Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume. I begin by just pointing out, contrary to the gentleman's assertion, the term ``Federal officer'' is mentioned 238 times in the Federal Code, and the Dictionary Act defines ``officer.'' It includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office. Contrary to some of the other discussions, this bill is focused on trying to make sure that we faithfully enforce the laws and that we understand when the laws are perhaps being not enforced for persons suggesting that they are unconstitutional or otherwise. So, Madam Speaker, it is inherent, I suppose, in the nature of Washington, D.C., politics that, at a certain point, all of the back- and-forth discussion eventually turns into white noise, and the continual debating, reporting, and blaming is so commonplace that many Americans tune it out entirely. And just as the partisanship in Washington causes so many to tune out the substance of the debate, so do we also become accustomed sometimes to hearing lofty rhetoric and allusions to our Founding Fathers. But tonight, I pray that we can all truly listen anew to the men whose ideas so revolutionized the world because the challenges we now face were not unforeseen, Madam Speaker. James Madison, in Federalist Paper 48, expressed his concern that eventually the mere rule of law might not be enough to restrain those who really had a mind to abuse the power of their office. He said: Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the Constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. When Madison originally published this paper in 1788, he did so using the title, ``These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other.'' Mr. Madison expressed these concerns only 12 years after America had declared its independence. And I would submit that in the intervening 226 years, these abuses have spiraled out of control. I would urge Americans to ask themselves: Has this administration moved our Nation back toward the noble dream imagined by men like James Madison when all laws were equally enforced and all people are equal under those laws, or has this administration worsened the trend Madison detected so early on? President Obama infamously said on this very floor, Madam Speaker: We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help they need. I have got a pen, and I have got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward. To this I would humbly respond, Madam Speaker, no, he can't, not if what he is doing is abrogating the Constitution of the United States. That is exactly the sort of overreach Madison warned us about, and it is exactly what we are referencing when we talk about an Imperial Presidency. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a President who has admitted he would prefer to be unconfined by constitutional limitations. He specifically said: Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation, that is what I am going to do. Madam Speaker, they say that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. This President has not been shy about his intentions to go beyond the Constitution when he is inclined. Under this administration, the IRS has become a political tool used against those who oppose the President's policies. The Justice Department has adopted a policy of selective law enforcement, essentially rewriting the law by only enforcing the ones they prefer. The Senate's role in the appointment process has been ignored outright, with the administration making so- called recess appointments, even though the Senate was not in recess. The legislative branch has been deemed little more than an inconvenient hurdle, with legislation like the DREAM Act and ObamaCare being either imposed via fiat or grossly and repeatedly modified without the input, consent, or action on the part of Congress. We have seen the unconstitutional seizure of reporters' phone records, reported spying even on Members of Congress, and attempting to force small businesses to disclose their political affiliations before being considered for Federal contracts. At what point, Madam Speaker, do we say enough is enough? I would remind all of us of the pleading words of Daniel Webster to all Americans when he said: Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution, and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world. Madam Speaker, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act is one very important step in the right direction. This bill will help prevent executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it does occur. I want to thank Congressman DeSantis for bringing this legislation forward. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his steadfast leadership on bringing this administration's executive overreach to light, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that this bill does not anticipate the appropriateness of one law or another, just the inappropriateness of ignoring the law in general. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time. I would say, Madam Speaker, in spite of the many unrelated issues that my friends on the left have brought up to bear on this bill, this bill is about the rule of law. Madam Speaker, I would remind all of us that the rule of law is what we had that little unpleasant discussion with England about so many years ago. After that we wrote a Constitution, and every person in this body swore to defend that Constitution, and that is what we are trying to do here. If we now, as legislators in the United States Congress, are willing to stand idly by and let the President of the United States arrogate legislative power unto himself and dismiss the Constitution, then we would be obligated, Madam Speaker, to apologize for our oaths and dismiss the dream of human freedom and step back and board this place up and go home. