Earlier today, the House of Representatives passed Rep. Trent Franks' (R-CD8) bill banning abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Tonight, after the close of regular business, Rep. Franks took to the floor to deliver a 23-minute speech regarding the issue.
To watch the video, click on the picture below. (It will open in a new window.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
News/info regarding Arizona's politics. U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, statewide offices, initiatives, and - where we can - county and local. We aim to present objective information (unless labeled as "commentary") and do original reporting. Drop us an e-mail with tips/comments/questions/etc - info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Twitter: @AZs_Politics, phone:602-799-7025. Operated by co-founder Paul Weich. Sister site/program is ArizonasLaw.org. Want to join our team? Inquire within.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Arizona Reps Split 5-4 - NOT Along Party Lines - On USA Freedom Act Ending NSA Bulk Metadata Collection
Arizona's delegation split 5-4 as the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (338-88) the USA Freedom Act ending bulk controversial (and, possibly illegal) metadata collection. The split was not along party lines.
The five Arizona Reps voting "aye" were Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1), Martha McSally (R-CD2), Ruben Gallego (D-CD7), Trent Franks (R-CD8) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9).
The other four Reps voted "nay": Raul Grijalva (D-CD3), Paul Gosar (R-CD4), David Schweikert (R-CD5), and Matt Salmon (R-CD6).
Only 47 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted against the measure. (So, Arizona's delegation was much more opposed than the rest of Congress.)
Here is the (lengthy) text of the bill, which will now move to the Senate. Some of the provisions of the Patriot Act - passed after the 9/11 attacks - expire at the end of this month.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
The five Arizona Reps voting "aye" were Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1), Martha McSally (R-CD2), Ruben Gallego (D-CD7), Trent Franks (R-CD8) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9).
The other four Reps voted "nay": Raul Grijalva (D-CD3), Paul Gosar (R-CD4), David Schweikert (R-CD5), and Matt Salmon (R-CD6).
Only 47 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted against the measure. (So, Arizona's delegation was much more opposed than the rest of Congress.)
Here is the (lengthy) text of the bill, which will now move to the Senate. Some of the provisions of the Patriot Act - passed after the 9/11 attacks - expire at the end of this month.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
House Passes (Again) Rep. Franks' Bill Banning 20-Week+ Abortions
UPDATE, 2:59pm: Republicans voting against: Dent, Dold, Frelinghuysen, Hanna
Republican voting "Present": Hice (Jody)
Republican not voting: Barletta
Democrats voting in favor: Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, Peterson
Democrats not voting: Boyle (Brendan), Brady, Capps, Hinojosa
roll call
The U.S. House of Representatives (again) passed Arizona Rep. Trent Franks' (R-CD8) bill that would ban any abortions after the 20th week of preganancy. The vote was 242-184. Four Republicans voted against the bill, and four Democrats voted in favor; otherwise, it was a partyline vote.
Franks and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reintroduced the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" - H.R. 36 - in January; that has become an almost-annual exercise around the time of the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
In 2013, the bill passed the House on a party line 228-196 vote. It died in the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats. The Republicans now hold the majority in both houses of Congress. However, the bill will face a certain veto from President Obama.
The Democrats attempted to amend the bill to permit an abortion after 20 weeks if it was necessary to protect the health of the mother. The bill permits exceptions to protect the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest. The amendment attempt failed on a party line vote.
Franks spoke for about 5 minutes during the main debate:
Franks speaking earlier today, during debate over rules:
Introduced: http://bit.ly/AZp1080
2013 passed: http://bit.ly/AZp558
Text: http://1.usa.gov/1cxLtpv
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Republican voting "Present": Hice (Jody)
Republican not voting: Barletta
Democrats voting in favor: Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, Peterson
Democrats not voting: Boyle (Brendan), Brady, Capps, Hinojosa
roll call
The U.S. House of Representatives (again) passed Arizona Rep. Trent Franks' (R-CD8) bill that would ban any abortions after the 20th week of preganancy. The vote was 242-184. Four Republicans voted against the bill, and four Democrats voted in favor; otherwise, it was a partyline vote.
