Trent's Blog
Franks in the News -- Week of 9/18/11
Posted By: Congressman Trent Franks on September 23, 2011
Filed Under: Arizona Constitution Debt Department of the Interior Economy Human Rights Taxes Taxes and Economy Voting Senate
GLENDALE- U.S. Rep. Trent Franks unveiled a bill Friday to stop what he called an “illegal” Indian casino proposed near Glendale. Franks, R-Ariz., was joined by state and local lawmakers and tribal representatives as he spoke to about 100 people gathered at a news conference at the Glendale Media Center. Franks’ bill would modify a 25-year-old settlement between Congress and the Tohono O’odham Nation.
Glendale resident Nancy Robinette is against the Tohono O’odham’s plans for a casino-resort at 91st and Northern avenues; though she is quick to point out she has no issues with gambling. Robinette was one of dozens in attendance for Rep. Trent Franks’ press conference Friday morning to formally announce the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act. Franks, flanked by local, state and tribal legislators and leaders, said he is pursuing the legislation because he believes the Tohono O’odham are overreaching.
Friday, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks – strongly supported by Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs, members of the Glendale City Council, representatives from Arizona’s tribal nations, and other federal, state and local representatives – introduced the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act. Franks’ proposal will stop one tribe, the southern Arizona Tohono O’Odham Nation, from opening an illegal casino in the middle of Glendale, near homes, schools and small businesses.
Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus Launched
Joining Congresswoman Lee at the event and as founding co-chairs of the Caucus were Congressman Jim McDermott (D-CA) and Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ). Representative Franks observed that there are some issues on which Members of Congress “can find great common ground” and HIV/AIDS was one of them.
The Medicare Part D program is performing much better than anyone would have predicted…the efficient delivery of the drug benefit through competitive private plans in a consumer driven market vindicated the design of the drug program. Medicare Part D created a competitive marketplace for private drug plans and its success is undeniable.
CRONKITE NEWS- Arizona’s 2008 E-Verify law was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that states have the right to revoke businesses licenses if they are found hiring undocumented workers. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Glendale, said states should have that right, but he defended a federal bill in the meantime.
WASHINGTON POST- ...Many Republicans considered the figure a cap and believed their party should push for deeper cuts at every turn. Fifty had signed a letter last week urging deeper cuts, and 48 voted against the measure. “There has to be that moment where we say ‘no, this is not what is necessary, and we’re going to have to work for something better,’ ” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who opposed the bill.
Among the leading conservatives opposing it were Rep. Steve King (R.-Iowa), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Texas), Rep. Joe Walsh (R.-Ill.), Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.), Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R.-Ohio), the chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, which is the organization of House conservatives. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas), who are campaigning for president, did not vote.
NEW YORK TIMES- Republicans for their part think that if they hold strong to the principles that they believe got them elected — budget cutting and deficit reduction — any hardball tactics will be rewarded. “I know this is going to sound really partisan,” said Representative Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona. “But I think if people think about the possibility of the re-election of President Obama,” they will ignore the rancor and pull the lever for Republicans again, he said.
THE HILL- House GOP leaders early Friday morning managed to win back almost half of the 48 Republicans who handed their leadership an embarrassing defeat by voting against a continuing resolution Wednesday night.
KINGMAN- Based on the 2010 census, Arizona picked up a ninth congressional seat. Currently, U.S. Congressional District 2 includes all of Mohave County and part of western Maricopa County. U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Glendale, represents District 2.
Franks in the News -- Week of 9/11/11
Posted By: Congressman Trent Franks on September 16, 2011
WASHINGTON- Rep. Trent Franks, R-Glendale, called the newest plan a "miniature stimulus program that he (Obama) said would be paid for, but he wouldn't tell us how."
Other Republicans echoed the complaint that the president's plan was more of the same, pointing to the administration's previous economic stimulus plan.
Asbestos fraud the subject of House hearing
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - A House subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on fraud and abuse in the asbestos compensation system on Friday. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution is holding the hearing at 10 a.m. It is titled "How Fraud and Abuse in the Asbestos Compensation System Affect Victims, Jobs, the Economy and the Legal System."
