning at their sixth month of pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand, and ultimately it is a bill all humane Americans will support if they truly understand it for themselves. Madam Speaker, this will be a vote that all of us remember for the rest of our lives. It will be a time now for the U.S. Senate to find the courage and humanity to take a stand for these, the most helpless of all human victims. The Senate's action will be considered in the annals of history and, I believe, in the counsels of eternity itself. Madam Speaker, passing this bill really shouldn't be so hard because, in spite of all the political noise, protecting little pain-capable, unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue and it is not a Democratic issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family. It is time for the Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate to open our eyes and our souls and remember that protecting those who cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here. It is time for us, all of us as Americans, Madam Speaker, to open our eyes and our hearts to the humanity of these little pain-capable children of God and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I simply say that sometimes I think we kind of get caught up in things and we grow used to something that otherwise would horrify us. Before the sun set this evening, we saw 3,000 unborn little Americans die a tragic and lonely death. That is in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Mr. Speaker, each time that took place, not only did a nameless little baby die a lonely and tragic death, but the mother was never the same again. All the gifts that that child might have brought to this world are now lost forever. So, Mr. Speaker, I pray that somehow in this debate we would put aside which people are right and ask: What is the right thing for America? The very creed of this country is the notion that all of us have the Imago Dei, or the image of God, stamped on our souls. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, then there is a far greater question here than we can ever imagine. Mr. Speaker, I think if we ask ourselves the truest and deepest question, then perhaps we will begin to see the winds of change begin to blow in this country. That is very simply without all of the rationalization, without all of the gotchas and the what-ifs and the avoiding of the subject, and if we just ask ourselves one basic question: Does abortion kill a little baby? If it does not, Mr. Speaker, then I sincerely am one that can get up out of this Chamber and never speak of it again. But if abortion really does kill a little human child, then those of us standing here in the seat of freedom, the greatest Nation in the history of the world, also stand here in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of the human family. Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are called to do in this world, as the greatest Nation that ever had the chance to exist on this Earth. Mr. Speaker, I hope that, as we debate the bill tomorrow, we can put aside anything but the truth and just examine in our own hearts who we really are. If we do that, I believe we will pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on October 3, 2017. By the grace of God, it will go over to the Senate and they will find a way to bring this bill to the floor and send it to President Trump, who I have every conviction will sign the bill, and for which I am very grateful. Mr. Speaker, God bless America, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Banks very much for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Texas very much for speaking on the floor tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very sincerely for his remarks. I am glad he came this way here recently. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. It is now my honor to yield to the honorable gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my very good friend.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I so sincerely thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my precious friend.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson.) I am very grateful that you are here tonight, sir.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House of Representatives will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and before that occurs, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and just remind all of us that the United States of America is, indeed, a unique nation that is premised on the foundation that we are all created equal and that each of us is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to live. But 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, numerous video recordings were released that incontrovertibly documented corporate officers and employees of Planned Parenthood casually discussing their rampant practice of harvesting and selling the little body parts from many of the hundreds of thousands of innocent babies they are guilty of killing in their abortion clinics across this Nation every year. Now, these videos irrefutably reveal officers of Planned Parenthood haggling over the price of these little organs and body parts and casually describing ways of killing these little babies, often using much more painful methods, like partial-birth abortion, to make sure that the saleable organs of these little babies remained undamaged. One of these videos described an incident where one of Planned Parenthood's employees calls one of the younger employees over to witness something that was ``kind of cool;'' that one of those baby's hearts was still beating. The older employee said: ``Okay. This is really a good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We are going to procure a brain.'' Then, using scissors, together the two employees, starting at the baby's chin, cut upward through the center of this child's face and then pulled out the baby's little brain and placed it in a container where it could later be sold. Mr. Speaker, I find it so crushingly sad that the only time this little baby was ever held by anyone in his very short life was by those who cut his face open to take his brain. Have we forgotten that, not so long ago, authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and there they found a torture chamber for little babies that defies, within the constraints of the English language, any description. The grand jury, at that time, reported: ``Dr. Kermit Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it ensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called it snipping. Over the years, there were hundreds of snippings.'' Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell's employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as 2 feet long, that no longer had eyes or a mouth, but were, in her words, making like, this ``screeching noise.'' And she said it ``sounded like a little alien.'' For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, this can't be who we truly are. The fact is that more than 18,000 late-term, pain-capable, unborn children were torturously killed, without anesthesia, in America in just the last year. Many of them cried and screamed as they died, but because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords, we couldn't hear them. It is the worst human rights atrocity in the United States of America. Now, I know that many of those on this floor and the American media will hold to the standard line and try to cloak all of this in the name of freedom of choice; but I would beg them, Mr. Speaker, to open their hearts and ask themselves what is so liberating about brutally and painfully dismembering living, helpless little human babies. In spite of all the political noise, protecting these little, helpless, pain-capable, unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue, and it is not a Democrat issue. It is a basic test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family. Mr. Speaker, the sands of time should blow over this Capitol dome before we ever give Planned Parenthood one more dime of taxpayer money. And in the name of humanity, Democrat Senators should not be allowed to filibuster the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the Senate because passing it would prevent the vast majority of these ongoing evil acts of torture against helpless, little, pain-capable human babies that these videos have now shown so clearly to the entire world. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the greatest pro-life champions in the history of the United States and a precious friend.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), and I thank him for coming to the floor tonight.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 445, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 446, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 447, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 448. Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I think I would just say that the opponents to missile defense, especially to space-based missile defense, have hilariously overstated the cost of this system. A regionally deployed system would cost in the range of $20 billion over 30 years, and the cost would go down, as launch costs often do. It is important to keep in mind that when two airplanes hit two buildings, it cost us $2 trillion. What would that cost have been like if it had been a nuclear warhead that hit New York? I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we do all that we possibly can to make sure that that does not indeed occur. I don't know what price we put on national security, but the systems that we are talking about, our GMD system--our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system--was just tested against an ICBM target recently, and it was successful. We have had 14 out of 14 successful tests with our THAAD system--our Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The technology has been proven time and again. We should not undersell the United States of America. We can build the system. We will build it. It will help us get to the left of the launch. It will help us to be able to have a boost-phase defense against missiles when they are in their most vulnerable position and over enemy territory. This is vital for the American national security, for our future, for our children, and for our children's children. I would hope that we would defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the space-based missile defense layer that we debate today will be one of the most significant technological advancements in our missile defense capability since Ronald Reagan first brought this possibility to the Nation. Mr. Foster's amendment would prevent the next revolution in missile defense as we seek to expand our umbrella protection into space, the ultimate high ground. Mr. Speaker, the most critical priority of this Congress is the defense of the Nation. If we fail that task, little else we might do will be of any consequence. To prohibit the development of the next generation missile defense capabilities because other countries will object is to grant our potential adversaries a veto over our national security. Mr. Foster's amendment would do just that. It should be noted that every significant missile defense milestone ever achieved by this Nation has been over the objections of gentlemen like Mr. Foster and his supporters. They have been wrong about missile defense for decades, and they have a consistent record of demonstrably bad judgment on this issue. They have imposed their philosophy on the science and physics involved. Theirs is a broken record which began playing back in the 1970s. If we had listened to them, we would have no missile defense today and we would all be completely vulnerable to the likes of North Korea. The reason it was called Star Wars was because they derisively renamed Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative to Star Wars and said it was impossible because it would be hitting a bullet with a bullet. But, Mr. Chairman, today we not only hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet. The technology is here. We have demonstrated it time and time again. It is important to defeat this amendment for the sake of the Constitution, for the sake of the United States of America.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 415. personal explanation

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

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