Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, three years after the U.S. Congress passed a resolution officially recognizing the genocide in Darfur, the crisis continues today unabated. We continue to hear credible reports of armed attacks on aid workers, food convoys, and civilians by the government-supported Janjaweed militia. While assistance from UN troops is critical given the limited African Union resources, President Bashir has prevented such assistance from taking place. Madam Speaker, with 2.5 million people murdered in Southern Sudan, 450,000 killed in the Darfur region, 35,000 women and children enslaved, more than 270,000 refugees, and four million people internally displaced as a result of the policy of genocide, the regime of President Bashir must be held accountable. As we commemorate the third anniversary of this resolution, let us not forget that this crisis is only part of a larger policy of the government led by Omar al Bashir that has been ongoing for over twenty years. This policy of arabization and islamization began with the Bashir government's war against the people of the South, which spread into Darfur, and is now moving into the Nuba Mountains. Madam Speaker, the Bashir government has shown blatant disregard for implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which ended their civil war against the South, providing only more evidence that they do not take peace seriously and cannot be negotiated with. If the CPA fails, I have no doubt that the Bashir government will not only completely wipe out the people of Darfur, but every other part of Sudan that does not fit into their racist and inhuman agenda for the country. Madam Speaker, this corrupt and merciless regime has absolutely no regard for the intrinsic value of innocent human life, and it must be held to account if there is to be any hope for lasting peace in Sudan. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Government has taken the leading role in resolving the conflict in Sudan, from negotiating the end of the civil war to providing more humanitarian aid than any other country, and calling the international community to seriously address the genocide in Darfur. However, without support from China which now has significant oil interests in Sudan, and from other UN and Arab League member states that refuse to hold Bashir responsible for his policies of genocide, the crisis cannot be resolved. Today, Madam Speaker, as we once again commemorate the resolution declaring the horrific atrocities continuing to occur in Sudan, may we resolve to do everything in our ability to hasten the day when the sunlight of freedom shines on every one of those precious human souls.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, abortion on demand in America is the greatest single cause of death in our Nation's history. We have killed nearly 50 million of our own unborn children since the criminal Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. That is 15,000 times the number of lives lost in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Planned Parenthood is the foremost promoter and provider of abortion on demand for any reason or no reason. In the last fiscal year, this government appropriated more than $300 million to this death dealing organization. Madam Chairman, it has been said that a government is what it spends. For this government to appropriate one penny of the taxpayers' money to an organization that kills unborn children and emotionally impoverishes their mothers is a disgrace that undermines the core essence of the United States of America and betrays everything that our soldiers lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died to preserve. And Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to find the courage to vote for the Pence amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, just today, while debating this new Iraq withdrawal bill, reports continue to surface that al Qaeda is now restructuring its power. Like several other recent actions on the part of Democrats recently, this bill communicates to jihadist enemies that we are weakening and confirms their belief that they have a critical advantage over free people in the world because their will is far stronger than ours and they need only to persevere to break our resolve. Osama bin Laden himself has stated, ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' Mr. Speaker, if Democrats continue to insist that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then I wish they would explain that to the terrorists because they still don't understand, and they are continuing to be fundamentally committed to the destruction of the Western world and to killing us wherever they find us. Mr. Speaker, the premise behind this bill is that we can have peace tomorrow so long as we are willing to surrender today. Unfortunately, with jihadist terrorism, just the opposite is true. If we surrender to terrorism today, it will only bring greater horror and suffering to all of humanity tomorrow. So vital questions arise to those who would continue to demand that we surrender Iraq to terrorists. Are they also willing to allow the citizens and families of this Nation to face jihad and what may become a nuclear jihad here at home? And what will we tell our children when that day comes? Mr. Speaker, defeating radical jihad in Iraq and throughout the world will require the support, perseverance, patience, wisdom and prayers of the American people. But for the sake of those people and for our children, for our future generation and for people across the world who still hope for freedom, I pray that the Members of this body would heed that warning echoing down through history. There is no substitute for victory.