Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I guess, Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Colorado because, you know, many of us, including the gentleman from Colorado, including the gentleman from Iowa, were very vociferous in saying that there would come a time where it would be obvious to the world that these civilian trials wouldn't work for enemy combatants that are terrorists that were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever it might be, because we knew that this would give al Qaeda and other terrorist groups a perfect opportunity, a staging ground, as it were, to be able to manipulate our system. Not only does it give them the ability to have discovery where they are able to potentially undermine our security apparatus and gain information that is critical to protecting our agents in the field, but this also gives them the ability to claim all kinds of things before the world. And of course you know the security elements of it are astonishing. And of course they use our own court system and our own court rules to make it very possible for them to escape justice. I thought, to paraphrase President Bush, he said something like this. He said, We should not allow our enemies to use, to destroy liberty by using the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself. And the reality is is that sometimes we can become victims of our own ostensible decency. And this administration, in its kowtowing to terrorists, has been more committed to protecting terrorist rights than it has been to protecting the lives of American citizens. And I think that is profound beyond anything I could suggest. Because it just tells me that somehow the administration has a philosophical bent that is going in a way that I think endangers American freedom and future generations. And I am hoping that somehow they will wake up in time. But yes, the gentleman is correct that WikiLeaks, among other things, has exposed once again this administration's effort to try to put these combatants in different countries to try to avoid the trap that they have set for themselves in America by insisting that this be done in civilian trials. And again, it is a disgrace beyond words that this man that was instrumental in the murder of about, I think it was 224 people, Mr. Lamborn, and yet he gets conspiracy to destroy government property. And that is unfortunately--you know, sometimes the administration thinks of these things always in sort of academic terms. But this is real life. And national security in the 9/11 age is something we should all be focused on. And this administration seems to be asleep at the wheel. And I just wonder if my colleague from Iowa might have any thoughts on that.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. King. You know, I suppose that there are a lot of different issues we could talk about with the WikiLeaks situation here. But I would point out that probably one of the big things that it showed is that just our appeasement toward our enemies. And I think probably one of the most dangerous areas there has been is just the passive nature that this administration has shown toward North Korea. North Korea is one of the most dangerous police states in the world. And they have shown time and again that they are not interested in becoming a stable diplomatic partner really to any member of the international community for that matter, but certainly not the United States. And a recent timeline of North Korea's blatant provocations would probably be worth looking at here. Just to give you an example, in March of 2010 they were involved in the sinking of a South Korean submarine. It killed 46 sailors. In November of 2010, U.N. Security Council reports revealed that North Korea has been passing, as Mr. Lamborn said, forbidden nuclear technology to state sponsors of terror. I know Mr. Lamborn mentioned the missile technology, which is more recent, but also nuclear technology to sponsors of terrorism, including Iran and Syria. Of course the Syrian plant was almost a mirror image of the one in North Korea. And fortunately our friends in Israel were able to make sure that that one didn't work so well any more. And they did the world a great favor in that regard. Because nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran or Syria would be a great danger to the human family to say the very least. In November of 2010, North Korea shelled the Yeonpyeong Island, a group of South Korean islands, and it claimed the lives of two South Korean marines. Two civilians I believe were also killed. It wounded somewhere around 15 marines and three other civilians. And of course this administration, while they have some shows of resolve here lately, a lot of these things have occurred because they have stood by and let North Korea get away with this so long. And really in a sense North Korea sometimes does this to get attention, and they have no respect for innocent human life. So blowing up a few people to try to get one of the Democrat administrations to give them more money is something that they don't hesitate to do. And they have done this on a regular basis. The U.S., Mr. Speaker, must move to re-list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism and call on all responsible nations to adopt tough new sanctions on the North Korean regime. The North Korean regime will collapse on itself if China and other countries in the world do not continue to prop them up. China should be especially called upon to stop enabling this regime and to join responsible nations in sending an unequivocal message to North Korea, abandon your aggressive agenda now. And, of course, you know it shouldn't