Franks and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reintroduced the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" - H.R. 36 - in January; that has become an almost-annual exercise around the time of the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
In 2013, the bill passed the House on a party line 228-196 vote. It died in the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats. The Republicans now hold the majority in both houses of Congress. However, the bill will face a certain veto from President Obama.
The Democrats attempted to amend the bill to permit an abortion after 20 weeks if it was necessary to protect the health of the mother. The bill permits exceptions to protect the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest. The amendment attempt failed on a party line vote.
Franks spoke for about 5 minutes during the main debate:
Franks speaking earlier today, during debate over rules:
Introduced: http://bit.ly/AZp1080
2013 passed: http://bit.ly/AZp558
Text: http://1.usa.gov/1cxLtpv
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Arizona Supreme Court Upholds $7.8M Verdict Vs. State In I-10 Crossover Accident
The Arizona Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a $7.8M verdict against the state of Arizona from a 2007 accident on I-10 where a Tucson man and his daughter were killed after a driver headed the opposite direction lost control of her vehicle and crossed through the median.
The State was relying on a statute that provided them with an affirmative defense if they had constructed the road according to standards at the time of construction. That stretch of I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix in 1967, when traffic - truck and otherwise - was lighter and median barriers were not as advanced.
The Supreme Court agreed with both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals that Diana Glazer, the surviving spouse/mother - who was seriously injured in the fatal head-on collision - was entitled to the verdict. However, four of the Justices found that the defense was (and, will be) still available to the State, but that they did not prove that the "open median in the collision area was not an 'unreasonably dangerous hazard' or, if it was, that the State warned the public of this hazard."
Chief Justice Scott Bales agreed with the majority's result, but felt that it gives the state too much leeway when conditions have changed since the time of design/construction.
A rash of crossover accidents in Arizona - and, the resulting public attention - prompted Arizona to add and update median barriers throughout the state.
(This article was contributed by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
The State was relying on a statute that provided them with an affirmative defense if they had constructed the road according to standards at the time of construction. That stretch of I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix in 1967, when traffic - truck and otherwise - was lighter and median barriers were not as advanced.
The Supreme Court agreed with both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals that Diana Glazer, the surviving spouse/mother - who was seriously injured in the fatal head-on collision - was entitled to the verdict. However, four of the Justices found that the defense was (and, will be) still available to the State, but that they did not prove that the "open median in the collision area was not an 'unreasonably dangerous hazard' or, if it was, that the State warned the public of this hazard."
Chief Justice Scott Bales agreed with the majority's result, but felt that it gives the state too much leeway when conditions have changed since the time of design/construction.
A rash of crossover accidents in Arizona - and, the resulting public attention - prompted Arizona to add and update median barriers throughout the state.
(This article was contributed by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Lung Association Report Ranking Phoenix 10th Most Ozone Polluted City, 12th Most Particle Polluted; Timing Makes It "Misleading", Says County (MEDIA FACT CHECK)
"2011 had quite a few haboobs." That is one reason the new American Lung Association report on air pollution is "misleading", says Bob Huhn, the spokesperson for the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
The ALA's "State of the Air" report gives the Phoenix metro area a failing grade on both ozone pollution and (short term) particulate pollution. And, it ranked Phoenix as the 10th and 12th most polluted in those categories (respectively). However, the grades are based on the 2011-13 years, and that shows spikes in both categories.
In fact, looking at the longer-term charts on the Lung Association's page shows a much cleaner picture.
The ozone chart shows from 1996 through 2013 (using a rolling 3-year number). The days that Maricopa County has exceeded the ozone limits is way down, even since 2006-08. However, the most recent periods showed an uptick.