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see a subject touched on here and would hope that Chairman Obey would be aware that under the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill for 2008, $200 million of the $1.3 billion military assistance for Egypt will be withheld until the Secretary of State certifies that the Government of Egypt has taken concrete steps to reform its judiciary, to curb police abuses and address concerns about the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza. I strongly support this provision, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to request that an additional provision, if the chairman would consider it at some point, be added to ensure that the Government of Egypt also increase protections for human rights according to Egypt's own international human rights commitments, including the religious freedom of members of religious minorities, such as the Coptic Christians and Baha'is, among others. I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the committee would be so inclined at some point, if we could work with him in any way.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, in an age of sophisticated missile development and rampant nuclear proliferation, the United States must continue to invest its attention and resources in developing and fielding defenses to stay ahead of the ominous threat of ballistic missiles. It is critical that the United States continue to work with our friends and allies who wish to cooperate in our mission to develop a robust ballistic missile defense against our common enemies. The United States is currently working with NATO and negotiating with European countries about the possibility of placing a ballistic missile interceptor site in Europe. This is an example of a missile defense opportunity that could offer protection for the U.S. homeland and our European friends from a perilous threat that we share, ballistic missiles potentially carrying nuclear warheads, being launched from rogue nations such as Iran. Mr. Chairman, incidentally, Iran is projected to have missiles capable of reaching the United States homeland within 7 years. As it currently stands, this bill prohibits funds made available under the NATO Security Investment Program from being obligated or expended to conduct studies on missile defense. My amendment would strike this section. Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the current debate regarding the need for greater international support of missile defense, we must not arbitrarily prevent our allies from joining with us to pursue these vital and common goals. For the sake of defending our cities and our freedom, I encourage our colleagues to support our Nation's policy to build a robust, layered ballistic missile defense; to support our allies against common threats; and to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would only add that it is vitally important from our perspective that NATO countries be encouraged to cooperate with the things that we're doing there and some of the countries that we're working with for the European missile site. We understand that everything you said is correct. We also believe that it doesn't make sense to single out missile defense as the only study that would be prohibited under this section. And there may come a day when we will have to apologize to the American public for putting so much emphasis on building expensive missile defense capabilities, and if that happens, I will be willing to stand here and do that, but it would be far harder for me to apologize to the American people for failing to do everything that we could on every front to protect the homeland and our European allies and our soldiers and warfighters abroad from the most dangerous offensive weapons that have ever come upon humanity. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to speak in favor of the gentlelady's amendment. Mr. Chairman, Fred Bastiat said in the dawn of this Republic that government is that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. I am not sure if there are too many subjects other than earmark transparency being debated here today that hold more relevance to such a comment, and I am afraid that Members of both parties are unwilling to admit that. It is critically important that we do because it comes down to the very core of who we are as Americans and whether or not we are still capable of self-governance, and whether or not we will allow the fabric of liberty that has been so carefully woven throughout the years to be torn asunder while we all stand by and watch. So to that end, Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members of this body of some of the promises made by those in the majority only a few short months ago. One prominent Member said explicitly, ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks.'' Another said, ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night. We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on.'' Of course this was after campaigning on the pledge to, quote, ``make this House the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.'' But, Mr. Chairman, these promises, though unequivocally made, have been unequivocally broken. Reforms designed to ensure openness, transparency and accountability have been trampled underfoot by the very Members who so vocally called for their enactment. We saw this most egregiously in March of this year with the emergency supplemental legislation, when funds were desperately needed to provide for our men and women in uniform and instead they were laden with $21 billion in irrelevant pork-barrel spending. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are seeing it again today in this capricious decision to blatantly shut the American public out of one of the most important and necessary duties of this House and our representative form of government, that of allocating taxpayer funds for the general good of the American people. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has arbitrarily decided that a few select Members of Congress are more capable of ascertaining the public good than the public is itself. Their actions imply that these Members should be allowed, behind closed doors, to decide where tax dollars are spent without being indebted in any way to the collective intelligence and scrutiny of the general public, the press, the media, the blogosphere, and the American people themselves, of course, who are given the charge to keep their elected Representatives accountable. Mr. Chairman, in any other case, this would be called an oligarchy, the bureaucratic rule of the few over the many. It was this very arbitrary confiscation of power that once caused our Nation's founders to throw off the yoke of the Crown of England. A single glance at the footnotes of history demonstrates clearly that breaching that dam sets up a dangerous and degenerative historical precedent. James Madison in the Federalist Papers presaged this misappropriation of power that we are witnessing today when he said it this way: ``The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality. Yet there is no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to recall our commitment to God and the people we serve, to preserve the rules of justice. Hidden slush funds, overseen by a very few people in the dark of night, that is not justice, Mr. Chairman. Camouflaged tax increases that could be the largest in history, that is not justice. We come here in a moment of contention, but we can turn that moment of contention into a time to restore the transparency and accountability to this appropriations process, and I hope we do that, Mr. Chairman. I hope we vote for the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, according to Secretary of Defense Gates, Iranian weapons have begun to flow into Afghanistan in recent months. We know this much for certain. What we do not know is if indeed this is an official sanction of the Iranian government. However, some in the intelligence community believe that this effort is on the part of a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are responsible for shipping these deadly weapons to the Taliban. If this is true, Mr. Chairman, the implications must be realized by this Congress, because it means that Shiite Iran is disregarding sectarian differences with Sunni Taliban in order to unite with them in an effort to undermine U.S. efforts for peace in the nascent democratic Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, this means that the nation of Iran is determined to back non-state Muslim militants to terrorize countries who desire peace, tolerance and stability. We saw them do this last year in Lebanon through their proxy Hezbollah against the nation of Israel. We now see this happening in Iraq as well. There are two major elements, Mr. Chairman, when we consider the danger of an enemy to this Nation. We first have to assess their intention or the will of an enemy to harm the U.S. or our allies. It is clear that the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and groups like them hate governments like ours that uphold the rule of law and uphold the effort to protect freedom of action, thought and religion. They hate the United States because of this, Mr. Chairman. They hate a tolerant Europe, they hate the new democratic Afghanistan, they hate pluralistic Israel and they hate Lebanon. They have an insidious and determined will to tyrannize. They need only the means or the capacity to bring that hate to fruition. Mr. Chairman, this is the second element. A true threat exists to this Nation's freedom when those who are committed to tyranny and to disrupt peace are met with the means and the capacity to do so. Iran is providing the means to non-state terrorist actors who possess the will to use them. We must not let this continue. My amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense provide Congress with a semiannual report that informs us of the Iranian-made weapons being provided to the Taliban, and any evidence that the sale is endorsed by the government of Iran. Mr. Chairman, it is vital that this body understands the intention of Iran because they may some day very soon possess a very frightening capacity that threatens the potential future of the world and the peace of free people across the world. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I would now like to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As usual, he's always more kind than he should be. Mr. Speaker, today, as we embrace the grave responsibility of discussing an issue that will have a profound impact on future American generations, it seems very appropriate to remind ourselves of the ideal that gave birth to the United States in the very first place. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It puts us all on even ground, Mr. Speaker, but, whether we realize it or not, most of the important discussions in this Chamber, including the one in this moment, center around whether we still believe those words. In these hours, America finds herself at war with an inexpressibly dangerous ideology that is the antithesis of those words and everything that is the American ideal. What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a war between an ideology that is committed to the death and destruction of freedom and the subjugation of the entire world and is one waged against the world's free people who still remain primarily asleep. Mr. Speaker, this ideological war did not begin on 9/11. It began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die. It was called then, as it should be now, Jihad. This is the same Jihadist ideology that murdered Israeli athletes in 1972; that took American hostages in Iran; that murdered Marines in their barracks in 1983; that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar towers in 1996, the embassy in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; and that brutally murdered scores of little children on their opening day of school in Beslan, Russia. And then, Mr. Speaker, this same dark ideology massacred nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11. The ideology of Islamist Jihad leads to the practice of decapitating humanitarians with hacksaws on television while the victims scream for mercy. Just last month, one of those most recent videos on the Internet showed a member of the Taliban beheading a man accused of spying. That member of the Taliban was 12 years old. Mr. Speaker, that is a wake-up call to this planet if we will only listen. This same hatred causes Islamic Jihadists to cowardly hide behind women and children while launching rockets deliberately targeting innocent civilians, and continually breaking treaties of peace, and forcing children to blow themselves to pieces to effect the murder of other innocents, and all this while their mothers scream for joy. As we anticipate future actions of the Jihadists, we should consider, as Mr. Wamp has so eloquently said earlier today, the words of the terrorists themselves. And at the risk of repeating some of the things that Congressman Wamp said, I believe that these kinds of words are so important for America and for the people in this body to hear. Al Qaeda's Al-Zawahiri said this. He said, ``The Jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even within the Crusaders' own homes.'' Al-Manar said on BBC, ``Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan, America, is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.'' Al-Zarqawi said this of America's leaders, ``They are aware that if the Islamic giant wakes up it will not be satisfied with less than the gates of Rome, Washington, Paris, and London.'' Al-Muhajir, Osama bin Laden's latest lieutenant in Iraq, said this. He said, ``The fire has not and will not be put out and our swords, which have been colored with your blood, are thirsty for more of your rotting heads.'' Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said this, ``We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.'' Mr. Speaker, then we hear Democrats in this body say things like, ``The savagery of the terrorists is not relevant,'' or even the most senior Democrat in this House is quoted as saying, ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah, or for or against Israel.'' The senior Democrat in the other body said, ``This war is lost.'' Mr. Speaker, that kind of blind relativism that deliberately ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens is more dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself, and it is proof that liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face. Osama bin Laden's deputy, Al-Zawahiri, said this. He made it clear in his book, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. He wrote, ``Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching Jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on Muslim land. Without achieving this goal, our actions will mean nothing.'' For God's sake, I hope we're listening to people like that. Mr. Speaker, such a Jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West. Bin Laden himself has stated, ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' Mr. Speaker, the terrorists regard Iraq as their central front in their war against humanity; and if we're to understand our enemy and this war, we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against Jihad. Our courageous and noble soldiers understand that, and our enemy certainly understands that. Osama bin Laden himself said, ``The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War. It is raging in the land of the two rivers, Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.'' Mr. Speaker, if Democrats are correct that this struggle in Iraq is not crucial to winning the war against Islamist Jihad, then for God's sake I wish they would explain that to the terrorists, because they don't understand it. Brink Lindsey put this all succinctly. He said, ``Here is the grim truth: We are only one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilizational breakdown might be in store?'' Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot deny that we are fighting a war against an insidiously dangerous and evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western World, and they would like nothing better than to decapitate this country by detonating a nuclear blast 100 yards from here. To allow Jihadists to declare victory in Iraq will serve only to hasten such a day. The free nations of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched without great cost. But they delayed, and the result was atomic bombs falling on cities in the world, 50 million people dead worldwide, and the swastika's shadow nearly plunging the planet into Cimmerian night. Mr. Speaker, Jihadists believe they have a critical advantage over the free world. They believe their will is stronger than ours and that they need only to persevere; and, Mr. Speaker, the words of neutrality and retreat have only encouraged them in that belief. We must realize that this is a war that is fundamentally a battle between good and evil, between light and darkness, between individual freedom and totalitarian repression; and we must realize that our enemy is absolutely blinded with an absolute hate for all the Western World. They also recognize that America is the flagship of human freedom, and if America allows terrorists to conquer us both on the battlefield and in our will to fight the result will be that humanity will be left to face a future that is dark beyond expression. Mr. Speaker, I think that probably Ronald Reagan could close this in the best way. He said to our soldiers who nobly fought in Vietnam, ``Let us tell