come as a surprise to us, but China's objections kept us from seeing a U.N. Security Council report revealing that North Korea has been passing banned technology to nations like Syria and Iran, and they delayed that for 6 months. In other words, because of China, because of their commitment to delay this, Iran was given 6 additional months to work on advancing their nuclear capacity without public scrutiny. And there is no telling how far they were able, willing to go, really, to advance this effort. But they were eventually forced to see this information like the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that, you know, weakness and passiveness is provocative. It invites aggression, and it is time that this administration and the United States embark on one singular goal for North Korea, and that is to see that North Korean Government fall and North Korea be reunited and somehow, some semblance of freedom come to that people and that this country, like many of its people, would like for it to be reunited with the world community in a responsible way. To pursue a lot of diplomacy with North Korea is wasted effort, and we should be pursuing now the effort to see a North Korea and South Korea reunited under a free government like South Korea. I wonder if my friend from Colorado would have any comments on that?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Before I yield to my friend from Iowa, I would just like to kind of follow up what the gentleman from Colorado said. You know, sometimes I think we are unaware as a people--and certainly this administration seems oblivious--to how serious a nuclear Iran, what a serious danger to the peace of the entire human family that would represent. But just for a moment, let's consider that for a moment. You know, the Ahmadinejad government, the government of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad there, have, through their very brazen, open statements, have condemned Israel, have condemned the United States and threatened both of our countries in very specific terms, wanting to see Israel wiped off the map and the United States be ended as a world power and to see us completely brought to our knees. I mean, it's hard to even, to repeat some of the things that this Iranian administration has said about America. And it's very clear what their intent is, and there are two elements to every threat, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to national security. One is the intent of a potential enemy and the second one is the capacity of that enemy to carry through with their threats. And if we have not understood by now the intent of jihad, the intent of state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, then we are not listening very well, Mr. Speaker. The intent is clear. Iran would see America destroyed tomorrow if they could. Now, not the Iranian people, but the Iranian Government, as it stands now, would see America in ashes if they could. So the idea of allowing them to gain nuclear capability seems to be just astonishing beyond words to me, Mr. Speaker. I mean, this administration seems to have embraced some sort of a surreptitious policy of allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons and then pursuing the traditional idea of containment, like we have in other situations with the Soviet Union. But that won't work with a jihadist government. Because when we were dealing with the Soviet Union, we put our security, in a sense, in their sanity. We knew that they wanted to survive and we had the capability to respond in such an overwhelming way that they were deterred from attacking America. But when it comes to the jihadist mindset, Mr. Speaker, that is no longer a strategy that can be embraced. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, if Iran gains a nuclear capability, if they gain nuclear weapons, this world will step into the shadow of nuclear terrorism. Terrorists will have these weapons and, Mr. Speaker, I can't express to you the danger that that will represent and the change that it will represent to all of us in the free world and, really, throughout the planet. Because Iran has shown themselves willing to make some of the most deadly weapons that we face in Iraq and blowing up our soldiers with their explosively formed penetrators. They pay money to see some of the Taliban kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. They have demonstrated their intent very clearly, and this administration seems willing to allow them to have the capacity to carry out that intent. Mr. Speaker, let me just, while I am walking by the neighborhood, remind this administration that Iran has done military exercises that appear to every reasonable military analyst to be preparation for an EMP attack against this country or some other enemy that they might have. Mr. Speaker, I think that this administration seems woefully unprepared or even unaware of how serious an electromagnetic pulse or a high altitude nuclear blast to create an electromagnetic pulse could be to this country. Mr. Speaker, if Iran gains a nuclear capability it will give them the asymmetric capability to, in fact, launch an EMP attack against this country, and that could cripple our infrastructure. It could cause an almost inarticulable damage to this country. The EMP Commission says a major EMP attack on this country could be the one thing that could defeat the U.S. military. It could see more than 60 percent of the population of the United States unsustainable. I don't know how you wrap your mind around a number like that. But, yet, that is the path that we are on with this administration continuing to allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. And I would just call upon the Senate, Mr. Speaker, tonight on this floor, to pass the grid bill that we passed out of this body some time ago to begin to protect our electric infrastructure from either geomagnetic storms or from a high altitude electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon that could be launched against us like Iran. This administration has paid no attention to that, and yet it represents a very real, very credible threat against the United States, and it is the ideal asymmetric weapon for terrorists, and they know it. We have discovered their writings. They understand that and yet we stand by, and this administration embraces the notion that we can allow a jihadist, terrorist state like Iran to gain the world's most dangerous weapons and to be able to potentially launch against this country an attack that could be absolutely devastating to our civilization. I just continue to be astonished that this administration has forsaken its number one constitutional duty in making sure that the protection of the citizens of this country and the national security of this country are job one. And I really don't know what to add to that except maybe to ask my friend from Ohio--from Iowa--I know you are not from Ohio--to comment. Mr. KING from Iowa. Well, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And I loved Ohio until Ohio State beat the Hawkeyes a week and a half ago, but I'm holding my judgment until next year when we have some reconciliation meeting that takes place. I'm very interested in the comment that you have made, the shadow of nuclear terrorism, that comment. When we think about this as Americans, watching this world, this Western civilization world falling under the shadow of nuclear terrorism, if we think worrying about some jet airliners being flown into the Twin Towers or into the Pentagon just down the road a little ways or off into the field in Pennsylvania, what that did to this country, how it shook up this country, how it immobilized our financial markets and our daily lives, right down to football games and weddings were brought to an immediate halt, even though it was more than 1,000 miles away, nearly 2,000 miles away to get to the other side of the continent, they stopped their football games there, too. They stopped their weddings there, too. And I suppose they stopped some funerals for a while. That's how much it devastated this country. And I thought that we really should have looked at those crises on September 11, 2001 and said it's not going to break our stride. We're going to keep our pace. We're going to go forward, and we're going to live, and we're going to live while we adapt to the new threat that has come upon us. But this new threat that's out there now that hangs over our head, the shadow of nuclear terrorism that hangs over our head out of North Korea, who is completely belligerent today, and out of Iran as well. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I wasn't very happy with the job that was done by then-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton on each of these issues but primarily with Korea. I thought that he was too soft, too tepid, not bold enough, and I looked through that and I thought North Korea will march through his path and they'll become a nuclear power and nothing is going to stop them because we are not bold, we're not strong enough, and we didn't show the resolve necessary to cause them to back up and back off, North Korea. Also true with Iran. And as I watched President Bush, Bush 43, come into office, I was hopeful there would be a bolder position with regard to our posture towards North Korea and towards Iran. And I can remember serving here in this Congress through some of those years. And I watched how the political handcuffs were put on George W. Bush in such a way that he didn't have the political support to use the bold actions that I believe might have been necessary then to avert the nuclear power that has materialized in North Korea nor the impending nuclear power that appears to be materializing in Iran. I don't think that George Bush was able to utilize those tools. I don't know if he had the will. I believe he did. I believe he had the judgment, but I don't think he had the political tools because this Congress was so lined up against George Bush, there were so many debates that emerged from over on this side of the aisle that attacked the President, the Commander in Chief, and undermined our military when they were in the field where lives were being sacrificed for our liberty, 44 votes forced by this Speaker of the House that were designed to unfund, underfund or undermine our troops. And all of that was designed to expand their political power and diminish the power of the Commander in Chief. While that was going on, North Korea was furiously building a nuclear capability, Iran was building a nuclear capability, and one thing that did happen very good, and many of them did happen good under George Bush, was he began the process to establish the missiles in Poland and the radar in Czechoslovakia and he had it set up to go to protect Western Europe and eventually America from missiles coming out of Iran, and what happened? We elected a new President, one who I don't think has an understanding of this geopolitical chess game that's going on with our national security and the destiny of all humanity, who did what? Pulled the missiles out of Poland, the radar out of Czechoslovakia, and the headlines in the Warsaw paper said ``betrayed.'' Betrayed. And I believe that that was the largest and most colossal foreign policy mistake made by the Obama administration that emboldened not just Iran to accelerate their nuclear endeavors but emboldened North Korea as well to go to the point of shelling the island in South Korea because they know or they believe, and I actually think they know, this President doesn't have the resolve to do the confrontation necessary to protect our liberty. So we live now under the shadow of a nuclear terrorism that is emerging. And I would just ask this question, does this Nation have the capability and the will to shut off that capability, that building capability in Iran and in North Korea? If we do, we have a strong position to negotiate from. If we do not, we need to achieve that ability and negotiate from a strong position. There is more I would say, but I yield back to the gentleman the Arizona.