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that some of us are not prepared and willing to do that. And so to that end, to the end that we can uphold the rule of law, I would encourage my colleagues to pass this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would oppose the amendment, as it would explicitly grant the Attorney General the unilateral power to negate the entire bill based on his own subjective determination of what constitutes ``sufficient'' appropriations. This amendment would shield from accountability the President, the Attorney General, and any other Federal employee from the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Madam Speaker, we know that this bill will not cost the taxpayers any money, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As stated in their official view submitted, CBO estimates: Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates that implementation of the bill would not have a significant effect on the budget because such reporting costs are small and subject already to the availability of appropriated funds. So, Madam Speaker, why does this amendment grant the Attorney General the unilateral authority to conclude otherwise? Well, Madam Speaker, the Attorney General works for the President, and when given the opportunity to immunize the President from accountability, what does one think the Attorney General would do? It is logical to assume he would shield the President from accountability. The base bill is specifically designed to hold the President accountable. This amendment, on the other hand, would allow his own Attorney General to shield the President from accountability, thereby gutting the bill, and so this amendment should be roundly defeated. Madam Speaker, we have had significant debate here, but it is important to remind ourselves what it really is all about. The rule of law is truly the only context in which human freedom on Earth can exist. It is incumbent upon those of us who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States to protect that rule of law here tonight. This is the intention of this bill. This is the deep commitment that should be on the part of all of us. With that, I hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, throughout history, there has often been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting the innocent lives of those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity. It encourages me greatly that in nearly all of those cases the collective conscience was finally moved in favor of the victims. The same thing is beginning to happen in this debate related to innocent, unborn children. No matter how the left has tried to obscure the true issue, we are finally beginning to ask ourselves the real question: Does abortion take the life of a child? And we are finally beginning to realize, as a human family, Madam Speaker, that it does. Ultrasound technology demonstrates to all reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is being done to them. And we are finally beginning to realize, as Americans, that 56 million lost little lives and their blood staining the foundations of this Nation is enough.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, we will have the anniversary of ROE v. WADE upon us. It will be the 41st anniversary of abortion on demand in this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, ROE v. WADE was a Supreme Court decision that was handed down that no one voted on except the Supreme Court, themselves. This was not something that went through the Congress. This was not something that the people supported. In fact, every State in the Union at that time protected innocent unborn children. When ROE v. WADE and DOE v. BOLTON were handed down January 22, 1973, America was plunged into the crimson tragedy of abortion on demand, and since then, 56 million little unborn Americans have lost their lives. In fact, it was this year, Mr. Speaker, that the world learned of the gruesome acts committed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist in Philadelphia currently serving a life prison term for murdering three babies that survived his attempts to abort them. When these babies survived Gosnell's attempts to kill them before they were born, he would sever their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. Testimony from former Gosnell employees described the babies screaming in pain as their lives were taken moments after they were born. Mr. Speaker, born or unborn, we now know that these babies feel pain. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that an unborn child can feel pain by at least the start of the sixth month after fertilization, and, Mr. Speaker, very credible research shows that they feel pain much sooner than that. The graphic accounts from Gosnell's trial remind us that abortion is a brutal, torturous tragedy, yet such gruesome acts happen daily in abortion clinics all across this country. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about learning about the torture chamber that Kermit Gosnell presided over was the tragic reality that it happens all over America, even as we speak. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that historically, great intensity has surrounded debates over protecting the lives of those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity, but it encourages me greatly that in nearly all of those cases, the collective conscience of this Nation eventually shifted. When we focused on the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what was being done to them, our hearts began to change. Mr. Speaker, that same thing is beginning to happen in America in this debate. I don't know what happens when we finally wake up and see something for the tragic reality that it is. I don't know what changed our mind in all of the other great genocides of the past, but it did happen, and that gives me great hope, and today in America, we are finally considering the real question, and the real question is simply this: Does abortion take the life of a child? We are finally beginning, Mr. Speaker, we are finally beginning to realize, as a Nation, that it does. We are finally beginning to realize that the brutal killing of innocent, unborn children liberates no one and that 50 million little lost American lives--56 million now--Mr. Speaker, is enough. Now, Mr. Speaker, this legislative day has come to an end, and sunset approaches fast in Washington. I stand here one more night, and I offer this House what I call a sunset memorial to remember the victims of ROE v. WADE. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, before the sun sets today in America, almost 4,000 more defenseless, unborn children will have been killed by abortion on demand in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Mr. Speaker, that is more than the number of innocent lives lost on September 11 in this country, and it happens every day. It has now been 41 years since the tragedy called ROE v. WADE was first handed down. Since then, Mr. Speaker, the very foundation of this Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 56 million of its own unborn children. Some of them, Mr. Speaker, many of them cried and screamed as they died. But because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords instead of air, we couldn't hear them. Now, all of them, Mr. Speaker, had four things in common: first and foremost, they were just little babies that had done nothing wrong to anyone. Each of them died a tragic and profoundly lonely death. Each one of their mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never be the same. And each one of their mothers is a victim, and this society can't see that either sometimes. All of the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity are now lost forever, Mr. Speaker. No one knows which one of them might have found a cure for cancer. Or who knows, maybe they would have just loved flowers. Yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this generation still clings to a blind, invincible ignorance while history repeats itself over and over again, and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the most helpless of all victims--those yet born. Now, ironically, I have heard President Barack Obama speak such poignant words that whether he knows it or not apply so profoundly to this tragedy of abortion on demand in America. And if I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote excerpted portions of his comments, because his words move me very deeply. 