Trent Franks

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country and even across the world when protecting little babies from torture was a noble thing. Mr. Speaker, I've heard my colleagues today call this effort to protect little babies from tortuous pain extremist ideology. And I would just suggest to you, sir, if they are right, then, I, for one, will envy no one that they might call mainstream, because, Mr. Speaker, this bill simply says that we intend, in the seat of freedom in America, where Congress has the ultimate and clear responsibility constitutionally to legislate, that we're going to protect unborn children that have reached the age where they can feel pain. Mr. Speaker, today, in Washington, D.C., a child can be aborted in labor, and that is not who America is. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we, in this body, cannot find the courage and the will to protect these little babies from this kind of torture, then I'm not sure that we will ever find the will or the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone in this place. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is the will and the courage to do that in this body. I would predict that this body will pass overwhelmingly, by a majority vote, even though we won't maybe meet the suspension rules, but we will pass by an overwhelming number of votes this bill today. I believe it'll be 240, 250 votes, and it will at least demonstrate to the world that there's still a conscience in this place, that we still stand for the commitment to protect little babies that have no other people to protect them. This is our job here, to protect the rights of the innocent, and by the grace of God we're going to do that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from Arizona in commending the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) for a decade of biomedical research success. TGen was founded in Arizona in 2002 to leverage new scientific discoveries from the mapping of the human genome, and its establishment promptly accelerated the state into the era of genomics and personalized medicine. Mr. Speaker, significant to TGen's establishment was the confluence of support from all sectors of the state to attract this new institute to base its operations in Arizona, as well as recruit the renowned geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Trent to lead it, and position the state as a worldwide leader in bioscience and medical discovery. Academic, business, philanthropic, and government leaders all joined forces in a statewide campaign to strategically assemble the necessary support. What most excited Arizona leaders was the vision put forth by Dr. Jeff Trent, to accelerate and translate scientific discovery into more immediate and effective benefits for patients, all made possible with the new information from the human genome and rapidly developing technology. Mr. Speaker, it was on this day ten years ago, June 26, 2002, with high expectations and hopes, that Governor Hull and state leaders announced the successful launch of TGen and the genomics era in Arizona. A decade of exciting growth and new research discoveries has since transpired. Investment into TGen and the biosciences spurred growth across the state, catalyzing the launch of the Critical Path Institute and Bio5 in southern Arizona, Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute, a northern Phoenix bio campus, TGen North and the expansion of W.L. Gore in northern Arizona. The bioindustry has flourished over the past ten years, even during economic downturns, becoming a significant high- performing sector of the Arizona economy. For patients, TGen is offering hope where there had been none, with novel treatments offered only in Arizona. By partnering with clinical entities like the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale Healthcare, TGen is focusing on utilizing genomic analyses to improve and customize patient treatments. Patients with pancreatic cancer and rare diseases like basal cell carcinoma are finding answers to their treatment struggles, improving quality of patient lives and allowing more years to spend with loved ones. Whether it's sequencing anthrax or the plague, investigating H1N1 or Valley Fever; finding new clues to triple- negative breast cancer or Alzheimer's disease; or, leading new collaborative research partnerships addressing pediatric and canine cancers, TGen's research has made substantial inroads over the past ten years. More than a decade ago, the mapping of the human genome represented a challenge to the world to make use of this new knowledge for the benefit of humankind. Arizona answered this challenge and now TGen is a leading model for fusing modern medicine with the power of translational research to fuel the next wave of treatments for all manner of human diseases. Mr. Speaker, as the tenth-year anniversary of TGen's launch is celebrated today, I applaud Dr. Trent and the scientists at TGen for their unwavering commitment to make a difference for patients and lead innovative research for Arizona into the next decade.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Young and Chairman Hastings and the House leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today, as well as the bipartisan group of cosponsors for their support. