Randy's Blog

RSS Feed
Comprehensive or piecemeal reform on immigration?
Posted by Randy | May 08, 2013

As Congress moves closer to considering immigration reform, an L.A. Times article discusses the different approaches the House and Senate are taking.  The House is planning to move individual bills; however, the Senate is poised to take up one large reform package. 

Which approach do you prefer? 

Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: If this is a “red line,” what action should the United States take in response to the evidence that Syria used chemical weapons?
Posted by Randy | May 03, 2013
Last week, in a letter to Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the White House addressed the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, saying “our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”  

The United States is calling on the United Nations to conduct a comprehensive investigation, and is working with our allies in the region, as well as the Syrian opposition, in an effort to gain additional intelligence regarding the origins of the weapons and the effect of their use on the nation’s civil war.  

Miguel Rodriguez, Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, made it clear in the letter that the use of chemical weapons or transfer of such weapons to a terrorist group “is a red line for the United States of America.”  

Question of the week: If this is a “red line,” what action should the United States take in response to the evidence that Syria used chemical weapons?   

(  ) Intervene now to help end the violence and demonstrate a strong stance against the use of these weapons by Syria and Iran.
(  ) Intervene, if necessary, to defend Israel. 
(  ) Continue to monitor the situation in Syria, including supporting humanitarian aid.
(  ) None.  The United States does not have a national interest in the Syrian conflict. 
(  ) Other (leave your comments below).
 
 
Take the instaPoll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Do you believe that the United States government should hold an American citizen - arrested on American soil - as an enemy combatant in order to gather intelligence to prevent a possible future attack?
Posted by Randy | April 25, 2013
Last Friday, after the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was taken into custody, federal officials exercised what is known as the "public safety exception" to delay reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda warnings.  In such cases, officials are permitted to ask questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public.

Some have argued that this should be taken a step further, and that Tsarnaev should be deemed an enemy combatant (a member of a declared enemy of state or a terror group during a time of war) to determine if he was involved with, or knew of, other terrorist attacks.  As the suspect is a naturalized citizen, others argued that it would be unconstitutional to treat him as an enemy combatant.   

This week, the White House indicated that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will neither be classified as an enemy combatant nor tried before a military commission.  Instead, he was formally charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to cause the “malicious destruction of property resulting in death” and will be tried in criminal court.   Under this charge, Tsarnaev could face the death penalty. 


Question of the week:   Do you believe that the United States government should hold an American citizen - arrested on American soil - as an enemy combatant in order to gather intelligence to prevent a possible future attack? 

(  ) Yes.
(  ) No.
(  ) I don’t know. 
(  ) Other (leave your comments below).


Take the instaPoll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: What should be the response from the United States to the recent actions taken by North Korea?
Posted by Randy | April 11, 2013
North Korea has been among the most troublesome and persistent problems in U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War.  The United States has never had formal diplomatic relations with North Korea, and negotiations over its nuclear weapons program have been at the forefront of the national security agendas of the past three administrations.   

U.S. interests in North Korea involve critical security, political, and human rights concerns. American troops occupying U.S. military bases in the Pacific are stationed within known striking distance of North Korean missiles. A conflict on the Korean peninsula or the collapse of the government would have severe implications for both the regional and global economy. Negotiations and diplomacy surrounding North Korea's nuclear weapons program necessarily dictate U.S. relations with all the major powers in the region. 

The United States and its allies in the east are now faced with an isolated, authoritarian regime, currently under pressure from transferring power following the death of Kim Jong-il in December 2011. Multilateral Six-Party negotiations (made up of China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, and the United States) have previously reached some key agreements on aid to North Korea in exchange for denuclearization; however, problems with implementation have persisted and talks have been suspended since 2008. 

After launching a long-range rocket in December of 2012, North Korea conducted a nuclear test in February 2013, and increased its rhetoric against South Korea and the United States to include the threat of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.  

Leadership in North Korea under Kim Jong-un is unpredictable because so little is known about him.  The United States now faces the challenge of navigating a course toward a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue with a potentially rogue actor.

Question of the week:   What should be the response from the United States to the recent actions taken by North Korea?  

(  )       Push North Korea’s best ally and economic lifeline, China, to pressure North Korea to suspend its dangerous and reckless behavior
(  )       Re-engage North Korea diplomatically and encourage them to return to the Six-Party Talks
(  )       Work with South Korea and other regional allies to build a strong deterrent to contain North Korea
(  )       Strengthen our missile defenses to prevent North Korea from being able to threaten our homeland
(  )       Ignore North Korean provocations and assume that they are not a threat to the U.S. and its allies 
(  )       Actively encourage a regime change in North Korea, with the goal of reunifying the Peninsula under a Democratic government.     
(  )       Other (leave your comments below).
 
Take the poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Do you believe that the United States should continue to utilize foreign assistance as a tool to support our foreign policy?
Posted by Randy | March 28, 2013
With a record $16 trillion in debt and a federal government consistently spending a trillion dollars a year more than it has taken in, Congress must address the fundamental issue at hand: a serious overspending problem in Washington. One area of federal spending that has been the focus of recent debate is foreign aid. 

For decades, the United States has used foreign assistance to provide humanitarian aid, promote economic development, and foster good governance, often in places where American security interests are at stake.

Despite the cost, some believe that the federal government should continue to provide this funding as an investment to advance the nation’s security, prosperity, and global leadership.  Others argue that the United States should end foreign aid and, instead, spend that money on programs for American citizens. 