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. The President went on to say: And by that measure can we truly say as a Nation that we are meeting our obligations. Can we honestly say that we are doing enough to keep our children--all of them-- And I'm quoting, Mr. Speaker: --all of them safe from harm? Can we say that we are truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? I have been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we are honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We are not doing enough, and we will have to change. Oh, how true the President's words are, Mr. Speaker. The President also said: We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. And then the President 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 really prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of freedom? Mr. Speaker, is this not the most relevant question we should all be asking in the midst of this genocidal murder of thousands of unborn children in America every day? The President has 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, 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. Yet this President in the most merciless distortion of logic, reason, and humanity itself refuses to apply these majestic words to helpless, unborn babies. Oh, how I wish that somehow Mr. Obama would open his heart and his ears to his own words and ask himself in the core of his soul why his words that should apply to all children cannot include the most helpless and vulnerable of all children. When Barack Obama took his oath of office no more than 200 yards from this well, he put his hand down on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln placed his hand upon when he was sworn in to take his Presidential oath. Mr. Speaker, we should remember that we honor Abraham Lincoln most because he found the courage as President of the United States--in the days of slavery, he found the humanity within himself to recognize the image of God stamped on the soul of slaves that the Supreme Court said were not human and that the tide of public opinion didn't recognize as protectable under the law. Could it be--could it be, Mr. Speaker, that President Barack Obama might consider that perspective as well as his own legacy, and even eternity itself, Mr. Speaker, and recognize that these little, unborn children look so desperately to him now for help? Could it be that the President might finally remember that on the pages of the Bible on which he laid his hand were written the words in red: Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto Me. Whether he does or does not, it is time for those of us in this Chamber to remind ourselves of why we are really here. Thomas Jefferson said: The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. Thomas Jefferson 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 14th Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says: No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of all Americans and their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The bedrock foundation of this Republic is that clarion declaration of the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights: the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict, every battle our Nation has ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core self-evident truth. It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world, Mr. Speaker. It is who we are. Yet, today, another day has passed, and we in this body have failed again to honor that foundational commitment. We have failed our sworn oath and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly 4,000 more innocent American little babies who died today without the protection that we should have given them. So, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude this sunset memorial in the hopes that perhaps someone new who heard it tonight will finally embrace the truth that abortion really does kill little babies, that it hurts mothers in ways that we can never express or understand or even fathom, and that it is time we stood up together again and looked up to the Declaration of Independence and that we remember that we are the same America that rejected human slavery and we marched into Europe to arrest the Nazi Holocaust and we are still the courageous and compassionate Nation that can find a better way for mothers and their unborn children than abortion on demand. It is still not too late for us to make a better world and for America to be the one that leads the rest of the planet, just as we did in the days of slavery from this tragic genocide of murdering nearly 4,000 of our own children every day. So, now, Mr. Speaker, as we consider the plight of the unborn after 41 years under ROE v. WADE, maybe we can each remind ourselves that our own days in this sunshine of life are all numbered, and that all too soon each of us will also walk from these Chambers for the very last time. And if it should be that this Congress is allowed to convene on yet another day, may that be the day--may that be the day--when we will finally hear the cries of these innocent, unborn babies. Maybe that will be the day we can find the humanity, the courage, and the will to embrace together our human and our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our tiny little American brothers and sisters from this murderous scourge upon our Nation called abortion on demand. Mr. Speaker, the sun is now setting. It is now 41 years, almost to the day, since ROE v. WADE first stained the foundations of this Nation with the blood of its own children, this, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 641 on H. Res. 441.