Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I want first to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for making this amendment in order, along with his committee members. And I want to sincerely thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, for his support for the amendment and also just for the entire effort on his part in other committees of jurisdiction to move this underlying and critically important bill forward. Mr. Chairman, our national security and the reliability of our electric grid are inextricably related. Without the grid, telecommunications no longer operate, transportation of every kind is profoundly affected, sewage and water treatment facilities stop, and a safe and continuous food supply is interrupted. Contemporary society, Mr. Chairman, is not structured nor does it have the means to provide for the needs of nearly 300 million Americans without electricity. The current strategy for recovery from a failure of the electric grid leaves us ill-prepared to respond effectively to a significant manmade or naturally occurring electromagnetic pulse event that would potentially result in damage to vast numbers of the critical electric grid components nearly simultaneously or over an unprecedented geographic scale. Mr. Chairman, the negative impacts on U.S. electric infrastructure are potentially catastrophic in a major EMP or severe space weather event unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system. Nearly a dozen studies, including those by DOD, DOE, the Army War College, the National Academy of Sciences, and the bipartisan Electromagnetic Pulse Commission have all come to the same conclusion: The United States bulk power grid is critically vulnerable to severe space weather and electromagnetic pulse, and this represents a profound danger to this Nation. We have now spent billions of dollars hardening our critical defense assets against electromagnetic pulse. However, the Department of Defense depends upon the unprotected civilian grid within the continual United States for 99 percent of their electricity needs without which they cannot effect their mission. Some of America's most enlightened national security experts, as well as many of our enemies or potential enemies, consider a well-executed weaponized electromagnetic pulse against America to be a ``kill shot'' against America. It is astonishing that our civilian grid remains fundamentally unprotected against a severe EMP, and for it to remain so is an open invitation to our enemies to exploit this dangerous vulnerability. Mr. Chairman, my amendment amends section 215 of the Federal Power Act by creating a protocol for cooperation between industry and government in the development, promulgation, and implementation of standards and processes that are necessary to address the current shortcomings and vulnerabilities of the electric grid from a major EMP event. This base bill does indeed provide for such protocols for the protection of the grid but only in a ``grid security emergency,'' defined in the bill as the actual occurrence of the EMP event or the imminent danger of one, and only after the President issues a written directive declaring such an emergency. Mr. Chairman, that is akin to having a parachute that opens on impact. The nature of this threat is such that if there is a true emergency it may be too late to effectively respond. My amendment is critical because it proactively encourages cooperation on a solution to our vulnerability before it is deemed an emergency. Mr. Chairman, finally, I would just say that we live in a time where the vulnerabilities to our electric grid, our most critical infrastructure, are big enough to be seen and still small enough to be addressed. This is our moment. I appeal to my colleagues to support this vital amendment to protect Americans and our national security from this dangerous threat.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, if I could, let me express sincere gratitude to Congressman Walker for leading this effort tonight. The people of North Carolina did a very wise thing to send this man to Congress. He has represented them faithfully. He is a Valley Forge American that I wish there were more of in the United States Congress. Madam Speaker, the direction of America and the world under the leadership of Barack Obama is alarming to any reasonable observer. To those outside the beltway, Republicans seem weak and unwilling to effectively respond. One of the hidden-in-plain-sight reasons for this false perception is the rules and present practices in the United States Senate controlling the parliamentarian instrument of the ``motion to proceed to consider.'' This is the mechanism that allows the filibuster in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, it takes 60 votes to allow a bill to come to the floor for debate in the United States Senate. It takes another vote of 60 votes to allow that bill to be actually voted upon. The truth is that, with 54 Republicans, it takes 6 Democrats to help allow either debate or a vote to occur in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, regardless of the nature of the bills, in recent years, this simply has not been allowed to occur. Mr. Speaker, this has become a boot on the throat of the Constitution and a stalemate to this Republic. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that, if we don't change it, the people of this country are going to become so wearied of this process, so convinced that we will remain in gridlock forever, that they will simply wash their hands of the American Government. If they do that, then the Founding Fathers' dream itself could die in this generation. It must not be allowed to happen. To put this in practical terms, Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives passed some months ago the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The only thing that we did, using our article I powers of the purse, was to say that we would not fund the President's illegal, unconstitutional executive order on immigration. That bill then went over to the Senate, fully funding the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats in the Senate said: No. We are not voting on the bill. You guys are shutting the government down. Democrats want very much to shut this government down because they know that the left-wing media will make sure that Republicans are fully blamed for that reality. That is what they want. It is not a deterrent to them. It is an inducement. Mr. Speaker, the choice for House leadership is either to dumb the bill down so the Democrats will support it and thereby completely make the Republican base heartbroken or allow the government to be shut down. No one is accountable under this scenario, and it has to change, Mr. Speaker. For my Republican friends that say, well, what if we are in the minority, well, we have been in the minority and ObamaCare passed and all of these other things passed because, unfortunately, the willingness of the Senate Democrats today to abuse this filibuster is so prevalent that it stops anything of consequence that matters to this country. Mr. Speaker, that has to change. Under the current rules and practices, the balance between the reasonable opportunity to deliberate or debate and the ability to actually make a timely decision in the U.S. Senate no longer exists. The technical remedy to fix this is to adopt a change in the rules that will satisfy both the majority and the minority, prevent gridlock, and allow for consensus and the spirit of bipartisanship to return. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing a resolution calling upon the Senate to adjust their rules to prevent this mindless stalemate and the practice of the current rules as written. The goal, Mr. Speaker, is not to do away with the Senate filibuster, but to maintain the ability of the minority to have leveraged objection to either majority overreach or deeply contested legislation while restoring the accountability and deliberation to what is called the world's most deliberative body. Mr. Speaker, I have one last example. Almost 2 months ago this House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. We have passed many bills that have never gotten to see the light of day in the Senate because of the Senate filibuster. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act required that babies surviving an abortion be given the same treatment and care that would be given to any child born naturally premature at the same age. This bill now languishes in the Senate. It is uncertain if it will even be allowed a fair and honest debate up or down. These are born- alive children, Mr. Speaker--born alive--and no one can obscure the humanity and personhood of born-alive babies or claim that there is a conflict that exists between now separate interests of the mother and the child. Nor can they take refuge within the schizophrenic paradox Roe v. Wade has subjected this country to for now more than four decades. Mr. Speaker, protecting born-alive survivors of abortion is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family. Before my colleagues in the Senate vote against this bill or, far worse, do as they have done so often and use the Senate rules to filibuster and avoid a vote and to deprive this bill of an honest debate and a fair vote, I would implore each one of them to ask themselves two questions in the stillness of their own heart. First, is turning our backs on the most helpless of our born-alive children truly who the United States of America has become? Second, is voting against or filibustering against a bill to protect born-alive human babies from agonizing dismemberment and death who they have become as a Senate and what they want to be remembered for? Mr. Speaker, it is time that we recognize that there are certain bills that are worth a vote, bills like protecting this country from a potential Iranian nuclear option and bills like protecting this country from allowing its little born-alive children to be killed indiscriminately. Mr. Speaker, that time has come. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act, seeks to prevent Las Vegas-style gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area until the gaming compact, to which the Arizona tribes agreed and the Arizona voters approved, expires in 2027. One Tucson area tribe is trying to build a major casino on lands that were deceptively purchased in the Phoenix metropolitan area at the very time that they were in negotiations with other tribes in the State to craft this gaming compact duly passed by the voters. These actions are contrary to the public commitments that this particular tribe made between 2000 and 2002 to the other 16 Indian tribes in the State of Arizona and also to the State voters of Arizona. This legislation was then publicly supported by the passage of Proposition 202, this compact, a State referendum to limit casino gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area. All parties knew what we were agreeing to, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 308 are simply trying to hold all the parties to their publicly stated commitment to the people of Arizona not to engage in gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Contrary to the opposition's position, Congress does have a role in supervising tribal gaming. Congress has a long-established history of regulating, managing, and working with the tribes relative to tribal trust land. Most astonishing, Mr. Speaker, is the opposition's argument that the courts have ``upheld'' the tribe's right to operate a casino on that parcel of land. Indeed, the court raised serious questions about the tribe's misconduct, but dismissed the litigation under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This is not a ruling on the merits in favor or against any side, Mr. Speaker. It simply means the court could not or would not issue a ruling. This bill passed the House twice before and it had a zero CBO score. In CBO's analysis of this exact bill last Congress, they acknowledged the uncertainty of future legal challenges, but did not score those. This is the standard practice. Today any ruling by them to the contrary is a precedent and sets the CBO up for being politically impacted in the future, politically driven in the future. Astonishingly, the CBO recently scored an addition to the exact same bill this Congress of zero dollars to $1 billion. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. The CBO added a score now to this same bill from zero last time to now zero to $1 billion. Now, of course, they were lobbied to do that in an unprecedented way while admitting it had no basis to issue any conjecture about a possible lawsuit resulting from the passage of this bill. CBO admits it had no basis to score litigation. The CBO has never scored potential litigation on other bills. This score should be ignored as useless and harmful if allowed as a precedent, Mr. Speaker. This bill does not impact any tribe's ability to have any lands taken into trust, nor does it impact any water or land claims. Consistent with the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Proposition 202, this bill merely restricts the ability of tribes to game on the very lands on which they themselves agreed they would not game. With that, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues join with me today and the Members of Arizona's delegation supporting this bill.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Young and also thank Chairman Bishop and the leadership of this House for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank the bipartisan group of cosponsors for their support. I especially want to thank the Members of the Arizona delegation who have been in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a budgetary impact by Michael Solon, the former senior adviser to the senior leadership; a report from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; and a letter from the mayors of Arizona regarding this legislation. Former Senior Advisor to Senate Leadership Provides Budget Analysis of