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, seeks to prevent Las Vegas-style casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area on lands purchased by the Tohono O'odham Nation. Mr. Speaker, the Tohono O'odham Nation has tried to manipulate the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act of 1986 to acquire lands for gambling which are more than 100 miles from the Tohono O'odham's existing reservation. This ``reservation shopping'' for casino gambling purposes is contrary to the express and public commitments that the Tohono O'odham made between 2000 and 2002 to the other 16 Indian tribes in Arizona, the State, and the voters of Arizona when it openly and definitively supported passage of Proposition 202, a State referendum to limit casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Indeed, while the Tohono O'odham was in negotiations with the other tribes to craft a gaming compact agreement, they were simultaneously in the process of covertly purchasing attractive land in the Phoenix metropolitan area for casino gambling purchases. Thus, the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 2938 are simply trying to keep the Tohono O'odham Nation to its publicly stated commitment not to engage in casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Mr. Speaker, during the subcommittee hearing on this bill, witnesses made it clear that there is a problem and a serious threat to existing gaming structure in Arizona if the Tohono O'odham Nation is able to develop a Las Vegas-style casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The passage of H.R. 2938 will prevent an ominous precedent that could lead to an expansion of off-reservation casinos and dangerous changes to the complexion of tribal gaming in the other States across the country in which Indian tribes can use front companies to buy up land and declare it part of their sovereign reservation for gaming purposes. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, even if the casino weren't in violation of Federal law--which it is--but if it weren't, claims that the operation would create jobs and benefit the economy of the surrounding area are woefully misinformed at best and shamefully dishonest at worst. The most frequently cited job creation numbers that have been thrown about during this debate come almost without exception from a study commissioned by the Tohono O'odham tribe themselves. The study was conducted by the Spectrum Gaming Group. Tellingly, multiple organizations asked the tribe to release the data and the methodology supporting this so-called ``study,'' which was released roughly 3 years ago. To this day, the tribe continuously to steadfastly refuse. In other words, the tribes released a slew of numbers extolling the supposed amazing economic benefits of their casino, then refused to tell anybody how they came up with the numbers. Far from economically benefiting the West Valley, one recent well documented study found that casino operations would ultimately provide $172,500 of revenue annually for the city of Glendale--keep in mind the surrounding areas would not benefit from the normal sales taxes, bed taxes, and property taxes because the casino, being on tribal land, would be exempt from all three. Meanwhile, Glendale estimates an added cost of $3.6 million per year just for the additional cost of public safety services necessary to such a large operation. Of course, it should always be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that casino revenues are primarily comprised of gambling losses that would otherwise have found their way into the economy in more productive sectors. Mr. Speaker, my bill would not seek to take any lands away from Tohono O'odham. Consistent with the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, my bill merely prevents the Tohono O'odham from building a gambling casino on certain lands, as it previously agreed it would never do. I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me and the members of Arizona's delegation in supporting this bill.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 329 I confused the amendment with another. Had I been correct, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013. I also want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Gosar, Mr. Steve King, and Mr. Amash--for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that no funds made available by H.R. 5854 could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Davis-Bacon Act requirements for government contracts. Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act is an anachronistic law that was enacted during the Great Depression to prevent wayfaring contractors from lowballing local construction bids. The sponsors of this act originally intended for it to discriminate against nonunionized black workers in favor of white workers belonging to white-only unions. This vestigial remnant of the Jim Crow era has no place in our military construction contracts and should be abandoned. Furthermore, the Davis-Bacon Act results in billions of wasted taxpayer dollars every year. The act requires Federal construction contractors to pay their workers higher government-mandated wages, which would be as much as 1\1/2\ times greater than their basic pay rate. This results in artificially high costs of construction, Mr. Chairman, which are ultimately shouldered by American taxpayers. Contractors wishing to offer a lower bid would still be required by law to pay their employees the higher government-mandated wage and file a weekly report of the wages paid to each worker. This has a particularly negative effect on small businesses as they are often unable to compete due to the Davis-Bacon wage and benefits requirements, which reduces competition and further inflates contract rates. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon was enacted before the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act; and, according to GAO, these acts have rendered Davis-Bacon obsolete and unnecessary. There are a number of laws passed by this body that protect construction workers without the discriminatory intent and effect of Davis-Bacon. During this time of fiscal austerity and responsibility, Congress must do all it can to lower Federal contract costs and decrease the burden on American taxpayers. This amendment is an attempt to stop the hemorrhage of wasteful spending and rein in our debt. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure no funds are made available by H.R. 5854 that could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the wasteful Davis-Bacon Act, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3541) to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the remainder of the time?