those who fought in that war that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid to win.'' And I'm afraid sometimes that we forget the heroism of the past. So let me just close with a prayer that one of our great Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, said many years ago, as today we mark the 63rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion to liberate Europe from Hitler's fascism. U.S. forces alone sustained over 6,500 casualties in that 1 day, twice what we've endured in 5 years in Iraq. Knowing the gravity of the operation, Franklin Roosevelt, one of the Nation's most liberal Presidents, said and allow me to close in those words: ``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home, fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in the very earliest days of this Nation, Edmund Burke said, ``All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' That belief became the personal creed and call to action of Officer Rob Targosz. Mr. Speaker, this man was a hero and a model human being determined to utilize every ounce of his mind, soul, and body to protect the lives of thousands of his fellow Americans so that we could all live in a safer, more peaceful Nation. Rob Targosz was a second lieutenant in the 12th Airborne Special Forces. He was a member of the SWAT team, and he was a police officer of the Gilbert Police Department in Gilbert, Arizona, for 12 years. He served there on the DUI Task Force because Rob felt that one of the greatest purposes of his life was to combat and prevent drunk driving. The license plate on the back of his police motorcycle displayed the title ``Agent of Justice.'' He defended our citizens and our laws, and he sought justice with a determination so real that it led him face to face with the very tragedy he had dedicated his life to protect others from. In one of life's great paradoxical mysteries, while on duty, Rob Targosz was killed by a drunk driver. Mr. Speaker, drunk driving is the embodiment of apathy, callousness, and selfishness, which is the very opposite of everything that personified Officer Rob Targosz. The enemy that took Rob's life was the very thing that broke his heart and fueled his desire to battle against it. But it did not defeat him, because Rob Targosz was a man of abiding faith in Jesus Christ, whom he held as his eternal Savior. And Rob left behind him in this life a legacy of heroism, love for America, and countless Americans whose lives are preserved because he protected them with his own. Therefore, his battle continues and his search for justice pulsates in the hearts of other Americans, who, like him, continue to defend and protect us all. Rob's life also continues in the lion heart of his beloved wife, who walked by his slain body, picked up his armor and weapons, and continues his fight by educating the public about the unspeakable destruction caused by drunk driving. Mr. Speaker, one of the many reasons that human life is so precious is because it allows the world to see when a single man can live and do and live his life, however short it might be, so that others may be the better for it. Americans are alive and families are whole because of the life and work of Officer Rob Targosz. And the world is better because he showed us an example of a truly noble and excellent soul. May his example fire the souls of us all to continue his enduring quest to protect the innocent. God bless Rob Targosz and his family.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a man affects the world as much as Jerry Falwell does, there are all kinds of things that are said, both by those who remember him in different ways, and I, today, would like to just point out some basics about Jerry Falwell. I had the privilege of knowing him many years ago, and sometimes I wonder how many of us are in this place because Jerry Falwell lived and did what he did. But just to recap some of the basics, Mr. Speaker, Jerry Falwell was born in Lynchburg, Virginia, to Helen and Carey Hezekiah Falwell. He married the former Macel Pate on April 12, 1958. He had two sons, Jerry, Jr., Jonathan, and one daughter, Jeannie. The church that Jerry Falwell first started was in an abandoned bottling plant in 1956, and it grew into a ministry giant that includes the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, the Old Time Gospel Hour carried on television stations across the Nation, and the nearly 8,000- student Liberty University founded in Lynchburg in 1971. He built Christian elementary schools. He built homes for unwed mothers and a home for alcoholics. Through these venues, Jerry's legacy lives on in the lives of thousands of young adults whom he called champions for Christ. And they were American patriots in his heart as well. Jerry Falwell launched the Moral Majority in 1979, and its purpose was to transform a politically sleeping Christian evangelical universe into a force to transform and preserve the very soul of America. It grew into a 6.5-million-member organization and raised nearly $70 million, as it supported conservative candidates and campaigned to protect innocent human life, to work against the debasing of life and pornography and to fight for the religious freedom of students to pray in schools. After a decade of catalyzing a wave of conservatism that culminated in the election and the reelection of one Ronald Reagan, Jerry disbanded the Moral Majority, saying, ``Our mission is accomplished.