Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits FY13 NNSA nonproliferation activities with Russia until the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretaries of State and Defense, can certify two things: first, that Russia is no longer providing support to the Assad regime's efforts to suppress the Syrian people; and, second, that Russia is not providing technology or equipment to Iran, North Korea, or Syria that contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Chairman, this NNSA program for years has been an effort on our part to assist Russia to secure potential lost nuclear weapons and to help them be able to store and deal with some of the nuclear materials that they may have difficulty doing. But it's come to a point now where we have reached what I consider almost like a schizophrenic relationship here where we are funding Russia's own responsibility to deal with some of their older nuclear technology while allowing them to free up funds to spend on new nuclear technology which they sell to some of our enemies. Mr. Chairman, that's not keeping faith with the American people. It's not keeping faith with the cause of human peace in the world. And, Mr. Chairman, we need to send Russia a message that we are committed to making sure that we don't arm our enemies and we don't support brutal regimes that suppress innocent people trying to fight for freedom in the world. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does have two waivers that allow the NNSA to finish current activities due to be completed in fiscal year 2013 or to allow an activity to continue, if the Secretary of Energy believes it's in the national security interest of the United States to do so. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, this is something that we need to pass, and I would hope that my colleagues would support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that when we are working with what was once the Soviet Union--now Russia--to try to prevent nonproliferation, and we supplied the money to help them prevent proliferation in the world of nuclear weapons while at the same time they are taking that exact same technology and giving it or selling it at great profit many times to our enemies, it just is an example of national cognitive dissonance, and it is something that we should change as quickly as we can. Russia is one of Syria's main arms suppliers, having supplied an estimated $1 billion worth of arms, including surface-to-air missiles in 2011. It represents a challenge to peace in the region. And, Mr. Chairman, we simply have no business continuing to subsidize them if we're suggesting that we are trying to prevent proliferation while subsidizing their proliferation. I would just urge the passage of this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we should remember as a Nation that there was a time when we were the only country on Earth that had nuclear weapons capability. But that fell into foreign hands and the arms race was born. We should also remember that there was a time when we produced almost all of our uranium needs for our nuclear power plants. Today, we import over 90 percent of that. Mr. Chairman, both in terms of national security and in terms of not letting a foreign entity have leverage over our nuclear Navy capability and our nuclear arms capability, I believe that we should not pass this amendment and change this language, because it's important that we maintain both our security and our ability to produce our needed uranium fuel and highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at home.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 250. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 251. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 252.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I believe it's important, first of all, in this challenge that we have with our Federal budget, to realize that all budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come to balance. They either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic failure. The fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they came into office. Mr. Speaker, the result is that we have more people living in poverty under this administration than ever before. So there is something wrong with the equation. Now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill, it's clear to me that Republicans and Democrats have a very fundamental, philosophical difference over whether or not we should take steps to reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the arbitrary and inflexible automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect next year. Republicans propose to reduce the deficit and avoid the automatic sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government spending, and curbing fraud in government programs in general. The President, on the other hand, has proposed raising taxes on the American people and American families and businesses, while at the same time increasing Federal Government spending. I cannot think of a more stark contrast, Mr. Speaker. My friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this reconciliation bill beyond recognition. The fact, however, remains that this bill reduces the deficit--not by some parade of horribles, but by stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative programs, and controlling runaway Federal spending. It does so while preventing devastating defense cuts that the Obama administration's own Defense Department has called ``unacceptable.'' And it does so by making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the President's own budget claimed will ``inflict great damage on critical domestic priorities'' do not go unaddressed. As part of the reconciliation process, the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system to rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and affordable to all Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Judiciary Committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit by more than $48 billion the very first year and beyond. The simple fact is that frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of medicine in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from high-risk medical specialties, and causes the vast majority of health care providers to practice defensive medicine. Studies indicate that the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is between $230 billion and $650 billion annually. The Judiciary Committee's proposal helps to eliminate the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse. Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this reconciliation package so that we can both reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the draconian sequestration of Defense Department funding that threatens serious harm to our national security. Mr. Speaker, just a word on our national security. There is no more important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are doing everything to be productive in a secure environment. If our national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing its own economic obituary. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 236, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 152, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, I just rise in strong support of this very commonsense amendment by my friend, Mr. Stearns from Florida. This amendment is to provide liability protection to health care workers who volunteer to help in disaster response for their fellow human beings. Madam Chair, rescue efforts often can be chaotic; and without the help of volunteers, government Agencies cannot always help everyone effectively. Many State tort laws, including those of Louisiana, the State hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina, are unclear in regards to who is covered under State Good Samaritan protections. Madam Chair, this is a country of Good Samaritans. We should encourage our fellow human beings to help their fellow human beings and not offer impediments to them. I think this amendment does that, and I support it with the strongest conviction.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92 I was in TS briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, at no other point in recent history has it been more crucial for Congress to take action on international religious freedom. I would like to deeply thank my colleagues, Congressmen Joe Pitts and Keith Ellison, for sponsoring H. Res. 556 that addresses religious freedom in Iran. These vital issues deserve our immediate attention as we see religious persecution escalate internationally: in Iraq, for instance, Assyrian Christians were brutally murdered in their church and continue to be directly targeted by terrorist organizations; some have even been attacked and murdered on their own front doorstep. In China, thousands of Christians and Falun Gong practitioners are forced into re-education through labor camps while the lawyers that try to defend them are often imprisoned. Uygur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists are targeted as separatists because of their faith. Mr. Speaker, commitment to religious freedom is not just for one faith community but for people of all confessions throughout the world and across political lines. Religious freedom is not only for Americans or Christians or Republicans or Democrats, it is a sacred right for all humanity. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, of which Iran is a signatory, allows for the ``right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'' and this right includes the freedom to change religion or belief. I would like to note that Pastor Yousef was imprisoned and charged with apostasy in direct violation with the international standards that Iran had accepted. The fundamental right of religious freedom, furthermore, is enshrined in Iran's Constitution in Articles 13, 14, and 23. Mr. Speaker, the Pitts-Ellison resolution condemns the Iranian government, one of the most horrific perpetrators of religious freedom violations, for its repression of religious minorities. It focuses, in particular, on the case of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, a Christian with the Church of Iran denomination, who faces imminent execution for his faith. Pastor Yousef's arrest and imprisonment resulted from questioning the mandate from the government of Iran that all school children be taught Islamic teachings. Mr. Speaker, one of the most precious rights parents can have is having the freedom to educate their own children and bring up their children the way they believe is best for their family. Pastor Yousef was not given this foundational right to instill in his children a respect for freedom of religion and conscience. As the author of The Children's Hope Act, I know how critical it is for parents to make their own independent decisions about the education of their children. No parent should have to face death, as is the situation for Pastor Yousef, just for asking his government to grant him freedom of religion, even if that freedom of religion was narrowly defined to the freedom to educate and practice his faith in his own home. Mr. Speaker, the case of Pastor Yousef is only one of many other deplorable religious freedom cases in Iran. A close personal friend of Pastor Yousef and a member of the Council of Elders for the Church of Iran described the egregious situation for Christians in the Middle East as strikingly similar to ``the final decision in Germany,'' when the Nazis religiously and racially ``cleansed'' German society of the Jews. This elder ended by saying that the ``international reaction [to the religious cleansing in the Middle East] is also like the time of Hitler. They waited and didn't react until it was too late.'' In Iran, at least 285 Christians were arrested during the first half of 2011 without reaction. Mr. Speaker, one such case of the silently persecuted is Masoud Delijani, a school teacher in Kermanshah, Iran, who was arrested by plain clothes intelligence officers in March 2011. He was arrested, together with his wife and nine other Christian converts, when they had gathered in a house church for a service. He was held in solitary confinement and was severely pressured both mentally and physically. The court eventually