In announcing the "kick off" of "ozone season" in Maricopa County at the beginning of this month, the Air Quality Department noted that 2014 was a MUCH better year than the previous several, and that "during the last four years, the number of federal ozone health standard exceedances has decreased 39%, from 28 exceedances in 2011 to only 11 exceedances in 2014." Thus, Huhn tells Arizona's Politics, next year will show "significant improvement" in Phoenix's ranking (in that category).
Similarly, he says, the particulate ranking will be much better next year. "2011 had quite a few haboobs" (dust storms), and 2014 was much better. Huhn also notes that the Lung Association grades things differently than does the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA accounts for "exceptional events" that Phoenix cannot control - such as haboobs; the Lung Association does not.
The Lung Association's charts below do bear out the timing issue, as well. Maricopa County has seen the particulate exceedances climb dramatically in the last three years, after a long term decline.
This inquiry and article were prompted by a misleading tweet and article from a local TV station that flatly declared Phoenix one of the "10 Worst Polluted Cities." The tweet and article not only did not distinguish between ozone, particulates and overall "pollution" - the Lung Association study did not rank cities on the latter - but it neither attempted to look at the details of the ALA's study nor contact the county (or, state) for an explanation or response. To repurpose what ABC15 said (of the pollution): "Not good."
Finally, we should also point out that the ALA praised Prescott as THE "cleanest city for year-round particle pollution" AND lauded Flagstaff and Sierra Vista/Douglas as two (of 18) cities to rank on at least two of the three lists (ozone, short-term particulate, annual particulate).
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
The ALA's "State of the Air" report gives the Phoenix metro area a failing grade on both ozone pollution and (short term) particulate pollution. And, it ranked Phoenix as the 10th and 12th most polluted in those categories (respectively). However, the grades are based on the 2011-13 years, and that shows spikes in both categories.
In fact, looking at the longer-term charts on the Lung Association's page shows a much cleaner picture.
The ozone chart shows from 1996 through 2013 (using a rolling 3-year number). The days that Maricopa County has exceeded the ozone limits is way down, even since 2006-08. However, the most recent periods showed an uptick.
In announcing the "kick off" of "ozone season" in Maricopa County at the beginning of this month, the Air Quality Department noted that 2014 was a MUCH better year than the previous several, and that "during the last four years, the number of federal ozone health standard exceedances has decreased 39%, from 28 exceedances in 2011 to only 11 exceedances in 2014." Thus, Huhn tells Arizona's Politics, next year will show "significant improvement" in Phoenix's ranking (in that category).
Similarly, he says, the particulate ranking will be much better next year. "2011 had quite a few haboobs" (dust storms), and 2014 was much better. Huhn also notes that the Lung Association grades things differently than does the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA accounts for "exceptional events" that Phoenix cannot control - such as haboobs; the Lung Association does not.
The Lung Association's charts below do bear out the timing issue, as well. Maricopa County has seen the particulate exceedances climb dramatically in the last three years, after a long term decline.
This inquiry and article were prompted by a misleading tweet and article from a local TV station that flatly declared Phoenix one of the "10 Worst Polluted Cities." The tweet and article not only did not distinguish between ozone, particulates and overall "pollution" - the Lung Association study did not rank cities on the latter - but it neither attempted to look at the details of the ALA's study nor contact the county (or, state) for an explanation or response. To repurpose what ABC15 said (of the pollution): "Not good."
Finally, we should also point out that the ALA praised Prescott as THE "cleanest city for year-round particle pollution" AND lauded Flagstaff and Sierra Vista/Douglas as two (of 18) cities to rank on at least two of the three lists (ozone, short-term particulate, annual particulate).
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Reach New Heights: Lobbying Firm Hits Jackpot, Gila River Indian Community Gets National Attention For $1M 1Q15 Spend
Go to Gila River Casinos website and you're greeted with two slides: "Reach New Heights", and "A River of Benefits." Those are especially appropriate if you're Gila Rivers' lobbyists, who were paid an even $1,000,000 in the 1st quarter.