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely grateful to all of those who have supported the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act. I am especially grateful to Chairman Pete Sessions for his cosponsorship and his committed partnership on this bill, as well as, of course, to Chairman McCaul and to the leadership team of this House for allowing this legislation to come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I think it is an especially appropriate time for us to pause and reflect on the tragedies that have occurred in France and to stand in solidarity with those people who are part of the free world and do the best they can to fight terrorism and to survive its effects. My prayers are with them, and it is ironic that today we are here dealing with legislation to try to help mitigate our own vulnerabilities to potential attacks that could come in the future. Mr. Speaker, electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, can be catalyzed by nonnuclear intentional electromagnetic interference, a major solar storm, or a high-altitude nuclear blast. EMP is an invisible force of ionized particles with the potential to overwhelm and destroy our present electrical power grids, which are a vital component of nearly every other critical infrastructure we have. Reducing America's vulnerability to naturally occurring or weaponized electromagnetic pulse is a timely and critical matter of national security. During the past several decades, America has spent billions of dollars hardening many of our critical defense assets, including our nuclear triad and our missile defense components, against natural or weaponized electromagnetic pulse. However, the Department of Defense relies upon the largely unprotected civilian grid for 99 percent of its electricity needs in the continental United States, without which it cannot affect its mission. Twelve years ago, in August of 2003, an electromagnetic pulse knocked out a large portion of the electric grid across the eastern United States. Fifty million people were affected after 21 power plants shut down in just 3 minutes. Office workers streamed into parking lots and many commuters were stranded inside their trains. In a matter of moments, the things that make up our critical infrastructure, from the electric grid to water pumps, to cell phone service, to computer systems, were disrupted. Lives suddenly changed that day in New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, and all the way into Canada. In New York City alone, this short blackout was estimated to cost more than a half billion dollars. There are at least 11 major government reports now that have all come essentially to the same conclusion regarding our vulnerabilities to electromagnetic pulse. Some of America's most enlightened national security experts, as well as many of our enemies or potential enemies, consider a well-executed weaponized electromagnetic pulse against America to be a ``kill shot''--let me say that again--a ``kill shot'' to America. However, our civilian grid remains fundamentally unprotected against severe EMP, and for it to remain so is an open invitation to our enemies to exploit this dangerous vulnerability. Indeed, the National Intelligence University recently translated an Iranian military doctrine called ``Passive Defense.'' This doctrine stresses that electrical grids are vital to the national existence of major powers in the world like America. It includes a formula for calculating the value of electrical power plants and for prioritizing the targeting of electric grid components and other critical infrastructures. Mr. Speaker, this Iranian military doctrine referenced the use of nuclear-generated electromagnetic pulse as an effective weapon more than 20 times. Now that the Islamic Republic of Iran begins to enjoy the bounty of their nuclear negotiations, it should be a wake-up call to all of us that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is contemplating the concept of nuclear-generated electromagnetic pulse as an asymmetric weapon against America. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, we are here this day to pass the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which, if signed into law, will represent the first time in history that Congress will be specifically addressing this dangerous threat of electromagnetic pulse. This legislation will enhance the DHS threat assessments for EMP through research and reporting requirements. It will help the United States prevent and prepare for such an event by including large-scale blackouts into our critical existing national planning scenarios, including educational awareness for first responders to protect critical infrastructure. Most importantly, it requires a specific plan for protecting and recovering the electrical grid and other critical infrastructure from a dangerous electromagnetic pulse event. Mr. Speaker, finally, there is a moment in the life of nearly every problem when it is big enough to be seen by reasonable people and still small enough to be addressed. Those of us in this Chamber and across America live in a time when there still may be opportunity for the free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that naturally occurring or weaponized EMP represents to the mechanisms of our civilization. This is our moment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1300) to amend section 221 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide relief for adoptive families from immigrant visa fees in certain situations.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 1300 currently under consideration.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When I hold and kiss my little children good-bye to come to this place every week, the pain that I feel in leaving them for several days is mitigated by the conviction that I will be seeing them again very soon. But I stand here tonight, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hundreds of American families who are separated from their children with no sense of certainty or knowing when they will be allowed to see their children again or to know when their children will be home for good. That is because, in September of 2013, now more than 2 years ago, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the DRC, ceased issuing exit visas, including visas for the more than 350 children who had been fully legally adopted by American families. These families had fully complied with international adoption laws in both the United States and the DRC, had already spent months or years going through the tedious intercountry adoption process, and some of them had already arrived in the DRC with the belief that they would be bringing their adoptive children home at last to their forever families in America. Despite significant, ongoing efforts by both Congress and the State Department to alleviate any of the DRC Government's concerns and resolve the exit permit process, Mr. Speaker, it is unknown when that suspension will be lifted. Meanwhile, American adoptive families are being faced with the added burden of having to repeatedly renew their adoptive child's adoption paperwork and visas in order to keep it up to date. Thus, the Adoptive Family Relief Act grants flexibility to the State Department to waive the immigration visa renewal fees of $325 per child for adoptive families in America in extraordinary circumstances like this where the cause of delay is out of the family's control. Mr. Speaker, waiving the visa renewal fee would alleviate one portion of the overwhelming burden that these American families are enduring until their adoptive child or children can travel to the U.S. While the U.S. Government continues to work toward the Democratic Republic of the Congo lifting the exit permit suspension, this legislation is critically important and will offer some practical relief to the American families held powerless in a very difficult situation. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the many families waiting to bring their adopted children home will receive encouragement from the strong bipartisan effort here in Congress to support them during this time, as we work collectively to engage the DRC Government and work toward the suspension being fully lifted. This bill is a reminder to them that the Congress has not and will not forget their plight, and we will not cease working on their behalf until their families are finally permanently united and whole. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Royce for their noble and principled leadership in helping to elevate this issue and bring this legislation to the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that we do in this body more important than trying to make sure that parentless little children have hope in life. Through our State Department, all across the world we do very laudable things to try to make sure they have this chance in life. Sometimes it is orphanages; sometimes it is just other types of help through NGOs. In this particular case, we are doing everything that we can to facilitate children being put into a loving family on a permanent basis. To bring sometimes childless parents together with often parentless children is, I think, a very beautiful and noble effort on our part. I hope that this bill allows that in a greater way with the DRC and, as Ms. Lofgren mentioned, with other states across the world if it becomes necessary. I am grateful for all the bipartisan support. I know this is something that we have come together on. Again, I express appreciation to Chairman Royce, Chairman Goodlatte, and to the gentlewoman who has expressed her support for this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman. I also thank the gentleman for his commitment to protecting these little babies. Madam Speaker, the United States of America is an exceptional nation, whose unique core premise is that declared conviction that we are all created equal and that each of us is endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to live. Abraham Lincoln called upon all of us in this Chamber to remember those words of America's Founding Fathers and ``their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on or degraded and imbruted by its fellows.'' He reminded those he called posterity that ``when in the distant future some man, 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, Madam Speaker--``might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began.'' Madam Speaker, the sincerest purpose of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is to renew that noble battle to respect and protect those little fellow human beings among us who are this moment being trodden on and degraded and imbruted by their fellows. Not long ago, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and found a torture chamber for little born-alive babies that defies description within the constraints of the English language. The grand jury report at that time said, ``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.'' And now, in recent days, Madam Speaker, numerous video recordings have been released that demonstrate that Kermit Gosnell was just the tip of the iceberg of the abortion industry's unspeakable cruelty to these little children of God. The veil has now been pulled back, and all of us now see the walls behind the abortion industry and the horrifying plight of its little human victims, who we must not forget, are also the least of these, our little brothers and sisters. Our response, as a people and a Nation, to these horrors shown in these videos is vital to everything those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died to save. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Madam Speaker, protects little children who have been born alive. No one in this body can obscure the humanity and the personhood of these little born-alive babies, nor can they take refuge within the schizophrenic paradox Roe v. Wade has subjected this country to, for now, more than 40 years. The abortion industry has labored all these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection. But, Madam Speaker, those who oppose this bill to protect born-alive babies now have the impossible task of trying to join born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince all of us to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all. To anyone who has not invincibly hardened their heart and soul, Madam Speaker, an honest consideration of this absurd inconsistency is profoundly enlightening. Because, you see, this country has faced such paradox and self- imposed blindness before. There was a time that our own House rules banned any discussion or debate in this Chamber about the effort to end human slavery in America. But, Madam Speaker, that debate did come and with it came a time when the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of what was being done to them became so glaring even to the hardest of hearts that it moved an entire nation of people to find the compassion and the courage in their own souls to change their position. Now, to this generation, Madam Speaker, that time has come again.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I have a special guest with me tonight, my son Joshua, who was allowed the privileges of the floor. He has given me a speech tonight, and I appreciate it very much. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is an exceptional Nation whose unique core premise is that declared conviction that we are all created equal and that each of us is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to live. Abraham Lincoln called upon all of us in this Chamber and beyond to remember those words of the Founding Fathers and ``their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on or degraded and imbruted by its fellows.'' He reminded those he called posterity that ``when in the distant future some man, 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--``that their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began.'' Mr. Speaker, the sincerest purpose of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that we voted on today is to renew that noble battle, to respect and protect those little fellow human beings among us who are at this moment being trodden on and degraded and imbruted by their fellows. Not long ago, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and found a torture chamber for little born-alive babies that defies description within the constraints of the English language. The grand jury report at the time said, ``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 that 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 that it ``sounded like a little alien.'' Now, in recent days, Mr. Speaker, numerous video recordings have been released that demonstrate to the world that Kermit Gosnell is just the tip of the iceberg of the abortion industry's unspeakable cruelty to these little babies. The veil has now been pulled back, Mr. Speaker, and all of us now see behind the walls of the abortion industry and the horrifying plight of its little human victims who, we must not forget, are also the least of these, our little brothers and sisters. Our response, as a people and a nation, to these horrors shown in these videos is vital to everything those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died to save. Before any Senator, Mr. Speaker, decides to join a Democrat filibuster in the Senate against legislation that would protect little born-alive human babies, I hope they ask of themselves one question in the core of their own souls: Is filibustering against a bill to protect born-alive human babies from a torturous death at the hands of monsters like Kermit Gosnell who I truly am? Now, I know that legislation like this has been attacked by President Obama and even others because of the many obvious similarities these born-alive children have with late-term, pain-capable, unborn children. Mr. Speaker, this was an unborn child, but she was born alive and she survived. As hard as it is to consider that that could happen, she did. President Obama explained his reasons for voting four times--Mr. Speaker, let me say that again. President Obama explained his reasons for voting four times against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have protected children born alive. He was afraid it might give born-alive babies personhood under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. He said: It would essentially bar abortions because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child. And if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. It is impossible to deny that President Obama had a very sad and ironic, if also completely merciless, point. Indeed, it does require enormous deliberate self-deception to say that those who deliberately kill a child who is born alive after 5 months of pregnancy are guilty of murder and deserve prison, but those who deliberately kill the same exact pain-capable child at the same exact age and development, but are not yet born--those individuals are merely furthering freedom of choice and should actually get paid for doing it. But it still bears repeating, Mr. Speaker. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that we voted on today and passed out of this Chamber protects little children who have been born alive. No matter how blind opponents try to make themselves or convince others to be, no one can truly obscure the humanity and personhood of these little born-alive children of God, nor can they take refuge within the schizophrenic paradox Roe v. Wade to which this country has been subjected for now more than 40 years. The abortion industry has labored for all these decades to convince the world that born children and unborn children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children, on the other hand, are not persons and are not worthy of protection. But, Mr. Speaker, those who oppose this bill today or those who might oppose it in the Senate that protects born-alive children now have the impossible task of trying to rejoin born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince us all that to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all is the thing to do. Mr. Speaker, to anyone who has not invincibly hardened their heart and soul to this absurd inconsistency, there is an opportunity for a profoundly enlightening moment because, you see, Mr. Speaker, this country has faced such paradox and self-imposed blindness and heartlessness before. There was a time that our own House rules banned any discussion or debate in this Chamber about the effort to end human slavery in America. But, Mr. Speaker, that debate did come. And with it came a time when the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of what was being done to them became so glaring that even the hardest of hearts began to see the truth, and it moved an entire generation of people to find the compassion and the courage within their own souls to change their position. And now to this generation, Mr. Speaker, that time has come again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, coincidental to the message or the speech that I am about to give, I am reminded, as so many of you are, that this is September the 11th and 14 years ago terrorists, in an evil, devastating act against our country designed to destroy us as a people, attacked the very fabric of the Nation and killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans. I pray for their families, and I pray for those who loved those people and still feel the loss within their souls today. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that one of the best ways we can honor the people who lost their lives that infamous day is to remember that the price of freedom has always been eternal vigilance. We still face a world where jihad has designs on destroying this, the greatest and freest republic in the history of the world. And in the name of those we have lost, in the name of those generations still to come, God help us to be vigilant people, as Americans. Mr. Speaker, the blood, sacrifice, and noble principles of millions of gallant souls across America's history have made this Nation the unipolar superpower of the entire world. Our international policies now significantly impact the peace and security of the entire human family. The very first responsibility of this Nation's government and especially its Commander in Chief is to protect America's national security. The only two ways we have to do that is to prevent any enemy or potential enemy from having the intent and capacity to do us harm. We must make sure that, if there is an enemy with the intent to do us harm, that they do not have the capacity to proceed. The intent of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been crystal clear since they took and held 52 American hostages 444 days at the beginning of their radical revolution those 36 years now ago. They have ever since been waging war on America and their own neighbors. But the only way the Iranian leaders can ever truly achieve their ultimate goal is to become a nuclear-armed nation. Consequently, they have proceeded inexorably in that direction both secretly and openly and obviously for decades until America and the Western world came together with