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, approximately one of every four American voters is a Christian evangelical; and one in four American citizens, those that were the ones that Jerry helped awaken. Not so long ago he said, what we've worked on for nearly 30 years ago, to mobilize people of faith and value in this country, and what we've done in those years is coming to a culmination. The Pew Research Institute, a senior fellow there, John Green, to paraphrase him, he said, Falwell changed the way that evangelicals think about their political responsibility. But it was one of Jerry's friends and colleagues, I think, Mr. Speaker, that put it the very best. His name was Chuck Baldwin. He spoke the following words in tribute, which I think sum up the legacy of Jerry Falwell. He said, ``America has lost a seasoned patriot. Thomas Road Baptist Church has lost a faithful and dedicated pastor. Liberty University has lost a visionary chancellor. The Church of Christ, collectively, has lost a dynamic preacher of the gospel. The Falwell family has lost a loving husband and father. And thousands of people, such as me, have lost a hero, mentor and friend. No matter what his enemies say, America is a better place because of Jerry Falwell. And those of us who were privileged to personally know him will never forget him.'' Mr. Speaker, it is hard to add to those words. But just in the way that I could, I would simply say this, that Jerry Falwell was a man who loved God, who loved his country, who loved his family and who loved humanity. And more than we all realize, we are very blessed that he came our way. And now that he has stepped over the threshold of eternity, he has found a welcome place. He has looked into the eyes of his Saviour and heard those eternal words of victory, ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I urge my colleagues for this and future generations' sake to pass this amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the remainder of the time?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam). (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, we currently only have a limited missile defense capability against limited threats. China is utilizing space for weapons testing, Iran is expected to have missiles capable of reaching the U.S. in less than 8 years, and now nuclear North Korea continues to defiantly test long-range missiles. Proliferation throughout the Middle East is rampant, and Osama bin Laden has stated, ``It is our religious duty to gain nuclear weapons.'' Madam Chair, the first job of Congress is to protect this Nation, and because of the day in which we live, that includes an obligation on our part to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the American people and our warfighters against nuclear missiles, which remain the most dangerous weapons humanity has ever faced. This bill cuts almost $800 million in funding that would help close the critical gaps in our missile defense system. One of the programs the majority believes is not worthy of the investment is the Airborne Laser. Madam Chair, the Airborne Laser is our primary and most mature boost-phase missile defense system. ABL is a speed-of-light technology that defends against enemy missiles in their earliest phase of flight, before they can initiate sophisticated countermeasures, before they can release multiple warheads, and while they are still on enemy territory. The bill also takes $160 million from the Missile Defense Agency's $310 million request for the European site, which would defend United States homeland and our European allies and deployed warfighters against ballistic missile attacks from Iran. Madam Chair, they completely eliminate even the small $10 million budget for conceptual studies of a space test bed, which would give the United States the technology to defend space assets and defend against enemy missiles in their critical boost phase of flight. We must, Madam Chairman, have access to space, and we must be able to defend our space assets. It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue. Madam Chair, if we build a truly robust, layered missile defense system in this country, the day may come when we will have to apologize to the American people for building a defensive system that proved to be unnecessary. But God save us from the day, Madam Chair, when we have to apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles turning American cities into nuclear flames. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, could I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, since mankind took up arms against his fellow human beings, every offensive weapon has been countered by a defensive weapon. The spear brought the shield. The sword spawned the suit of armor. Bullets brought heavier armor, and each succeeding advancement in offensive weapons has brought a defensive response wherein mankind hopes to buy a little more time. Yet, today, when we are 60 years into the nuclear age and mankind faces the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity, there is in this moment a debate in the United States Congress as to whether or not the United States of America should fully pursue defending its citizens against nuclear missiles. Madam Speaker, the Rumsfeld Commission report stated that North Korea has developed a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, ``placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin.'' In this Defense authorization bill, the Democrats cut nearly $800 million from missile defense. This prompted me to offer six amendments before the Rules Committee last night, but under this rule, Madam Speaker, only one has been made in order; and whether or not it will be adopted still remains to be seen. However, under the rule, one Democrat amendment that was made in order was one to cut missile defense another $1 billion. Madam Speaker, if we truly build a layered missile defense system that may one day call on us to apologize to the American people for building a defensive system that proved unnecessary, that I can go home and live with. But God save us from the day when we will have to apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles turning American cities into nuclear flames. Madam Speaker, if we build it, maybe they will not come.