Gila River Indian Community's lobbying bill attracted national attention today when Politico noted that the lobbying disclosure statement for the 1st quarter of this year reached "a new record for a lobbying contract that’s well-known on K Street for the hundreds of thousands it brings to Akin Gump every quarter."
Akin Gump is a major national lobbying and law firm, and it has represented GRIC on Capitol Hill since at least 2006. Although Politico notes that the amount Akin Gump received from GRIC this past quarter was $980,000, the $20,000 paid by GRIC subsidiary Gila River Telecommunications brings it to seven figures.
While many lobbying disclosure reports list specific bills or lobbying activities that were worked on, here is the broad description provided by Akin Gump:
"Congressional appropriations for irrigation project (BOR), health care facilities construction (IHS) and tribal programs (BIA); monitoring for legislation affecting Native American tribes; tribal tax exempt bonding authority; arbitration legislation; lease review authority legislation; land purchase valuation legislation; law enforcement issues; trust claim settlement; restrictions on off-reservation gaming; environmental restrictions on Navajo Generation station; H.R. 308/S. 152; negotiation of congressional settlement of tribal trust accounting claim and drafting legislation."
Of course, the smallest reference - to "H.R. 308/S.152" - is probably what generated the largest portion of those lobbying fees. Those are the bills from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD2) opposing the casino being built by the Tohono O'odham in Glendale. Despite Akin Gump's best efforts to push the measure, both bills are languishing in their respective chambers.
For point of comparison, the Tohono O'odham split $410,000 among four lobbying firms in the same period.
(Arizona's Politics has requested comment and will update as warranted.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Gila River Indian Community's lobbying bill attracted national attention today when Politico noted that the lobbying disclosure statement for the 1st quarter of this year reached "a new record for a lobbying contract that’s well-known on K Street for the hundreds of thousands it brings to Akin Gump every quarter."
Akin Gump is a major national lobbying and law firm, and it has represented GRIC on Capitol Hill since at least 2006. Although Politico notes that the amount Akin Gump received from GRIC this past quarter was $980,000, the $20,000 paid by GRIC subsidiary Gila River Telecommunications brings it to seven figures.
While many lobbying disclosure reports list specific bills or lobbying activities that were worked on, here is the broad description provided by Akin Gump:
"Congressional appropriations for irrigation project (BOR), health care facilities construction (IHS) and tribal programs (BIA); monitoring for legislation affecting Native American tribes; tribal tax exempt bonding authority; arbitration legislation; lease review authority legislation; land purchase valuation legislation; law enforcement issues; trust claim settlement; restrictions on off-reservation gaming; environmental restrictions on Navajo Generation station; H.R. 308/S. 152; negotiation of congressional settlement of tribal trust accounting claim and drafting legislation."
Of course, the smallest reference - to "H.R. 308/S.152" - is probably what generated the largest portion of those lobbying fees. Those are the bills from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD2) opposing the casino being built by the Tohono O'odham in Glendale. Despite Akin Gump's best efforts to push the measure, both bills are languishing in their respective chambers.
For point of comparison, the Tohono O'odham split $410,000 among four lobbying firms in the same period.
(Arizona's Politics has requested comment and will update as warranted.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Russian Uranium Mining Co. At Center In Clinton Controversy Selling Its Interest In Arizona Uranium
The Russians are leaving! By the end of June, Russia's ownership of Arizona uranium mining rights should be sold.
The Russian atomic energy agency is currently in the process of selling its ownership in a proposed uranium mine in northern Arizona. The New York Times today published* an explosive article laying out possible connections between Russia's expansion into the U.S. mining industry and contributions made to the charitable foundation led by former President Bill Clinton and current Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (The headline of the article is "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company.")
The article details how the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from Canadian mining financiers as they were selling a majority interest of their U.S. uranium mining interests to the Russians. The sale thus required approvals from multiple agencies in the federal government, at a time when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State.