charged him with having faith in Christianity and for holding illegal house church gatherings. Mr. Speaker, the Revolutionary Court of Kermanshah province recently sentenced Masoud Delijani to three years in prison. Sources report that his trial was anything but fair: he was denied the right to choose his own advocate or defend himself against the charges levied. Masoud Delijani is now being held in Deizal-Abad prison of Kermanshah to serve his three-year prison sentence. The central prison of Kermanshah is described as horrendous and sickening by knowledgeable sources. Mr. Speaker, the cases described above would largely go unnoticed and the persecuted would be forced to suffer if we are silent. Given our own freedoms in America and the responsibility to represent the concerns of our constituents who are concerned with the suffering of persons and families abroad, I believe we have a personal responsibility to stand up for justice and support those who are persecuted. I would also urge other world leaders to not wait to speak out on behalf of Pastor Yousef and his universal right of religious freedom until it is too late. Mr. Speaker, Alexander Hamilton, one of the architects of our Republic, said, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.'' Mr. Speaker, may the right of religious freedom touch those around the world and persons of all faiths, and may future generations walk in the sunlight of that most inalienable and universal freedom.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 15, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Deutch

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, it's hard to add to all of the things that have been said today about Gabe Zimmerman, but I identify with each one of them. I would simply say to you, though, that I never met Gabe. I did have the privilege to meet his lovely, precious family, and it was clear to me that everyone who knew Gabe loved him. If they knew him well, they loved him more. His selfless spirit of service is an inspiration to all of us, and it's also a reminder of how short our time here may be. So, Madam Speaker, I just want to suggest to you that everyone in this place should embrace this resolution because it is a testament to the noble dedication of a young congressional staffer who lost his life in the service of his country. I had the privilege of being there when this room was dedicated to him, so I hope that all of us can embrace this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to honor Gabe Zimmerman and the legacy of service that he left behind.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. The choice faced by those of us in Congress is whether we will balance this budget ourselves through the wise policy before us or whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us. From the very day that Barack Obama walked into the White House, he has, with breathtaking arrogance, absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the first 3 years of his Presidency. He has in those short 3 years increased our Federal debt by over $4 trillion. Just to put that into perspective, if all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this Chamber and if we stopped all deficit spending today and began to pay installments of $1 million every day to pay down the over $4 trillion in new debt that Barack Obama has created in less than 3 years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay that off--and that's if we didn't pay one dime of interest in the process. But you see, we are not paying Mr. Obama's debt down at $1 million per day; we are going deeper into debt, more than 4,000 times that much, every day under Mr. Obama's own submitted budget and deficit projections. In an ominous prologue to the vote before us, the national debt surpassed $15 trillion yesterday. Mr. Speaker, we have already tried Mr. Obama's way. We have thoroughly tested Democrat economics 101--the theory that we can tax and deficit spend ourselves into prosperity or, as Vice President Biden put it, ``We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.'' That theory has utterly failed. We cannot repeal the laws of mathematics. But now the seminal moment approaches when each of us in this body will have the rare opportunity to cast a single vote that could pull this Nation back from the brink of economic cataclysm. For the sake of our children and our children's children, I pray that we do the right thing. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the chairman. Madam Chair, H.R. 822, initially introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina and supported by more than half of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, would allow people with a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun in any other State that permits concealed carry. This is a policy akin to allowing licensed drivers from one State to drive their car in another State so long as they obey the local laws. Madam Chair, clearly the constitutional right to defend oneself and one's family should not be limited to only when you are at home. Criminals have always preferred unarmed victims. Conversely, law- abiding citizens capable of defending themselves and their fellow citizens demonstrably save innocent lives. To give one of countless examples, in 2007, a man in Colorado named Matthew Murray wrote online: ``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.'' Murray then went on a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside Denver; and then at a gathering of over 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by Jeanne Assam, a church member and volunteer security guard who once worked in law enforcement and who had a concealed-carry permit. Apart from this armed hero's actions, many more innocent citizens would have died that day. H.R. 822 includes a number of provisions intended to retain the States' ability to regulate firearm use in their own States and increase public safety. Nothing in the bill affects a State's ability to set the eligibility requirements for its own residents, nor does it affect any State laws or regulations regarding how, when, or where concealed firearms can be carried. It also