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct, not that I'm an expert, but that your points are absolutely correct. I would say that it's important to realize that the European site was not only a redundant protection to the United States from potentially ICBMs coming from Iran, but it was also something that could have calculated or factored into the calculus of Iran in moving towards developing nuclear capability in the first place, because in a sense, Mr. Speaker, missile defense is the last line of defense against an incoming missile. And I think everyone can understand that basic equation. But it's also the first line of defense against nuclear proliferation. Because a rogue state like Iran knows that they face great challenges and great dangers by pursuing nuclear weapons because they realize that their neighbors understand the aggressive nature of that rogue state of Iran and can't abide them having nuclear weapons, and they realize that could potentially invite some type of preemptive attack. But they continue to do that because they understand the strategic advantage that they would gain to threaten their neighbors would be overwhelming. But if indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could have been in a place in Poland to be able to intercept or knock down any missiles coming toward our allies in Europe or the United States, it could have demonstrated to Iran that they would not have gained any strategic advantage by continuing forward, and it may some day in the history books be written that that is where we lost the battle because that is maybe where Iran began to see that they were going to be able to get away with creating a nuclear capability. But, Mr. Speaker, it's astonishing that this administration betrayed the people of Poland, betrayed the people of the Czech Republic. When we had made promises to them, we did everything we could to reach out to them to have courage to stand with America in this endeavor, and then our own administration pulls the plug and betrays them. And now it makes it very difficult for other allies to express that same kind of courage. Of course the phased adaptive approach is a name that we put on. It's a good name. There's nothing wrong with the name. Some of our military leaders understand that there are many, as Mr. Lamborn said, many important aspects to the phased adaptive approach. The irony is that the Bush administration was pursuing the phased adaptive approach long before the Obama administration ever even understood that there was such a thing. And these things were on the books, and all the Obama administration really did was to cancel the third site and unfortunately then make it clear that we would not have redundant capability to interdict any ICBMs or long-range missiles that Iran could place a nuclear weapon on because we simply would not be able to do it in time. Our Aegis capability is a wonderful capability, Mr. Speaker. But the present Aegis capability does not have the capacity or the speed to shoot down ICBMs, unless they're in a perfect spot, which is a very rare occurrence. And I would just suggest to you that this administration, once again, has placed their ideological commitment to the left above national security. You know, there may be some day when we wished we had these days back again. With all of the challenges we face, it seems like the administration forgets its first responsibility, its first constitutional duty of defending the citizens and the national security of this country. It shouldn't surprise us that they forget the idea of property rights, and it shouldn't surprise us that they forget the idea of protecting the rights of innocent, unborn children. And it shouldn't surprise us that they are willing to put people on the courts that have no respect for the Constitution. And it shouldn't surprise us that somehow the foundations of the Nation, the right to live and be free and pursue our dreams, is subordinated to the notion that we want to build a large State. Those things shouldn't surprise us. But if this administration continues to go in the direction it is going, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we will all wish we had these days back again when we could have prevented some great tragedies that may befall us because of the ideological commitment of this administration to weaken America. I wonder if my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) has any comments along those lines.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is kind hard to top that. The message I was hoping that could be relayed more than anything else is that there has been a general lackadaisical, asleep-at-the-wheel, detached perspective of this administration when it comes to national security. And unfortunately, we live in a 9/11 world where there are those out there who don't hold to the ideals of freedom and protecting innocent life, like has been the ideal of America. This administration is continuing down this path. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to have to come to this floor in future days and have to decry what we failed to do. I think there is still time for this administration to wake up and realize that allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons, allowing North Korea to proliferate nuclear capability, missile capability throughout the world, allowing terrorists to use the forms of liberty to destroy liberty itself in our civilian courts, allowing the potential of terrorists to gain control of an EMP capability that could threaten our whole society, standing by while the Senate sits quietly and does nothing to pass the GRID bill passed in the House of Representatives, these are very, very important things, Mr. Speaker. I just hope somehow this administration realizes that their first purpose and their first responsibility to God, country, and their fellow human beings is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I hope that happens.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, Annette Bergeron. Annette is the MATC supervisor of the P.T. Amputee section over at Walter Reed. She has worked virtually with all of the amputees coming back from the war. She inspires all of her patients with her motivation and ability to reach so deep down inside of all of her wounded warriors. Inspiring them by demanding the best out of all her heroes, as she brings them to new heights by not pitying them but pushing them beyond their limits. And her greatest gift is knowing her patients, with her strong knowledge and sixth sense to read them. There are families all across this nation, and magnificent heroes who will carry her in their hearts for the rest of their lives. Knowing the great debt they owe to her, and the angels over at Walter Reed who are but some of our nations greatest unsung heroes, I ask that this poem penned in honor of her at the request of SSG. Poe of North Carolina and by Albert Caswell, be placed in the Record. Move Me Move me. . . . Bend me, reach me . . . then she. . . . As she so but brings out, but the very best in me! As she will not so rest, will she! So relentless, but to the tenth degree! Like a Jedi Knight, her light we see! And from all of us, will not so settle for less . . . will she! Until, I can but so be. . . . So but be, but the very best I can be! Men and women without arms and legs. . . . Broken into so many pieces, as are they. . . . Magnificent heroes who to this our nation so gave. . . . As she's rebuilding fine lives night and day! The queen of pain, bringing all of them to a better day. . . . With but her heart of a lioness, bringing us to the highest degree! All in what a heart can be, as she so bids us to so believe. . . . So begs us all to so reach . . . to so reach, so deeply down so deep. . . . As her promise, to us all as she so keeps. . . . Move me!. touch me! motivating all of us, as such she! As does she! As against all odds, but to the core, reaching us all so very deeply. . . . Letting us all, but to be . . . but the very best we can be. . . . From out of the ashes of war, so resurrecting all of our lives indeed! Making us whole, giving us all that we so need! For in her world, there is no such word as self pity! Only, how high a soul can reach! Making us all so believe! As an angel on earth, as but her fine worth! To all of our precious men and women, of that red, white & blue. . . . For them she so bleeds, so tried and true! A shining star over at Walter Reed, a real who's who! For Bo knows hearts, of most heroic hues! And how to get inside them so very deep to view! Bo, you move me! oh yes you do!

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, in talking about the budget tonight, I guess I believe, Congressman, that the budget challenges that we have, the deficit spending and the debt, has the ability to challenge and damage this country perhaps in a way that no military power has ever been able to do. We are around $13 trillion in debt in this country. And if you try to measure that in simple terms, it almost boggles the mind. But if you try to put it in terms that we can understand, if we decided to pay that off at a million dollars a day. Let's say we just suspended the interest on the debt and we didn't go another penny in debt, and we said we are going to pay what we owe off before we go deeper in debt. Now that I suppose sounds outrageous for a place like this, but that's a very commonsense idea. And yet, if we paid our existing debt off at $1 million a day, with no interest and no additional spending, it would take us around 40,000 years to do that.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. My grandkids may not be around that long. But the real tragedy, of course, is that we're not paying this debt off at $1 million a day as a country. That's a very nominal figure. We're going into debt thousands of times that much every day. The Obama administration is spending us into oblivion. There has never been a precedent. Since this Obama administration's taken place in two year cycles, they have put us at what looks like will be around $3 trillion additional in debt. If we don't change that, I really believe that it could be the central figure in America's economic obituary.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, Congressman, if we fail to put our economic house in order, we're not going to be able to project any military capability at all. You know, a government is what it spends. And one of the reasons that America has such a strong military capability is because we're so strong economically. We're the most powerful Nation economically in the world. We dwarf all other economies. But the way we're going, we could be competing with Greece for the instability that this administration seems to be heading our country toward.