The proposed Wate Pipe mine just south of the Grand Canyon is a joint venture between Uranium One - a private company wholly owned by Russia's Rosatom - and publicly-traded Vane Minerals**. Last year, Anfield Resources announced that it was "thrilled" to buy Uranium One's interest, in a deal that was supposed to close by the end of March; earlier this month, the negotiations period was extended until June 30. (The Arizona pipe was just one of several uranium assets included in the deals; the others are in Utah and South Dakota.)
According to Arizona State Geologist Lee Allison, the mine is eventually expected to produce about 550 tons of uranium oxide. It would be located on state trust lands, just outside the Hualapai Tribe's lands, and the high grade of the uranium there has been touted by the owners.
It appears that if the deal is completed, Russian-owned Uranium One will only have one uranium mining asset left in the United States, in Wyoming.

*on its website
** Vane Minerals announced in January that it was selling its interest in the Wate Pipe mine to publicly-traded Energy Fuels Inc.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
The Russian atomic energy agency is currently in the process of selling its ownership in a proposed uranium mine in northern Arizona. The New York Times today published* an explosive article laying out possible connections between Russia's expansion into the U.S. mining industry and contributions made to the charitable foundation led by former President Bill Clinton and current Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (The headline of the article is "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company.")
The article details how the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from Canadian mining financiers as they were selling a majority interest of their U.S. uranium mining interests to the Russians. The sale thus required approvals from multiple agencies in the federal government, at a time when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State.
The proposed Wate Pipe mine just south of the Grand Canyon is a joint venture between Uranium One - a private company wholly owned by Russia's Rosatom - and publicly-traded Vane Minerals**. Last year, Anfield Resources announced that it was "thrilled" to buy Uranium One's interest, in a deal that was supposed to close by the end of March; earlier this month, the negotiations period was extended until June 30. (The Arizona pipe was just one of several uranium assets included in the deals; the others are in Utah and South Dakota.)
According to Arizona State Geologist Lee Allison, the mine is eventually expected to produce about 550 tons of uranium oxide. It would be located on state trust lands, just outside the Hualapai Tribe's lands, and the high grade of the uranium there has been touted by the owners.
It appears that if the deal is completed, Russian-owned Uranium One will only have one uranium mining asset left in the United States, in Wyoming.
*on its website
** Vane Minerals announced in January that it was selling its interest in the Wate Pipe mine to publicly-traded Energy Fuels Inc.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
McSally Campaign Reports Boosting Campaign Cash On Hand To $800K+, Raising $640K In 1Q15
New Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) is reporting having raised more than $640,000 in less than 3 months in office, to go towards her re-election next year. Her cash on hand is now more than $800,000.*
As noted in our previous article, McSally had $266,000 net cash on hand on December 31, 2014, while the Representative she narrowly defeated, Ron Barber, showed a net campaign chest of $383,000.
The strong reported showing comes one day before Barber is scheduled to appear on the Zona Politics TV program to announce whether he will seek to regain his Congressional seat. The actual report is due on April 15.
For comparison purposes, Barber raised half that amount ($297,213) in the first quarter of his (only full) term in Congress, and McSally outraised him in nearly every quarter of their 2014 rematch.
* On December 31, 2014, her cash on hand was reduced by $98,500 in outstanding debts/loans; until the official report is filed, we will not know whether the $800,000+ is net of that $98,500, or if they are still outstanding.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
As noted in our previous article, McSally had $266,000 net cash on hand on December 31, 2014, while the Representative she narrowly defeated, Ron Barber, showed a net campaign chest of $383,000.
The strong reported showing comes one day before Barber is scheduled to appear on the Zona Politics TV program to announce whether he will seek to regain his Congressional seat. The actual report is due on April 15.
For comparison purposes, Barber raised half that amount ($297,213) in the first quarter of his (only full) term in Congress, and McSally outraised him in nearly every quarter of their 2014 rematch.
* On December 31, 2014, her cash on hand was reduced by $98,500 in outstanding debts/loans; until the official report is filed, we will not know whether the $800,000+ is net of that $98,500, or if they are still outstanding.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