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there are two components to every threat in terms of national security that this country and other nations face. That first component is that of intent, and the second is that of capacity. If one listens to the rhetoric that the Iranian leaders have spoken in recent years, the intent issue should be settled clearly in our minds. The question that remains is their capacity. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if, indeed, Iran gains a nuclear weapons capability, the world will step into the shadow of nuclear terrorism. Terrorists the world over will have indirect access to nuclear weapons. My children and those of the Members in this body will face a forever future that is uncertain every step they take. Mr. Speaker, about 8 years ago, I stood here in this same spot and called for Iran to be referred to the Security Council. At that time, they had only 160 centrifuges. Of course, the call for them to be referred to the Security Council was diminished in that people said they needed 3,000 centrifuges for a full-blown nuclear weapons program. Today, Mr. Speaker, Iran has 19,000 centrifuges. Those centrifuges will continue to spin--most of them--under this agreement that the President has announced. This agreement the President has announced ignores not only U.S. law, but ignores the UN sanctions that are in place. It also ignores the fact that Iran has not made any concessions in this area in the last 30 years. It also ignores the position that this deal puts Israel in--one that is untenable and more impossible than any I have seen in my lifetime. The naivete of this administration in dealing with Iran is something that is simply breathtaking. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to you that if Iran gains nuclear weapons, we will need a new calendar. It will change our reality in the world that much. And I would say to you that, while there is still time, we need to act. Mr. Speaker, there is that moment in the life of every problem when it is big enough to be seen and still small enough to be addressed, but in terms of Iran's nuclear weapons pursuit, that window is closing quickly. And whatever this body can do, whatever this President can do to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons capability, must be done, because soon they will have the ability to ignore our entreaties and only a military intervention will prevent it. Mr. Speaker, whatever our cost is for preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, it will pale in its significance compared to the cost of allowing Iran to become a nuclear-armed nation.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Smith for both introducing and bringing forth this simple but important and much-needed legislation. Madam Speaker, in order to stop lawsuit abuse, promote jobs in the economy, and restore basic fairness to our civil justice system, rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be amended. Rule 11 provides for one of the most basic requirements for litigation in Federal court: that papers filed with a Federal district court must be based on both the facts and the law. In other words, rule 11 imposes on attorneys the very modest obligation to undertake a reasonable investigation of the facts and law underlying a claim before filing it. This is a simple requirement, Madam Speaker, but one that both sides to a lawsuit must abide by if we are to have a properly functioning Federal court system. Unfortunately, the current version of rule 11 permits attorneys to file a lawsuit first and then try to back up their claims with law and fact later. This is because, under the current rules, failure to comply with rule 11 does not necessarily result in the imposition of sanctions. The fact that litigants can violate rule 11 without penalty significantly reduces the deterrent effect of rule 11, which harms the integrity of the Federal courts and leads to both plaintiffs and defendants being forced to respond to frivolous claims and arguments. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act corrects this flaw by requiring that Federal district court judges impose sanctions when rule 11 is violated. Mandatory sanctions will more strongly discourage litigants from knowingly making frivolous claims in Federal court. It will also relieve litigants from the financial burden of having to respond to frivolous claims, as the legislation requires those who violate rule 11 to reimburse the opposing party for reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. Additionally, the legislation eliminates rule 11's 21-day safe harbor, which currently gives litigants a free pass to make frivolous claims so long as they withdraw those claims if the opposing side objects. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the goal of the rules is to ensure that every action and proceeding in Federal court be determined in a ``just, speedy, and inexpensive'' manner. Madam Speaker, I believe that this goal is best served through mandatory sanctions for violating this simple requirement of rule 11 that every filing be based on both the law and the facts. So I urge my colleagues to support the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act to restore mandatory sanctions to rule 11.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Supreme Court narrowly and specifically upheld the individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare under Congress' general taxing power. The Court specifically noted: Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with the other requirements in the Constitution. Let me read that again, Mr. Speaker: Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with the other requirements in the Constitution. In short, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax. The Supreme Court did not and has not yet considered a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated the Origination Clause in the United States Constitution, and it most certainly did exactly that. The Origination Clause is found in article I, section VII of the Constitution, and it states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. In creating ObamaCare, Senator Harry Reid took an entirely unrelated bill, H.R. 3590, containing just 714 words that did not raise taxes, and then stripped it of everything but its bill number. He then put the 400,000-word ObamaCare that raised taxes in 17 different places into its empty shell. Through this bit of legislative trickery, Mr. Reid claims that ObamaCare originated in the House, when, in fact, every last provision of ObamaCare, including the largest tax increase in American history, all came from the Senate. This sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates the Founders' intent, and it renders the Origination Clause of our Constitution completely meaningless. If it is allowed to stand, the Origination Clause in the Constitution is