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - A House subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on fraud and abuse in the asbestos compensation system on Friday. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution is holding the hearing at 10 a.m. It is titled "How Fraud and Abuse in the Asbestos Compensation System Affect Victims, Jobs, the Economy and the Legal System."
Letters of opposition to the withdrawal entered onto the record during the proceedings included correspondence from Congressman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Congressman Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; another signed by 13 U.S. Senators including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah and Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mohave Livestock Association and Mohave County Farm Bureau, Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey; and Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.
WASHINGTON -- The first ever bipartisan congressional HIV/AIDS caucus officially launched on Thursday, 30 years after the human immunodeficiency virus was first identified.
Led by House members Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the group marks the first time Republicans have joined with Democrats to create a group aimed at eradicating AIDS, which has claimed 25 million lives around the globe since 1981. Prior to Thursday, similar groups in Congress contained only Democrats.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Representing 59 members of Congress [including Arizona Representative Trent Franks] and nearly 60,000 Americans, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today urged the Supreme Court to hear a case involving the Obama Administration's challenge to several key provisions of Arizona's law targeting illegal immigration.
Congressman Trent Franks (R-Dist. 2), along with Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs, representatives from Arizona's tribes, and other state and local representatives will hold a press conference 10 a.m. Sept. 16 to announce the introduction of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prohibit Class II and Class III (Las Vegas-style) gaming on any replacement lands located in Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties, which are taken into trust by the Department of Interior.
Trent Franks (R-AZ), launched the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus. Speaking at the press conference, each of the co-chairs signaled their determination to put an end to the epidemic, and pledged to work together to achieve that goal. Jeffrey S. Crowley, White House Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, joined the Caucus Co-Chairs and spoke briefly about the importance of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) and thanked the members and advocates for keeping up the pressure to ensure funding for implementation of the NHAS.
On the Right Tack
Posted By: Congressman Trent Franks on August 4, 2011
Filed Under: Arizona Budget Local Issues Taxes Transportation
In a recent article, "Gosar, Franks on wrong tack," an editorial writer poised the question to her readers: If you think the sweetest sound at the Grand Canyon is the buzz of aircraft motor, not nature, then Arizona Congressmen Paul Gosar and Trent Franks are on your side.
In reality, if you think the sweetest thing about government agencies is their ability to kill family businesses while spending even more tax payers' dollars, then quite possibly this article might be what was sitting next to your coffee the morning of July 29th.
The attack here isn’t on the Grand Canyon, it’s on the US Air Tour Industry that has been providing the elderly, physically limited and time constrained international visitors, the eagle eye view of the Grand Canyon since the late 1930’s.
For the last 17 years the Air Tour industry has met the National Park Service (NPS) standard for “substantial restoration of natural quiet” as defined by the National Park Service by restoring quiet to 50% of the park 75% of the time. This fact was scientifically validated in 2008 by the Volpe Institute in their report to the NPS and the FAA. Though now, NPS is proposing to change the threshold from 50 to 67% by imposing broad new flight restrictions on all air tours from Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada. This will result in significant economic harm on the air tour operators as well as significant job losses impacting over 1,200 employees.
Over the last decade, the National Park Service record will confirm that there have been virtually no visitor written objections to the noise impact of the air tours from the millions of visitors that visit the popular National Park destination.
Air tour operators are prepared to work with the NPS to undertake additional and reasonable measures to improve the soundscape at Grand Canyon still but not at the expense of families' livelihoods. The industry has already accepted caps on the number of flights, curfews to protect visitor experience after sunrise and before sunset, the elimination of many air tour routes, minimum flight altitudes, and flight free zones that protect about 87 percent of the park.
All in all, this preferred alternative is nothing more than a blatant attempt by a government agency to change the rules of the game after their conditions have already been met. I cannot support regulations that terminate American jobs, nor can I allow more tax payer dollars to be siphoned where they need not be.
Wallow Fire
Posted By: Congressman Trent Franks on June 10, 2011
The Wallow Fire, already the second most destructive fire in Arizona's history, continues to sear through several mountain communities in the eastern half of our state.