requires people who want to take advantage of the Federal grant of reciprocity to be properly permitted or licensed by a State to carry a concealed weapon and to be able to produce both the permit or license and a government-issued identification document. To reiterate Chairman Smith's comments, studies have shown that concealed-carry laws are very good public policy for our country. Madam Chair, the NRA has estimated, based on FBI crime report data, that right-to-carry States, which widely allow concealed-carry, have 22 percent lower violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, and 46 percent lower robbery rates than States that prohibit or greatly restrict concealed-carry. H.R. 822 will help further extend this trend. With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I just would suggest to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, that he is correct, one cannot compare this strictly with people and driver's licenses. The fact is, first of all, driving a car is not a fundamental right to defense as enshrined in our Constitution. Secondly, cars kill many more people than guns. And, third, we don't usually defend ourselves with cars.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, many points have been made about discriminatory taxes and their impact on businesses and individuals. For all the reasons that were so eloquently put forth by the gentlelady from California, we would urge the support of this legislation, and I would again thank the gentlelady for her tremendous effort in this area and on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1002, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1002) to restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property, as amended.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Congresswoman Lofgren and I introduced H.R. 1002 with the broad bipartisan support of 144 original cosponsors. We now have 236 cosponsors, and I want to thank Ms. Lofgren for her hard work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, access to wireless networks represents a key component of millions of Americans' livelihoods, providing the efficient communication capabilities, whether by phone, broadband Internet or otherwise, necessary to run a successful business. The exorbitant discriminatory taxes on wireless customers are not only unfair, they are counterintuitive, adding yet another costly impediment to the success of so many American businesses who are struggling in the midst of a prolonged recession and an already hefty tax burden. Low-income and senior Americans who frequently rely on wireless service as their sole means of telephone and Internet access also bear the brunt of this discriminatory tax's impact. H.R. 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, provides a balanced approach that protects the revenue needs of States and localities, while allowing for a 5-year hiatus on new discriminatory wireless taxes, encouraging States and localities to develop a national tax regime that maintains the affordability of a wireless service. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this constitutionally sound, pro-consumer bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, Mr. Coble.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. I know that down through the ages there has been this great question that has occurred to mankind, and it is a similar one: Is God God or is man God? In God do we trust or in man do we trust? I would submit to you that the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is one of profound significance. Indeed, Christopher Columbus trusted in God, and his service to God was to go out and search the world to find ways to do things that would honor God, and he ran into this place called America. Indeed, those who were colonists that first came to America came here because they wanted to worship God; they wanted to find a way to honor God. Indeed, the Founding Fathers that started this country did so in the name of God. So their trust in God has had a profound impact on those of us that live in this day. And I would submit to you that if we answer the question the other way, if man is God, then an atheist state is as brutal as the thesis that it rests upon and there is no longer any reason for us to gather here in this place. We should just let anarchy prevail because, after all, we are just worm food. So indeed we have the time to reaffirm that God is God and in God do we trust.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first let me just congratulate Mr. Gosar on the introduction and passage of this legislation. He has done an amazing job in helping this legislation get to where it is now, and I have every confidence that he will see it through to the end. Mr. Chairman, according to a United States Geological Survey report, the United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's copper demand. And in 2010 alone, domestic copper production decreased by another 5 percent; it decreased by another 5 percent. And just as relying on foreign oil imports threatens national security, relying on foreign copper suppliers also threatens U.S. industry. We must use domestic resources to meet that growing demand; and this legislation is a major step in the right direction, producing enough copper to meet as much as 25 percent of America's current demand. The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act would open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, creating new American jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals, and generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue. Now, in the midst of a prolonged recession, Mr. Chairman, that has hit Arizona very hard, we really cannot afford not to pass this legislation because it so uniformly benefits our labor force, our State and local governments and conservationists who would benefit from much of the high-value land exchange in opening this land to mining. I would just encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. It's time that America begins to produce our own energy and our own minerals and to get back on track to being the greatest Nation in the history of the world.