a dead letter. Mr. Speaker, this is not a small or marginal issue. The principle behind the Origination Clause was the moral justification for our entire War of Independence. Its importance was expressed through the Virginia House of Burgesses, the Stamp Act Congress, and the First Continental Congress, all of whom petitioned the Crown and the Parliament in England for redress of their tax grievances. It was with these realities in mind that the Origination Clause of our Constitution was written, and without it at the core of the Great Compromise of 1787, the 13 original States would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they knew it was vital for the power to raise and levy taxes to originate in the people's House, whose Members are closest to the electorate with 2-year terms, rather than in the Senate, whose members sit unchallenged for 6- year terms and who do not proportionally represent the American population and who already enjoy their own unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by the Framers between the two Chambers. If we as Members of the House of Representatives, who took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, including its Origination Clause, fail to assert this right and responsibility as the immediate Representatives of the people and those most accountable to them, we dishonor the Founders' memory, and we fundamentally abrogate our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear an appeal in the case of Sissel v. HHS as to whether ObamaCare violates the Origination Clause of the Constitution. I would urge my colleagues to sign on to H. Res. 153 and to join me in an amicus brief, along with currently 31 other Members of Congress, that I will be filing with the court. This brief expresses our collective conviction that the passage of ObamaCare was and is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was the largest tax increase in American history. The United States Supreme Court specifically and officially ruled it a tax. Consequently, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the House and the Senate, in passing it in the manner that they did, categorically violated the Origination Clause, without which the U.S. Constitution never would have been born in the first place. It is now the duty of the judiciary to strike down ObamaCare as a clear violation of the Origination Clause. By following this amicus brief, we hope the judiciary will seize on the opportunity to support and defend the origination clause of the United States Constitution. If the judiciary does not strike down ObamaCare as an unconditional Senate-originated tax, Mr. Speaker, it would allow the Obama administration to blow yet another huge hole into the constitutional fabric of this noble Republic. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster once said: Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may never happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world. U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to another subject. Mr. Speaker, the greatest security threat in the world today is that of a nuclear-armed Iran. Now, Iran is once again the news of the moment. As talks between the United States and Iran have begun, American leaders given the charge to protect America's national security must not be charmed by wolves in sheep's clothing. When innocent Syrian civilians were mercilessly attacked by chemical weapons, the Obama administration was caught on its heels in a foreign policy quandary. America was reminded again that the United States must always be vigilant and embrace an international relations framework which enables proactive engagement rather than merely reactionary, crisis response. Mr. Speaker, I desperately hope that these discussions will proceed in the context of the grave reality the human family will face if nuclear weapons fall into the hands of jihadists in Iran. To use the slightly altered words of our Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker: In a world of terrorists and extremists, we ignore these risks at our peril. We simply cannot afford to have nuclear weapons become the IED or car bomb of tomorrow. Neither our country, nor our conscience, can bear the costs of inaction. Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act is: an action that will reinforce the prohibition against illegal nuclear weapons development. We are talking about actions that will degrade Iran's capacity to use these weapons and ensure that they do not proliferate. With this authorization, the President will simply have the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say. Now, Mr. Speaker, actually, the words I have just quoted are really just the essential words of Secretary Kerry's recent justification for wanting to attack Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria. However, I changed the quote a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Whenever he said ``Syria,'' I inserted ``Iran,'' and whenever he said ``chemical weapons,'' I inserted ``nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Speaker. If this line of reasoning of the administration chooses to stand behind this, then we simply cannot refute the parallel argument related to a nuclear Iran which poses an exponentially greater threat in terms of our security to the United States of America. Secretary Kerry asserted that Mr. Obama ``means what he says.'' But, Mr. Speaker, if the world truly believed that this President means what he says, the chemical weapons crisis in Syria would never have occurred in the first place. Secretary Kerry said of the Syrian crisis that North Korea and Iran were closely watching our actions. However, Mr. Speaker, the converse is actually far more accurate: Syria has been closely watching Mr. Obama's inaction toward North Korea and Iran since he became President; and, consequently, Assad felt he could use chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children with impunity. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the entire world now sees the U.S. under this President as all talk. However, in this monumentally important issue of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, our critical diplomatic policies must be backed by our unmovable will to back them up by all means necessary. The popular narrative of the Obama administration is to embrace Iran's openness and reward their willingness to negotiate, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, we know United Nations resolutions, IAEA declarations, and diplomatic efforts, including 10 rounds of negotiations toward this regime, have produced absolutely no fruit at all. Decades have passed without a single concession from this, the world's leading sponsor of terror. In 2005, we saw North Korea, another rogue nation, petition for ``talks'' about ending their nuclear weapons program, and demanding U.S. concessions. How did they hold up that end of that bargain? They conducted three flagrant nuclear weapons tests. This, in spite of the fact that North Korea has been sanctioned, in terms of economic sanctions, into the virtual starvation of their people for now a half century. Mr. Speaker, Iran is closer than ever before and racing toward a full nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian Government's intentions, actions, and capacity to develop nuclear weapons capability and sponsor international terrorism are terrifyingly clear. The time to regain our credibility with both our allies and foes alike in this region is now, before the situation devolves into a Syria-like situation, frantically searching for solutions after the crisis has already begun. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill along with 25 other Members of Congress who are now signed on. The U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act will strengthen the United States negotiating position in the upcoming talks with Iran, and it will outline vital congressional priorities on any nuclear negotiations with Iran. Mr. Speaker, a bad deal with Iran which does not definitively prevent a weapons-capable Iran is worse than no deal at all. I am afraid that is exactly where this administration may take us. Mr. Speaker, we must not let it happen. Whatever the cost is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, it will pale in significance compared to the cost to our children and the entire human family of allowing the jihadist regime in Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a thought I would like to repeat. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly, but specifically, upheld the individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare under Congress' general taxing power. The court noted specifically that ``even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.'' Mr. Speaker, I am going to read that one more time: ``Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.'' In short, Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax. The Supreme Court did not, and has not yet, considered a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated the origination clause in the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, it most certainly did exactly that. Mr. Speaker, the origination clause is found in article I, section 7 of the Constitution, and it states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. In creating ObamaCare, Senator Harry Reid took an entirely unrelated bill, H.R. 3590, containing just 714 words that did not raise taxes, and then he stripped it of everything but its bill number. He then put the 400,000-word ObamaCare that raised taxes in 17 different places into this empty shell bill. Through this bit of legislative trickery, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reid claims that ObamaCare originated in the House when, in fact, every last provision of ObamaCare, including the largest tax increase in American history, all came from the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates the Founders' intent, and it renders the origination clause of our Constitution completely meaningless. If it is allowed to stand, the origination clause in the Constitution is a dead letter, Mr. Speaker. This is not a small or marginal issue. The principle behind the origination clause was the moral justification for our entire War of Independence. Its importance was expressed through the Virginia House of Burgesses, the Stamp Act Congress, and the First Continental Congress, all of which petitioned the Crown and Parliament in England for redress of their tax grievances. It was with these realities in mind that the origination clause of our Constitution was written. Without it at the core of the great compromise of 1787, the 13 original States would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution of the United States. It is not a small issue, Mr. Speaker. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they knew it was vital for the power to raise and levy taxes to originate in the people's House whose Members are closest to the electorate with 2-year terms, rather than the Senate whose Members sit unchallenged for 6-year terms and who do not proportionately represent the American population and who already enjoy their own unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by the Framers between the two Chambers. If we, as Members of the House of Representatives, who took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, including its origination clause, fail to assert this right and this responsibility as immediate representatives of the people and those most accountable to them, Mr. Speaker, we dishonor the Founders' memory and we fundamentally abrogate our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. Mr. Speaker, this fall the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear an appeal in the case of Sissel v. HHS as to whether ObamaCare violates the origination clause of the Constitution. I would urge my colleagues to sign on to H. Res. 153 and to join me in an amicus brief that I will be filing with the court along with currently 31 other Members of Congress. This brief expresses our collective conviction that the passage of ObamaCare was and is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was the largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America. The United States Supreme Court specifically and officially ruled it a tax. Consequently, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the House and the Senate in passing it in the manner that they did categorically violated the origination clause without which the U.S. Constitution never would have been born in the first place. Mr. Speaker, it is now the duty of the judiciary to strike down ObamaCare as a clear violation of the origination clause. By filing this amicus brief, we hope the judiciary will seize on the opportunity to support and defend the origination clause of this our United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, if the judiciary does not strike down ObamaCare as an unconstitutional Senate-originated tax, it would, Mr. Speaker, allow the Obama administration to blow yet another huge hole in the constitutional fabric of this noble Republic. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster said something that I think applies so profoundly here. He said: Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, we must defend this Constitution. We must as the House of Representatives do our part to uphold those privileges and responsibilities we have been given by the Constitution, and I hope we do it, sir. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the United States loses several hundred of our greatest, those heroes of the Greatest Generation, every day. I speak of the World War II veterans whose valor, courage, and sacrifice stopped the evil shadow of the swastika from falling across the whole of humanity. One of those heroes we lost recently was Gerard L. LaRoche, a World War II veteran of D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, Mr. Speaker. He was a Harvard-trained linguist who continued to serve his country after the war at the National Security Agency for many years. Gerard went home to be with his savior on October 6. He was 93 years old. Gerard was a Renaissance man. He was a translator, a language teacher, and a professor at several universities and colleges, a choral director, and a calligrapher. He was also a talented draftsman, Mr. Speaker, a violinist, a photographer, a recording engineer, and a furniture maker. Gerard was born of French-Canadian parents in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1920, the oldest of eight children and the son of a noted calligrapher and schoolteacher who encouraged his artistic talents. Mr. Speaker, in 1933, at age 13, Gerard entered the seminary of the Marist Order but left at 21 to study at Boston College, where he received his bachelor's degree and his master's. He specialized in the study of romance languages, and then the outbreak of World War II came and interrupted his studies. He enlisted in the Army and served with the 2nd Armored Division, where he was at Normandy on D-Day Plus Six, and at the Battle of the Bulge. His ability to speak many forms of French soon landed him as an aide to help U.S. military brass communicate with the Belgians and the French. Through all this, he found time to make sketches of the villages, cities, and countryside in England and in Europe. He eventually continued his studies until he received his masters from Harvard in romance philology. While stationed in the southwest of England, he met his future wife, his beloved Joyce Latchem, at a village dance just weeks before D-Day. They were married on October 18, 1947. And now, Mr. Speaker, for a time at least, Gerard has left behind his best friend and loyal wife, Joyce; his daughter, Marianne; two sons, Jerome and David; six grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren. But they shall all meet again and gather together some day. Mr. Speaker, Gerard LaRoche was a godly man, a devoted patriot and willing soldier, a committed husband, father, and friend. This national treasure will be missed, and we, his fellow Americans, are forever grateful to this noble champion of human freedom. God bless Gerard. ObamaCare Origination Clause

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to change subjects and talk about sometimes it is the water on the inside of a ship that sinks it rather than the water on the outside. Mr. Speaker, right now we have water on the inside of our ship because sometimes the Constitution itself is being ignored by this administration. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Supreme Court narrowly and specifically upheld the individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare under Congress's general taxing power. The Court noted specifically: Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution. In short, Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax. The Supreme Court did not and has not yet considered a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated the origination clause in the United States Constitution, and it most certainly did exactly that. Mr. Speaker, the origination clause is found in article I, section 7, of the Constitution and states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. In creating ObamaCare, Senator Harry Reid took an entirely unrelated bill, H.R. 3590 containing just 714 words that did not raise taxes, and then stripped it of everything but its bill number. He then put the 400,000-word ObamaCare that raised taxes in 17 different places in this empty-shell bill. Through this bit of legislative trickery, Mr. Reid claims that ObamaCare originated in the House, when in fact every last provision of ObamaCare, including the largest tax increase in American history, all came from the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates the Founders' intent, and it renders the origination clause of our Constitution completely meaningless. If it is allowed to stand, the origination clause in the Constitution is a dead letter. Mr. Speaker, this is not a small or marginal issue. The principle behind the origination clause was the moral justification for our entire War of Independence. Its importance was expressed through the Virginia House of Burgesses, the Stamp Act of Congress, and the First Continental Congress, all of which petitioned the Crown and Parliament in England for redress of their tax grievances. It was with these realities in mind that the origination clause of our Constitution was written; and without it at the core of the Great Compromise of 1787, the 13 original States would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they knew it was vital for the power to raise and levy taxes to originate in the people's House, whose Members are closest to the electorate with 2-year terms, rather than the Senate, whose Members sit unchallenged for 6- year terms and do not proportionally represent the American population, and already enjoy their own unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by the Framers between the two Chambers. If we as Members of Congress, who took a solemn oath to defend and protect the Constitution, including its origination clause, fail to assert this right and responsibility as the immediate representatives of the people and those most accountable to them, we dishonor the Founders' memory and fundamentally abrogate our sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear an appeal in the case Sissel v. HHS as to whether ObamaCare violates the origination clause of the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to sign on to H. Res. 153 and to join me in an amicus brief that I will be filing with the court, along with 31 other Members of Congress currently, and this brief expresses our collective conviction that the passage of ObamaCare was and is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was the largest tax increase in American history. The United States Supreme Court specifically and officially ruled it a tax. Consequently, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the House and the Senate in passing it in the manner they did categorically violated the origination clause without which the U.S. Constitution never would have been born in the first place. It is now the duty of the judiciary to strike down ObamaCare as a clear violation of the origination clause. The failure to do so is an abrogation of their judicial oath to the Constitution and undermines their relevance as an institution. It would also allow the Obama administration to blow yet another huge hole in the constitutional fabric of this noble Republic. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster said it this way: Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the court will take those words seriously; and I hope when they hear ObamaCare, they will do the right thing: they will simply read the origination clause and understand that if they let the President blow through this, if we walk away from this, we simply undermine our credibility and our oath and we render a critical part of the Constitution that was vital to this Republic ever coming into existence, we render that part of the Constitution, as I said earlier, a dead letter. Now, Mr. Speaker, I guess it all comes down to making sure we understand as a people that the Constitution was put here to protect three basic rights: the right to live; the right to be free; and the right to own property. And, hopefully, that will allow us to pursue our dreams in the best way we know how; but none of those things can occur if our national security is significantly undermined or threatened; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is today so let me shift gears one more time. Security Threat of Nuclear Armed Iran

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the greatest security threat in the world today is that of a nuclear-armed Iran. And now, Iran is once again the news of the moment. As talks have begun between the United States and Iran, American leaders given the charge to protect America's national security must not be charmed by wolves in sheep's clothing. When innocent civilians in Syria were mercilessly attacked by chemical weapons, the Obama administration was caught on its heels in a foreign policy quandary. America was reminded again that the United States must always be vigilant and embrace an international relations framework which enables proactive engagement rather than merely reactionary, crisis response. I desperately hope these discussions will proceed in the context of the grave reality the human family will face if nuclear weapons fall into the hands of jihadists in Iran. Mr. Speaker, to use the slightly altered words of our Secretary of State: in a world of terrorists and extremists, we ignore these risks at our peril. We simply cannot afford to have nuclear weapons become the IED or car bomb of tomorrow. Neither our country, nor our conscience can bear the cost of inaction. An action that will reinforce the prohibition against illegal nuclear weapons is an authorization of military force in Iran. We are talking about actions that will degrade Iran's capacity to use these weapons and ensure that they do not proliferate. With this authorization, the President will simply have the power to make sure the United States of America means what we say. Now, I can't say actually unquote, Mr. Speaker, because those words were changed just slightly. Actually, these are indeed the essential words of Secretary Kerry's recent justification for attacking Bashar al Assad's regime. However, when he said ``Syria,'' I inserted ``Iran.'' And whenever he said ``chemical weapons,'' I inserted ``nuclear weapons.'' Mr. Speaker, if this is a line of reasoning the administration chooses to stand behind, then we simply cannot refute the parallel argument related to a nuclear Iran, which poses an exponential greater national security threat to the United States than chemical weapons in Syria. Secretary Kerry asserted Mr. Obama ``means what he says.'' But, Mr. Speaker, if the world truly believed that this President means what he says, the chemical weapons crisis in Syria would never have occurred in the first place. Secretary Kerry said of the crisis in Syria that North Korea and Iran were closely watching our actions. Well, I don't disagree with him, Mr. Speaker, but the converse is actually far more true: Syria has been closely watching Mr. Obama's inaction toward North Korea and Iran since he became President. And, consequently, Assad felt he could use chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children with impunity. The entire world now sees the U.S. under this President as all talk. Mr. Speaker, our critical diplomatic policies must be backed by our unmovable will to back them up by all means necessary. The popular concession this week is to embrace Iranian openness and regard their willingness to negotiate. But, Mr. Speaker, we know IAEA declarations have gone unanswered by this regime and diplomatic efforts, including 10 rounds of negotiations since 2011, and they have borne no fruit. Decades have passed without a single concession coming from the world's leading sponsor of terror. In 2005, we saw North Korea, another rogue nation, petition for talks without ending their nuclear weapons program, and demanding U.S. concessions. How did they hold up their end of the bargain, Mr. Speaker? They have conducted three flagrant nuclear weapons tests. This, in spite of the fact that North Korea has been sanctioned virtually into starvation for nearly half a century. Iran is closer than ever and racing toward a full nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian Government's intentions, actions, and capacity to develop nuclear weapons capability and sponsor international terrorism are terrifyingly clear. The time to regain our credibility with both our allies and foes alike in this region is now, before the situation devolves into a Syria-like situation, where we are frantically searching for solutions after the crisis has already begun. To that end, I have introduced the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act. This act will strengthen the United States negotiating position in the upcoming talks with Iran. It will also outline congressional priorities in any nuclear negotiations with Iran. A bad deal with Iran which does not definitively prevent a nuclear weapons capable Iran is worse than no deal at all. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will just say this about a nuclear Iran. I understand that there are great challenges; but whatever the cost, whatever the cost to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran may be, it will pale in insignificance compared to the cost to our children and the entire human family of allowing the jihadist regime in Iran to gain nuclear weapons. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.