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I think that one of the disappointing things for me in this body, and in all due respect to the majority, is that they seem to hold themselves unconstrained to the truth and the things that you mentioned. It almost seems that they feel like they can hold themselves to be able to take a vote here and repeal the laws of mathematics. And we're facing a day of reckoning that is coming pretty quickly. There are a lot of things that are beginning to snowball. Not only is this administration spending and deficit spending in an unprecedented way, but we're fast approaching where the baby boomer generation, of which I am sort of kind of on the tail end, barely old enough to be a baby boomer--

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I will just say, and it just seems obvious to me--and I will probably take a little chapter out of your cartoon there--this President has been very confident in a lot of his prognostications. There's a hubris and an arrogance there that is just overwhelming. But when you look at the facts, whether it's in our military challenges, our national security challenges, whether it's dealing with the challenges in the gulf, or whether it's dealing with the economy, it seems that his arrogance-to-competency ratios are catastrophically out of balance. If you really want to know where the deficit is in this country, it's between the arrogance of this administration and the competence of this administration; and I think therein really lies the big challenge that we face. I don't know what's going to cure that if voters don't wake up.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, it really is. And regardless of whose fault it was on the ground, regardless of whether it was a mistake made by the operator or by the driller or by one of those contractors there, the bottom line is that BP's the operator, so they're ultimately responsible. Again, everybody knows that. But this administration was focused on blame and political expediency rather than fixing the problem.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. But the point is, this has been the most productive generation in the history of this country. And the baby boomer generation is beginning now to start to retire. And that means two things: that productivity is going to be dramatically reduced, and of course then they are going to go on Social Security and begin to put a drain on the system. And we absolutely are in an unsustainable circumstance at this moment. And for all the things that we try to do, the Democrat majority simply is ignoring that reality. I have two little babies at home, 22-month-old twins, and they are the greatest joy of my soul. And I will just say to you that the idea that we're robbing them of God knows what, I mean it's almost like they could be facing a complete economic meltdown, and it could happen way before they get old enough to deal with it. But we actually, in my judgment, have generational theft here. And it is something that is a disgrace. And I think it's fundamentally immoral. And we don't have to do that. All we have to do is say that whatever else we're going to do, we're going to do like families. We're going to have a budget. We're going to say we're not going to spend more than we take in. We may not be able to pay this debt off tomorrow. I already said it might be 35,000, 40,000 years the way we are going just at a million dollars a day paying it off. But we're not going to go further in debt. And that's something this Congress should have the courage to do.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I just was responding. I think if we could explain why they are not putting a budget out is because they do not want the American people to see what they're really doing.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I don't think they want them to see that. Fundamentally, you're correct. I was touched by the gentleman's understanding that this is really about--and we always forget that true statesmenship is not just about the next election. It's about the next generation. And I'm always in memory of how my parents worked so hard. My dad worked in the mines and everything else he could think of doing, and he is probably listening to us tonight. But I'm just so thankful for a father that gave everything of himself to try to make it possible for me to have a better life than he did, and I wouldn't be here without that. My mother worked in nursing homes. And you know, they gave everything they had to us. And here we're doing exactly the opposite. Not only are we spending our children into an oblivion of debt, not only are we teaching the next generation that they don't have to be responsible, not only are we seeing government take over most of our major industries now whether the auto industry, the health care industry, the insurance industry, the banking industry. I don't know what's next. We're teaching our young kids something that is very, very frightening. And I just think that more than anything, Mr. Akin, that you pointed out the real issue here. It is a lack of commitment to the future generations. And this Democrat majority has done for spending what Stonehenge did for rocks. There is no one that can touch them. They can talk about Republican deficits. And from my part and yours and Mr. Broun's here, you know we worked here when we were in the majority. Our votes reflected a desperate commitment to balance this budget. But this Democrat majority has completely left all reason to the wind. They've tried to spend and tax and borrow our way into prosperity, and I just don't think I've ever seen in my lifetime a more dangerous situation for us economically. And in the final analysis here, they are also doing everything they can it seems to crush business and job growth. And so it just seems like all of these things are coming together, and I don't know where it ends, and I don't know what to do. It's almost you have to be an alarmist to tell the truth here.