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3541, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act we are debating at this moment simply says that an unborn child cannot be discriminated against by subjecting him to an abortion based on the sex of the child. Because between 40 and 50 percent of African American babies--nearly one in two--are killed by abortion, which is five times, Mr. Speaker, the rate of white children, I believe with all of my heart that this bill should also prohibit race-targeted abortion as it did when the bill was first introduced. It is my hope that by protecting unborn children from being aborted based on their sex that one day very soon we will also recognize the humanity and justice of protecting unborn children regardless of their race or color as well, and simply because we recognize them as fellow human beings. Mr. Speaker, worldwide sex-selection abortion has now left the human family on Earth with approximately 200 million missing baby girls. Various United Nations organizations have battled sex-selection abortion for years. These agencies routinely refer to sex-selection abortion as ``an extreme form of violence against women.'' In the New Atlantis magazine, political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, of the American Enterprise Institute, said: In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls. In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion worldwide; yet here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way. Mr. Speaker, a number of academic papers have now published evidence that the practice of sex-selection abortion is demonstrably increasing here in the United States, especially, but not exclusively, in the Asian immigrant community. A study by researchers at the University of Connecticut, which was published in Prenatal Diagnosis, found that the male-to-female live birth sex ratio in the United States for Chinese, Asian Indians, and Koreans clearly exceeded biological variation for third births and beyond. Mr. Speaker, deliberate prenatal sex selection is the only plausible explanation. Dr. Sunita Puri and three other researchers at the University of California interviewed 65 immigrant Indian women in the United States who had sought or were seeking sex-selection abortion. They found that 40 percent of the women interviewed had deliberately aborted unborn baby girls previously and that nearly 90 percent of the women who were currently carrying unborn baby girls were also currently seeking to abort them. This was an incredibly powerful study, Mr. Speaker. It discussed in detail the multiple forms of pressure and outright coercion to which these women are often subjected. Sixty-two percent of the women described verbal abuse from their husbands or female in-laws, and fully one-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect, all related specifically to their failing to produce a male child. As a result, these women reported aborting multiple unborn baby girls in a row because of the pressure that was put on them to have a male child. Mr. Speaker, sex-selection abortion is extreme violence against both unborn baby girls and their mothers. It has been a primary enforcement mechanism for China's forced abortion and ``one child'' policy for many years. It has dramatically increased sex trafficking and violence against women due to the imbalanced sex ratios left in its wake across the world, and we now know that it is a tragic circumstance into which many women are also being coerced. This evil practice has now allowed thousands of little girls in America and millions of little girls across the world to be brutally dismembered, most of them in their second or third trimester and when they are capable of feeling extreme pain, simply because they were little girls instead of little boys, Mr. Speaker. Sex selection is violence against women, and it is the truest kind of war against women, and it has now brought humanity to a place where the three deadliest words on this Earth are ``it's a girl.'' What in God's name have we come to, Mr. Speaker? I've often asked myself what finally enlightened and changed the hearts of those across history who have either perpetrated or supported or ignored the atrocities and human genocides of their day. While I probably will never fully understand, I believe I caught a glimpse of the answer from my 3-year-old little girl, Gracie. As I was holding her and we were watching her favorite laughing baby videos on YouTube, I inadvertently clicked on a video that showed a young man from China who was playing poignant and beautiful music on the piano with his feet because both of his arms had been amputated when he was a child. In trying to seize on a teaching moment, Mr. Speaker, I said, ``Look at that, Gracie. He's playing the piano with his feet. Isn't that amazing?'' But with a stricken little look on her face, Gracie said, ``But, Daddy, he doesn't have any arms.'' I said, ``I know, Baby, and that's very sad, isn't it?'' And she said, ``Oh, Daddy, it is very sad. We've got to help him. We've just got to. We've got to get some arms and give it to him.'' I said, ``But, Baby, there aren't any extra arms. They're all hooked onto other people.'' And she thought for a moment and looked at me with wet little eyes and pulled up her sleeve and held up her little arm and said, ``But, Daddy, can I give him one of my arms if it will fit on him?'' Across human history, the greatest and most loving voices among us have always emphasized the critical responsibility each of us has to recognize and cherish the light of divine, eternal humanity shining in the soul of every last one of our fellow human beings. I believe there is an answer to some of these seemingly unanswerable questions, Mr. Speaker, that face the human families and how we see each other. On that YouTube video, I saw an amazing young man who played heart- stirring music with his feet, but my little girl saw a child of God who had no arms and wanted to give him one of hers. And how very thankful I am that my little Gracie was not one of the hundreds of millions of little girls whose lives and hearts were torn from this world before they ever saw the light of sunrise simply because they were little girls instead of little boys. I know that this Congress deals with many controversial issues where it is sometimes difficult for Republicans and Democrats to find common ground, but I refuse to believe that we cannot find enough humanity in this body to conclude together that it is wrong to knowingly kill unborn children because they are baby girls instead of baby boys. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the vice chairman of the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle), a member of the Oversight & Government Reform Committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Of course, the gentleman knows there's no criminal thing in this bill for the women. That's an unfortunate fallacy. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he is the chairman of the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to correct all of the misinformation that my friends on the other side of the aisle have said here today. They've talked about everything but what this bill does. If I thought that America really supported aborting little girls because they were little girls as a people, then I guess I would conclude that the light of human compassion had gone out in our society and it was time to board this place up and go home and be done with it. But, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I know that 86 percent of the American people favor protecting little girls from sex-selection abortion, and that gives me great hope. I wish I had time to mention all of the groups that are in favor of this bill, but I know that this is going to be the first step, and we're going to be on the right side of history and the right side of justice, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2012, the Associated Press had an article about the Obama Administration expanding sanctions against the Syrian regime. These new sanctions focused on military and security officials, particularly targeting the Minister of Defense. In a statement, Under Secretary of the Treasury David Cohen said, ``The U.S. and the international community will hold to account those who stand with the Assad regime as it trains the instruments of war against Syrian civilians . . . the time has long since passed for Syrian officials at all levels to turn their backs on this bloody regime.'' The article went on to state that over 9,000 people had been killed in the fighting in Syria. Jump ahead to today, and reports in the Washington Post that the U.S. is now ``coordinating'' ``more and better weapons'' for the Syrian opposition. Persian Gulf states are funding the weapons. Also today we hear deeply disturbing news that the Administration is ``easing'' sanctions against the dictatorship in Burma. This has to raise the question of why Administration officials are actively working--in fact ``coordinating''--the delivery of ``significantly more and better weapons'' for the Syrian opposition, but is literally turning its back on and deliberately ignoring the extreme brutally being carried out on a daily basis by the Burmese dictatorship against the people of Burma, particularly the Kachin people. Why would the Administration lift sanctions against a brutal dictatorship that has years and years of documented, horrific human rights violations against the people of its nation, when in the Middle East, the Administration is supporting the opposition forces fighting against a different brutal dictatorship? Why is it that one brutal dictatorship has the ire and opposition of the U.S. Government, but another dictatorship, that has yet to prove it will uphold and implement its commitments, is being rewarded for continuing to attack, rape, and kill its people? What is going on that our nation, which says it stands for the protection of human rights and the upholding and protection of basic human freedoms, would decide to help one group fighting a brutal dictatorship while deliberately ignoring, and now, even supporting a terrible dictatorship on the other side of the world? The Administration needs to strongly reconsider its actions in Burma. This easing of sanctions against a brutal Burmese regime comes in the face of much opposition from the people of Burma, ethnic leaders, democracy activists, NGOs, ASEAN parliamentarians, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and is disturbing and puzzling to say the least. What does this Administration expect to gain for itself by easing sanctions against Burma? It certainly can't be anything that will help the people of Burma, since the ethnic leaders and the democracy groups have urged the U.S. not to lift, ease, or remove sanctions. United to End Genocide says, ``Economic investment is one of the driving forces behind the Burmese army's attacks against civilians in Kachin State. By expediting the rollback of sanctions, President Obama has told Burma's long suffering ethnic nationalities that they aren't part of the equation.'' Democracy leader Aung Din with U.S. Campaign for Burma says, ``The United States will be responsible for generously rewarding the regime if the war in Kachin State and human rights abuses in ethnic areas do not end, hundreds of remaining political prisoners are not released, and political settlements between the regime and ethnic resistance groups are not realized.'' The Vice President of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), `` `urged the U.S. Government to maintain sanctions on business activities in Myanmar, warning that a gold rush in the Southeast Asian nation could fuel further human rights abuses, risk fragile ceasefires and arrest ongoing democratic reforms rather than bolster them.' As everyone with any knowledge on Myanmar will attest, the changes we have seen to date are far from irreversible. It is ludicrous to reward the current government's untested reforms by paving the way for a gold rush. Fighting in Myanmar's ethnic areas continues and many of the ethnic leaders are concerned that these reforms are just a ploy to pave the