Congressman Franks Cites National Security in Justifying CAFTA Vote

NEWS & ANALYSIS

CONGRESSMAN FRANKS: U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, right, explained his CAFTA vote to NFRA convention goers, such as Arizona State Senator Ron Gould./Photo Dennis Durband

Congressman Franks Cites National Security to Justify CAFTA Vote

By Dennis Durband
September 4, 2005

Conservatives in Arizona have been wondering why Congressman Trent Franks – a tried and true, principled conservative – voted recently in favor of the highly controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Franks cited national defense today in defending his vote to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, concluding its national convention in Scottsdale.

Franks was upfront about his support of CAFTA, knowing full well conservative constituents resent the agreement as a direct challenge to national sovereignty. He laid out a case of national defense in his own defense, citing China’s military buildup.

William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Foundation, speaking before Franks at a convention luncheon, defended Franks’ CAFTA vote as well.

“One congressmen we can always count on is Trent Franks,” Murray said. “There has been some grumbling over the way Trent Franks voted the way he did, and I happen to know the reasons behind that vote.”

“China is trying to buy our oil reserves,” Franks said. “They are doing everything they can to buy markets. I was a vociferous opponent of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement; passed into law in the 1990s when Franks was not a member of Congress). When CAFTA came across, I read the whole thing. There are some terrible things in it that I didn’t like, but it’s different than NAFTA. We did not have a chance to amend it, which is a disgrace.”

“I want you to know why I voted for it,” Franks continued. “It was because of the five countries in it. China wanted to assimilate those markets. There are superfluous things in it that I didn’t like. The trade part only needed to be about two pages. Unfortunately, China could have come in and gained a monopoly.”

Franks said that other congressmen who had opposed NAFTA supported CAFTA because of national security considerations. He also asked how many assembly members had read the entire 1,270-page CAFTA document.

“If you agreed with me on everything, one of us wouldn’t be needed,” Franks said.

Contrary to opinion, Franks said he was not pressured by President Bush to vote for CAFTA. He also said that the popular claims about supplement purchases are not true.

“I wanted to make sure our biggest rival (China) didn’t get a head start on us,” Franks said. “I know I did the right thing. If we let them advance, or appease them, they could literally challenge us and defeat us within 10-15 years. I hope and pray we do everything we can to defeat them.”

Franks spent the bulk of his speaking time on China and its increasing threat to the U.S. He said that President Clinton jeopardized American security by transferring technology to China and said the Asian giant will be a threat to us for a long time to come. China either steals technology or buys it, Franks said. He cited China’s escalation of a new arms race, which includes magnetic pulse weaponry which could in theory shut down the American infrastructure without killing a single human being, making us completely defenseless. Anything electronic could be rendered useless in the United States by the magnetic pulse technology. China is already in control of the entire Pacific and is building nuclear submarines at a rate far surpassing U.S. production.

Franks believes Iran is less than a year away from nuclear weaponry and could form strategic alliances with China and Russia. He surmises that the U.S. and Israel could be opposed by practically all the other world powers in the future.

John McManus, of the John Birch Society, had denounced CAFTA during a convention speech on Saturday.

Other Issues

Franks said America’s first line of defense is securing the borders.

On the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Franks said: “He was a man who tried his best to fight off dissenters on the Court. We absolutely have to protect the internal foundations of our country. Daniel Webster said we need to hold on to the Constitution because if it fails there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

On the U.S. Constitution: Franks said the constitutional rights of the people must be protected. “Our Constitution is under dire siege. It’s not the water outside a ship that sink it; it’s the water inside the ship that sinks it. …Liberals are trying to subvert the Constitution. If we don’t win this battle, we will be governed by an oligarchy and people like me can come home.”

On the nomination of John Roberts for the U.S. Supreme Court: “I believe John Roberts is going to read the plain text of the Constitution and consider original intent.”