resolutions, sanctions, and warnings of military intervention to halt and dismantle this unspeakably dangerous threat. This pressure finally brought Iran to the negotiating table. But now, instead of increasing and using that pressure, President Barack Obama has completely ignored the original commitment that the sanctions would only be dismantled when Iran's nuclear weapons program was dismantled. The President blindly accepted whatever deal Iran put on the table and completely forgot who was at the other end of that table. Mr. Obama then proceeded to capitulate on every redline and minimum requirement that both he and the United Nations had previously required. The President has now squandered away every form of leverage we had against this theocratic radical regime, which has broken every promise it has ever made to us. And what did we get in return, Mr. Speaker? We got an insane rope-a- dope, duplicitous, unverifiable, astonishingly unenforceable deal. We got a deal that legitimizes and empowers the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It obligates America to lift all sanctions, lift bans on Iran's imports of weapons and ballistic missile programs. It allows Iran a protected protocol to enrich uranium and research even more advanced centrifuges. It gives them tens of billions of dollars with which they can continue to spread their terror and destabilizing expansionism throughout the word. It allows them to continue their human rights abuses, including illegally holding American citizens hostage. And it allows them to keep their entire nuclear infrastructure. All the while, the Supreme Leader and ultimate authority in Iran is publicly reaffirming his hatred toward the United States and publicly leading throngs of his supporters in shouting ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' Unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton made a far better deal than that, and the result was that the police state of North Korea proceeded to develop nuclear weapons only a few years later. Some of our most loyal allies live under that nuclear threat to this day. Now this deal will place America and our vital ally, Israel, under that same nuclear threat tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian mullahs were intently listening when Barack Obama proclaimed before the United Nations that no nation has the right to pick and choose what nations have nuclear weapons. But I remind him that Iran is a nation that has threatened to destroy America and destroy Israel. These same mullahs were watching as Barack Obama knowingly stood by and idly watched as thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq were either butchered, tortured, raped, beheaded, crucified, or burned alive by ISIS. They then knew they had nothing to fear from Barack Obama. So the jihadist leaders of Iran came to the nuclear negotiating table with nothing and walked away with everything. These are the same Iranian mullahs that openly bragged how their bounties and weapons have killed hundreds of American Marines and soldiers on the battlefield, shattering their families in an unbelievable way. What will these leaders do if they have nuclear weapons? Inexplicably, instead of making sure they never get a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama's politically motivated peace-in-our-time capitulation empowers the most dangerous sponsor of terrorism on this Earth and places them on the path to obtain an entire nuclear arsenal. Mr. Speaker, unless this Congress or the next President is able to stop this madness, Barack Obama will be on trajectory to be remembered as the father of the Iranian atomic bomb and the one who ultimately nuclearized the entire Middle East, and our children will start down a path that leads through the shadow of nuclear terrorism. And whatever the costs there might have been to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons will pale in comparison to the costs of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran. We must not let that happen, Mr. Speaker. Astonishingly, Democrat Senators are now arrogantly filibustering any attempt for the Senate to reject this inexpressibly dangerous deal. It is time for the majority leader of the Senate to use the nuclear option in the Senate rules to bring this inexpressibly dangerous nuclear deal with Iran to the Senate floor and vote on and reject it as the treaty that it actually embodies under the Constitution of the United States. If Republicans do not use the nuclear option in our rules, Iran may some day use their nuclear option against our Nation. It is September 11, Mr. Speaker. God help us to remember. For the sake of our children and future generations, God help this Congress to reject this treacherous deal and God help us all to focus on the unspeakable importance of the coming elections in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 487, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is a privilege for me to be here on the floor of the House of Representatives tonight with Congressman Collins and Congressman Vargas. I consider them both precious friends and colaborers in this vital struggle for religious freedom, which is the cornerstone of all other freedoms; and without which, there can be really no other kind of freedom to exist for any length of time. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that I fear more for my colleagues and my fellow Americans than the danger of growing numb to the evil that incites these horrific atrocities being committed against people around the world today based on their faith. I submit that we are, in these days, witnesses to some of the most glaring and brutal attacks on this universal right of religious freedom in all of our history. The Islamic State, that metastasizing cancer spreading throughout the Middle East and north Africa, is especially targeting Christians, Yazidis, and other ancient religious minorities and communities for extinction. The world has watched this insidious campaign of terror unfold day by day for over a year. More than 407 days now have passed since the ancient city of Mosul fell into the hands of the Islamic State. Their campaign of terror drove hundreds of thousands of Christian men, women, and children out of the land of their spiritual heritage, which dates back for nearly 2,000 years. Nearly 1 year has passed since the Islamic State's attack on the Yazidi community. Thousands were slaughtered, Mr. Speaker. At least 5,000 women and young girls were taken captive as sex slaves. Nearly 1,000 boys between the ages of 4 and 10 were captured and forced into ISIS training camps. Mr. Speaker, there is no room for Christians, Yazidis, or other dissidents in the Islamic State's self-proclaimed caliphate. Innocent men, women, and children are forced to choose between their deeply held religious beliefs and their lives. They are subject to torture, mass executions, beheadings, and crucifixions. They are drowned and burned alive in cages. They are raped, abused, and sold as commodities in a modern day slave market. They are tied to chairs and thrown off high-rise buildings. They are desecrated, violated, humiliated, and stripped of their dignity. Their ancient places of worship and sacred sites are destroyed. Mr. Speaker, how many more unimaginable atrocities must occur before this administration takes off its heartless blinders and finds the courage and determination to decisively address this evil slaughter of innocents based on their religious beliefs? German Lutheran pastor and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: ``Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak, and not to act is to act.'' Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration can no longer remain conspicuously silent on the plight of religious minorities caught in the wake of the Islamic State. It is vital that America and the world make the necessary responses to stop this campaign of terror and preserve these ancient religious communities from extinction. In the middle of this scourge, the administration has allowed the Special Envoy to promote religious freedom of religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia position to remain vacant now for nearly a year. Very little effort has been made to equip regional security forces to protect these communities from ISIS' advance. This administration's response is shameful and an astonishing failure, and it only affirms the Islamic State's barbaric strategy and encourages what they proudly boast to be a ``battle between faith and blasphemy, truth, and falsehood.'' Mr. Speaker, I would just adjure the President of the United States not to continue to stand by and let this evil relentlessly proceed. The assault on religious freedom we are witness to in the Middle East is just one of the many attacks against this most sacred and basic right of religious freedom. There are thousands of innocent people around the world who are antagonized, oppressed, tortured, and killed because of their belief or disbelief in a particular religion or ideology. I know these are challenging subjects, Mr. Speaker, but God help us to remain committed to echoing the voices of these innocents in the halls of Congress. May we all be relentlessly committed to pursue that day when the light of hope will fall across all of the lonely faces of God's children all over this world and that this ``most inalienable and sacred right of true religious freedom will be the possession of every last human being, and the destiny of future generations will be to walk in the sunlight of liberty for as long as mankind inhibits the Earth.'' May it be so. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a grandfather, a father, and a lover of children.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my time is nearly gone. And I suppose I take great heart from what I have heard here tonight because it seems to mirror history itself. When people of goodwill finally saw the victims in tragedies and recognized them as fellow human beings, their hearts and minds began to change. Mr. Speaker, I feel like the winds of change are beginning to blow here. I feel like people are starting to ask the real questions. And I know that, when we talk about abortion, it seems like all of the rules change. Sometimes you wonder if the furniture is going to start floating in the room when you hear some of the arguments. But the real question is: Does abortion take the life of an innocent child? If it doesn't, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to stop talking about it. But if it really does take the life of a child, then those of us in this Chamber standing in the seat of freedom of the greatest Nation in the history of the world also stand in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of the world. Mr. Speaker, I feel like America is finally beginning to see through some of the facade of the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood's obfuscation. But I have another fear, and that is that sometimes we have seen such horrors lately--the Kermit Gosnell clinic that snipped little babies' spines, the killing of children that are late-term, pain-capable--that recognition is beginning to seep through the conscience of America. But I paraphrase an old saint quote that said vice is an evil which is so frightening and mean that to be hated means only to be seen, but seen too often with its familiar face, first we endure and then we pity and then we embrace. One of the great weaknesses of mankind is that sometimes, when we see evil often enough, we become desensitized to it. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry has shown us so much evil in recent decades that I wonder if we are becoming a little calloused to it. Do you ever wonder, Mr. Speaker, or ask yourself: Are we really killing more than 3,000 unborn children every day? Are we really staining the very foundations of this Nation with the blood of our own children? Is that really happening in America? Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that it is past the time for great introspection on the part of this country because we are either the last best hope of the Earth or we will simply be another empire that lost its way. I am of the opinion that America, as they led the way to stop slavery, will someday recognize the humanity of these little babies and see all of humanity then begin to understand that protecting them is really part of who we all are. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I would first count it a privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, as profoundly tragic as it is, no one should have been surprised by the recent revelations that Planned Parenthood is harvesting and selling the body parts of little babies. They have so repeatedly proven themselves blind to the dignity of humanity. They have always been at the forefront of the greatest human genocide in human history, and Planned Parenthood is the number one advocate of killing more than 3,000 little unborn American babies every day. These recent revelations are just one more heartbreaking reminder that the Nation's largest abortion provider has always had a legendary disregard for the sanctity of innocent human life. It beggars incredulity that this Congress continues to give hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money--against the taxpayers' wishes, Mr. Speaker--to a heartless organization like Planned Parenthood that goes to such grotesque lengths to promote the killing of innocent unborn babies through abortion on demand at any time throughout the 9 months of pregnancy for any reason or for no reason. This body recently passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would, except in rare circumstances, protect both mothers and their little pain-capable unborn babies entering their sixth month, Mr. Speaker, of gestation from the unspeakable cruelty of Planned Parenthood and evil monsters like Kermit Gosnell. If the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act had already been law, it would have saved the lives of thousands of late-term, pain-capable babies every year, and it would have made it much harder for Planned Parenthood to harvest and sell the organs and body parts of unborn children since they simply would not have had as many of the more mature organs and body parts of the older babies to choose from. Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that Planned Parenthood brazenly and repeatedly violated the law in the selling of these little body parts. It is an unspeakable disgrace that the Obama Justice Department will likely never launch a criminal investigation to look into these unconscionable acts, but if this Congress and the American people now also look the other way and ignore this kind of insidious evil, we do so at our moral peril. If the conscience of this Nation is to survive, it is now vital for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to become law. The House has already passed this critically important and timely legislation. It is now time for the Senate to do the same. We must not let the continuous and repeated manifestations of this unspeakable evil of killing late-term, pain-capable babies and selling their body parts go unanswered. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, almost every other civilized nation on this Earth protects pain-capable babies at this stage and at this age, and every credible poll of the American people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting these children. Yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary pain and cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act. It is a tragedy that beggars expression. The voices who have long hailed the merciless killing of these little ones as freedom of choice, especially the ones who profit from it, Mr. Speaker, will be very shrill and loud. But when we hear those voices, we should all remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln, when he said: ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.'' Mr. Speaker, for the sake of all of those who founded and built this Nation and dreamed of what America could someday be, and for the sake of all those who since then have died in darkness so Americans can walk in the light of freedom, it is so very important that those of us who are privileged to be Members of this Congress pause from time to time and remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Mr. Speaker, do we still hold these truths to be self-evident? Mr. Lincoln called upon all of us, Mr. Speaker, to remember that magnificent Declaration of Independence by America's Founding Fathers and ``their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.'' He reminded those he called posterity--that is us, Mr. Speaker--that when in some distant future some man, some factions, some interest, should set up the 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.'' Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation said: The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. The phrase in the Fifth Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution, Mr. Speaker. 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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of all Americans and their constitutional rights, especially those who cannot protect themselves, is why we are really all here. Mr. Speaker, not long ago, I heard Barack Obama speak very noble and poignant words that, whether he realizes it or not, apply so profoundly to this subject. Let me quote excerpted portions of his comments. He said: ``This is our first task, caring for our children. It is our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That is how, as a society, we will be judged.'' President Obama asked: ``Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence, visited on our children year after year after year, is somehow the price of freedom?'' The President also said, ``Our journey is not complete until all our children are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm. That is our generation's task,'' he said, ``to make these words, these rights, these values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness real for every American.'' Mr. Speaker, never have I so deeply agreed with any words ever spoken by President Barack Obama as those I have just quoted. How I wish Mr. Obama and the rest of us could somehow open our hearts and our ears to his incontrovertible words and ask ourselves, in the core of our souls, why these words that should apply to all children cannot include the most helpless and vulnerable of all children. Are there any children more vulnerable than little pain-capable babies before they are even born? Mr. Speaker, it seems that, somehow, we are never quite so eloquent as when we decry the crimes of past generations; but, oh, how we often become so staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the worst of atrocities in our own time. As Americans, in the land of the free and the home of brave, we now live in a day when monsters like Kermit Gosnell snip the spinal cords of born babies and Planned Parenthood that, for financial gain, uses partial-birth abortions to deliberately harvest intact body parts of innocent babies whom they have deprived of the chance to even be born. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to these little children, the least of these, our little brothers and sisters, is real. The President knows that, and all of us here know that in our hearts. Medical science, regarding the development of unborn babies, beginning at the sixth month of pregnancy, now demonstrates irrefutably that they do, in fact, experience pain. Many of them cry and scream as they are killed, but because it is amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords instead of air, we can't hear them. It is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today, and for us to now stand by and allow it all to continue unabated while Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of these little murdered children is to desecrate everything that America was meant to be and for those noble Americans who died to make it come to be. Abraham Lincoln gave his contemporaries such wise counsel, Mr. Speaker, and it so 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, these are, indeed, days that will be considered in the annals of history and, I believe, in the councils of eternity itself. This bloody shadow has loomed over America for too long. It is time for the Senate to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act because, in spite of all the political noise, protecting little pain-capable unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue; it is not a Democrat issue; it is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family. It is time to open our eyes and allow our consciences to catch up with our technology. It is time for Members of the United States Congress 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 all Americans, Mr. Speaker, to open our eyes and our hearts to the humanity of these little unborn children of God and the inhumanity of what Planned Parenthood is doing to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I have an amendment at the desk.