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I never was.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I just want to agree with Congressman Broun, you know, when he talked about what brought us out of the Depression. The postwar industrial machine in this country was astounding. One of the things, it seems, that this Democrat majority simply does not understand--and it's probably because most of them haven't been in small business or in the real world many times; they don't sign the front of a check, you know, but usually sign the back of it. The reality is that they forget that the monetary system is a reflection of the method of the productivity mechanism that we have in this country. All economy, ultimately, and in the most fundamental, substantive analysis is about productivity. You know, that means that people have to work and create goods and services. When we don't have people working, when we don't have jobs, then it doesn't happen. When you take government money and when you say, well, we're going to spend our way into recovery, it does two things. First of all, it either takes the money directly out of taxpayers' pockets--it has to come from somewhere, right?--or they have to borrow it. If they borrow it, then it makes less capital available for business and for those groups that actually create jobs. They don't seem to understand that, unless the 300-plus million people of the country are working and creating jobs and creating goods and services, no matter what our monetary policies are, nothing will work, and the economy will fail. I guess I just want to add, Congressman, that the highway of history is littered with the wreckage of governments that thought that they could create and maintain productivity in markets better than free enterprise could. It has just been an element of history, and I don't want to see this country join that litany. This administration is driving us head on in that direction. You know, you talked about, historically, our total GDP in this country--and one of you can correct me if I'm wrong--is somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $17 trillion a year. Whenever our debt approaches 100 percent of the GDP per year of a country, historically and empirically that has almost always precipitated a major meltdown. I'm not talking about just a recession or even a depression, I'm talking about a cataclysmic meltdown that leaves a country having to start over from the beginning. And I don't want to see us go in that direction.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, in this case, the Democrats are way past that because that would mean you're spending as much as you're making. They're spending more than the government is taking in. That's deficit. I'm talking about something a little different. I'm talking about the debt--the total debt to GDP ratio. And in this case we're not there yet. I think that we're somewhere at about $1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion deficit and about at $13 trillion debt. And $13 trillion debt would be up somewhere against around a $15 trillion to $17 trillion GDP annual economy. What's 13 into 17? We're not at 100 percent yet but we're starting to get there. Whenever it goes to 100 percent or 105 percent, historically there's usually some type of major meltdown. I think that's a reflection not so much of arbitrary numbers but of sort of human nature. We begin to think, Oh, we'll never be able to pay this off. Let's just quit. The capital begins to run away from the markets. People begin to horde what they have. Just like in the Great Depression. It wasn't that all the money disappeared. It wasn't that all of a sudden capital vaporized. People put it in their pockets because they no longer trusted their government. They no longer trusted that they could put their capital at risk and have any real assurance that they had even a possibility of getting it back. And that's where this government is failing the people. They are destabilizing this economy so badly that capital is afraid to even get in the game.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Actually, my younger brother and I started out with a little, small drilling rig when I was 17 and he was 15. It was a great experience, and I will never forget it. But the offshore situation, of course, is a much bigger challenge. But I guess my conviction is that this administration, when this tragedy took place, they were so busy trying to fix blame rather than fixing the problem. Now, the ironic part about it is they'd like to try to pretend that there's some debate on who's to blame, and there isn't. All of us in this Chamber, all of us in this Congress recognize that BP is to blame for this tragedy. BP has said they are to blame for this tragedy. And what President Obama should have done when this occurred, he should have immediately met with the only industry in the world that could deal with the problem of this nature. You can't call in the Air Force to lob heavy bombs at it. You've got to go to the industry that knows how to deal with these things. He should