way for `development' projects on their lands.'' The Central Executive Committee of the United Nationalities Federal Council, which consists of representatives of all the ethnic minority groups--all of whose people have endured horrific attacks at the hands of the Burmese regime--says, ``It is necessary for the international community to oppose and pressure Bamah [Burma] Tatmadaw for its wrong actions. Accordingly, we would like to request the international community not suspend or lift the remaining political, military, financial and economic sanctions.'' And Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi urged great caution in lifting or easing sanctions urging that the American people be allowed to decide whether or not sanctions against Burma should change. Instead of listening to the people of Burma as well as those outsiders and foreigners working on behalf of the people of Burma, the U.S. Administration has ignored them all. Instead, it has gone the path of cozying up to dictators and believing their promises . . . an odd decision since the dictators have not tended to keep their word in the past. The pattern generally has been that as soon as the dictators have received what they wanted from the West or the international community, they have simply gone back to their old ways while the rest of the world stands by and wrings its hands in consternation. Nothing has been done to hold those dictators to account for their actions. Now, with the easing of sanctions, the U.S. has given the regime what it wants and has lost any leverage it might have. It is appalling that a country founded on freedom and democracy has taken steps to deliberately undermine democracy and freedom in Burma and instead has chosen to support a dictatorship bent on absolute control of its people. I wonder if this Administration has read the stacks and stacks of reports detailing the rape, death and destruction of the ethnic minorities and their villages. Has it read its own State Department's report on the dictators' policy of rape of ethnic women? Has it read its own Country Reports over the years that have documented the torture of political prisoners? Has this Administration read reports that have come out in the past month about the 70,000 displaced persons in Kachin State? The latest attacks have all taken place while the regime has allegedly been making ``progress'' towards democracy and openness. Would this Administration open up to the Assad regime and remove sanctions while its military was involved in deliberately killing the Syrian people? Clearly not. The Administration has even sent U.S. military advisors and experts to help the Ugandan Government track and capture the brutal warlord Joseph Kony and his cronies. Yet, despite well known and thoroughly documented violence, brutality, and destruction under the orders of the regime in Burma, the U.S. Government has now decided that the people of Burma no longer matter. I am ashamed of these actions by the U.S. Government. The sanctions should not be eased, and the Administration must re-impose these sanctions and listen to the people of Burma instead of the siren call of the dictators' money, brutal power, and false promises. To the people of Burma, I say, please know that you are not forgotten and there are many in the West who stand with you and will work to ensure that your freedoms and rights are upheld and protected. Your voice should not be ignored and you should be able to live in peace in your own country. Shame on those, particularly Western officials, who would tell you by their actions that you have no rights and your life is worthless.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

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

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I would say first and foremost that the true destabilizing force in the Western Pacific today is nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. There have been many efforts to try to pursue solutions in that regard: six-party talks and many different things. It is time that the United States have some additional options. The language in the NDAA that we have merely says that we need a report to be conducted regarding the efficacy of additional nuclear or conventional weapons in the Western Pacific region. It technically doesn't even mention South Korea. It is true that the South Korean people and some of the South Korean leaders have debated and some of them are arguing for the redeployment of the tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula because they see North Korea's nuclear forces as the most destabilizing aspect. This amendment that the gentleman puts forward simply says that it would not be in the national security interests of the United States, and I think that that's not in evidence at this point. I believe that having this language in our defense bill actually strengthens the administration's hand to promote some sort of a more just solution here and takes the country and the world in a safer direction. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that I believe this amendment should be opposed, and the language in the NDAA should be preserved.

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman. It can't be emphasized too often that our Ground-based Midcourse Defense is the only tested system that we have that defends the homeland of the United States against the most dangerous and powerful weapons mankind has ever known. I just somehow have a hard time cognitively grasping why a nuclear missile landing on our homeland doesn't alarm people a little bit more than it seems to. Assuming the SM 3 Block 2B missile is able to provide protection for the homeland in that year--an assumption the GAO calls into question in fairly alarmed terms--this system will be the only system that we have that will be able to protect the homeland until at least 2020. Mr. Chairman, we make a desperate mistake--for whatever the reason is, whether it's a secret deal with the Russians or whatever it is--in reducing the only system that protects the United States of America. It is folly.