What allegedly started as a small camp fire has scorched approximately 348,000 acres, or 525 square miles, so far. Many evacuees are growing fearful that the tenacious flames will not wane. Over 3,000 fire personnel are on the ground utilizing bulldozers, fire engines and helicopters trying to contain the fire.
Today, as the fire threatens to cross into New Mexico, my prayers go out to the evacuees, their families and those working together to extinguish this menace.
Here is an informative site that can direct you to answers and different ways you can help:
http://www.azein.gov/azein/default.aspx
Women in Combat: The Culture War on the Backs of Our Troops
Posted By: Trent Franks on May 23, 2011
The inception, in the 1960's, of radical feminism -- a brand of feminism that perverted the noble ideals of the early, "true" feminists and seeks to fundamentally alter many of the cornerstones of American society -- has spawned suggestions that "gender equality" demands that we change longstanding military policy by placing women alongside men on the frontlines of combat -- a proposal that could seriously harm both the morale and the on-the-ground capabilities of our military.
As much as some feminists may begrudge biology for undermining their arguments, the fact remains that men and women are different. It may surprise some of these feminists to learn, for example, that women can get pregnant while men, it turns out, cannot.
Because military policy allows pregnant women to immediately resign or operate in a significantly reduced capacity, this opens up the possibility that vital members of already small units could suddenly disappear for a year at a time.
The risk of women in combat getting pregnant is not merely an imaginative theoretical scenario. Consider the examples of the USS Acadia and USS Yellowstone during the Gulf War. The Acadia was especially notable for having a high percentage of women crew members (about one-third of the crew was female). When the ship returned home from service, 36 female crew members (1 out of 10 women aboard the ship) were pregnant. Likewise, the Yellowstone returned with 20 pregnant crew members.
Pregnancies are a side-effect of another downside of isolating men and women together in combat scenarios: doing so inevitably creates unnecessary distractions and further complicates the situation by providing one more component that can negatively impact morale.
Unsurprisingly, the military already recognizes the fundamental differences between the genders. When fitness tests are administered to incoming troops, results are scaled based on gender.
In other words, it simply isn't expected that a female soldier should be able to move as fast or carry as much weight (consider that combat gear can weigh between 50 and 100 pounds) as her male counterparts. Not based on sexism, but based on decades of results, the tests assume that such parity is not the case. An elite result for a female on a fitness test may still place her abilities below those of her male peers. This is especially important in life-threatening situations, as a unit can only move as quickly as its slowest member.
Additionally, by adopting the absurd idea that there aren't differences between sexes, current fitness requirements would necessarily be lowered to ensure women can "compete," thereby ignoring the quantifiable differences between men and women's results. Indeed, we have already seen suggestions that an impossible-to-measure "equality of effort" on the part of women should be deemed just as valuable as "equality of results."
None of these assertions downplay women's irreplaceable contributions to our military. Are female soldiers just as brave, just as noble, just as patriotic, and just as self-sacrificing as their male counterparts? Without question. And women frequently serve essential roles, offering strategic advantages that would not otherwise exist.
But sending women into combat is a statement that we, as a society, are comfortable with violence against women. That, while we may not encourage acts of violence against women, we don't see them as especially egregious. That violence against men and violence against women are one and the same in our minds. As a matter of principle, of policy, and of common sense, I reject that notion. In the words of Kate O'Beirne, a member of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (which, by the way, recommended not sending women into combat), "good men protect women."
Importantly, enlisted women don't want these change to occur, either. Polls have consistently shown that only about 10% of enlisted females support changing the rules so that women can be involuntarily placed into combat. And only 25% support even making combat options voluntary for women. These facts, perhaps more than anything else, clarify the nature of this debate. This is not a fight for some denied "right" that enlisted women are demanding, but an attempt by radical leftists to implement their extreme ideas on the backs of our military.
Ultimately, whether the facts are popular in certain circles holds no bearing on their veracity. As much as some might like to pretend we live in a world where there are absolutely no differences between the genders (a misunderstanding of what "gender equality" means), even a young child can grasp that there are some very fundamental differences between "boys" and "girls."
To turn a blind eye to these differences in an effort to adapt to some nonsensical idea of "political correctness" is to be intellectually dishonest and to fail the troops who will ultimately live and die by the consequences of our decisions.