have called all the experts to say: Here's the deal. First of all, we're going to hold you accountable. It's going to happen. We know you're at fault. You're going to be accountable. But right now, our job is to plug this blowout, and we're going to do whatever it takes to do that. We're going to work with everyone. We're going to work together, and we're going to make it happen, and we're going to make sure that you're doing the best you can. We're going to allow help from all over the world to help us. We're going to try to make sure that we protect our shoreline. In the meantime, we're going to draw off as much oil as we can. But instead, instead, this President is out looking over the horizon to and fro to find somebody's rear end to kick. That is his answer to the problem. And I just find it amazing, because the moratorium that they talk about, not only does that not plug the hole. You know, it's kind of like bringing a person into the emergency room and he's bleeding to death, and he again is out trying to find somebody's rear to kick instead of trying to fix the patient. And this moratorium, not only does it not fix the leak, not only is it something that will destroy jobs and hurt the economy, but if all you cared about was the pollution that was the problem here, this moratorium is going to mean that about a third of the oil that we produce out of the gulf--that's about how much--we produce about 42 percent or somewhere in that neighborhood of our own oil in this country, maybe around 40 percent, and about a third of that comes from the gulf. And if we don't produce that, that means we've got to bring in more tankers. We've got to buy more oil from overseas. And what this administration overlooks, very characteristically, is that they forgot that 7 of 10 of the last major spills in this country, 7 out of 10, were from tankers. And so what we're going to do is bring more tankers over and increase the empirical chances of us having greater spills. And, ultimately, the money that we pay for that, a lot of it comes from Middle Eastern oil. A lot of that money finds its way into terrorist coffers, and they may bring something over to this country that will really be a cataclysm. And this administration seems blind to all of that, and I just find it astonishing the lack of priority.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Congressman, he waited 2 months before he met with BP. Two months.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. And he should have been there at least within two days.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise in strong support as a co-sponsor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we live in a moment in history when the terrorist State of Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. If that occurs, all other issues will be wiped from the table and whatever challenges we have in dealing with Iran today will pale in comparison to dealing with an Iran that has nuclear weapons. Over the last 16 months, the Obama administration has dithered and pretended to pursue effective U.N. and U.S. sanctions against Iran, yet Mr. Obama has not enforced even one of the sanctions that already exist in the law against even one company doing business with Iran. The question now is: Will the President enforce the new sanctions we are about to pass or will he waive them like he has all of the others? Mr. Speaker, the last window we will have ever to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. I pray the Obama administration will wake up in time to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation and from bringing nuclear terrorism to this and future generations.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is not about equal rights. It's about the impact on the readiness, cohesiveness, and effectiveness of the U.S. military. And if the Murphy amendment passes, it could have a profoundly negative effect on all of those things. I believe it could translate to life-and-death implications on the battlefield, Mr. Speaker. And yet ironically, on something that will affect 2.8 million service men in this country, this side of the aisle will receive 5 minutes to debate that--that's half as much as any other amendment. This will also be saying to our military, who--all they've asked is just a chance to study the issue and come back with their recommendations to this body. We're going to say no, we don't care what you say. You can die for us on the battlefield, but you have no input into this process. That's a disgrace to this institution, and it's an insult to the men and women who pour out their blood on foreign battlefields for the country that we all love so much.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is growing more and more clear that the Obama administration intends to allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons and then to adopt a policy of containment, and I am unable to fully express the danger of such a policy. Whatever challenges we have in dealing with Iran today will pale in comparison to dealing with an Iran that has nuclear weapons. Now, I am grateful that the committee chose to accept my amendment to this bill requiring the Defense Department to develop and report to the Congress a national military strategic plan to counter Iran. However, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration remains asleep at the wheel while the last window we will ever have to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. I only pray that the President will wake up in time to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from ushering a human family into the shadow of nuclear terrorism.