There are four key questions that I believe we must ask in order to assess foreign aid accurately and to determine if it is an appropriate investment of American tax dollars. Does foreign aid to a given region offer the American people return on investment in terms of their own security? Does such aid promote the free flow of goods and materials critical to the success of American trade? Does it protect supply routes and safety for American troops stationed abroad? Does it seriously mitigate the potential impact of disease pandemics?

Question of the week: Do you believe that the United States should continue to utilize foreign assistance as a tool to support our foreign policy?

( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other.


Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Was the decision by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release illegal immigrants a valid means for reducing spending?
Posted by Randy | March 22, 2013

At the end of February, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced, ahead of the March 1st sequestration deadline, that over 2,000 illegal immigrants would be released from detention due to budget cuts. 

ICE later indicated that the detainees who had been released were non-criminals and other low risk offenders who do not have serious criminal histories that would subject them to mandatory detention.  However, 28% of those released have been charged with criminal offenses, some of which were aggravated felonies.

Further, some of the individuals released may be members of violent criminal gangs.  This week, when I had the opportunity to question John Morton, Director of ICE, about the decision, he could not confirm whether those released were members of violent criminal gangs or not.  Watch the video here.

The Budget Control Act, which set up the process of sequestration, was signed into law on August 2, 2011.  Since that time, ICE has had nearly 600 days to plan for spending cuts; however, they chose to release criminal, illegal immigrants just days before sequestration took effect.

Question of the week:  Was the decision by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release illegal immigrants a valid means for reducing spending?

( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) ICE should have taken other measures to account for budgetary cuts (leave your comments below).


Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Calling All High School Students: The Congressional Arts Competition
Posted by Randy | March 20, 2013
Every day, thousands of footsteps echo in the hallways of the Cannon Tunnel, as members and staffers hurry back and forth during another busy day on the Hill. What’s unique about this tunnel to the U.S. Capitol Building though, are the hundreds of magnificent pieces of art that decorate the walls. From moving portraits to stunning photographs to eye-catching, creative graphic artwork, each of these pieces tells the story of a different high school student from across the nation. Each one was chosen as the winner to represent their State and Congressional district.
 
Now it’s that time of year again, and the Congressional Art Competition is gearing up to get started.  I’d like to invite all high school students who reside in the 4th Congressional District of Virginia participate in this year’s competition by submitting their own original artwork.  The winner will be invited to Washington, D.C. in June to meet with me and attend the unveiling ceremony.

For more details, please visit: http://forbes.house.gov/ConstituentServices/artscompetition.htm.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Should the United States government have the ability to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen located in a foreign country who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force” without due process of law?
Posted by Randy | March 15, 2013

Last month, a memo was leaked outlining the White House Administration’s policy of targeted killings of U.S. citizens overseas. Since that time, questions have been raised about the constitutionality of the policy and whether it could also be used against a U.S. citizen here in America. 

According to the memo, where the target is a U.S. citizen who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force” and is located in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities, lethal force would be lawful if:

  • An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
  • Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and
  • The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The guarantee of due process is affirmed twice in the United States Constitution: The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment further states that “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Attorney General Eric Holder stated that due process “does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.”  Others, like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) warned against not only the targeting of American citizens without first providing due process, but doing so on American soil.  Senior Members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to President Obama requesting that the Committee be granted the opportunity to review all documents pertaining to the legal justification of drone strikes on Americans abroad.   The administration released these memos to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees; however, it refused to provide them to the House Judiciary Committee, which is charged with oversight of the Justice Department and the U.S. Constitution.

Question of the week: Should the United States government have the ability to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen located in a foreign country who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force” without due process of law?

( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other (leave your comments below).


Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Do you support the ACCOUNT Act as a means of reining in federal spending?
Posted by Randy | March 06, 2013
Last month, I asked whether you supported sequestration or an alternative plan to reduce spending.  After nearly 80% responded that they preferred alternative spending cuts, I asked which alternatives to sequestration you support.  Finally, I asked which legislative proposals voted on in the House or Senate you supported to avert sequestration.

This week we take a look at a far narrower bill designed to reign in government spending by increasing accountability for federal spending on conferences.  Recently introduced, the Agency Conferences and Conventions Operating Under Necessary Transparency (ACCOUNT) Act, or H.R.283, seeks to control spending by requiring that conferences costing more than $25,000 must be approved by the head of the particular federal agency, and must have details posted on the agency website within 30 days of the conference, including the purpose, total cost and cost per employee attending. Each agency would be required to submit a report on their conferences to the relevant Congressional committee for the fiscal year. Under the ACCOUNT Act, conference spending would be public and federal agencies would use taxpayer money more wisely with the American people watching. This bill aims to crack down on wasteful practices and bring conference spending – such as the $823,000 spent by the U.S. General Services Administration in Las Vegas last year – into the light of day.

Question of the week: Do you support the ACCOUNT Act as a means of reining in federal spending?

( ) Yes.
( ) No. 
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other (share your thoughts below).

Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the Week: Which of these three legislative proposals do you support to avert sequestration?
Posted by Randy | February 27, 2013
Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on two alternatives to address sequestration.  The vote will come one day before sequestration takes effect.

Senate Democrats have proposed replacing $110 billion in cuts - $85 billion through September 30th (the end of fiscal year 2013) and another $25 billion through the end of December.  One half would come from tax increases, while the other half would come from spending cuts equally divided between eliminating direct payments to farmers and cuts to national defense.

Senate Republicans are expected to offer a plan to grant the Defense Department and other agencies flexibility to prioritize their own funding, rather than implementing the arbitrary cuts to each program called for under sequestration.   For the $85 billion in cuts under sequestration for 2013, agencies would be able to reprogram spending cuts at their discretion; however, a balance must remain between defense and non-defense spending cuts. 

In May (H.R.5652) and December (H.R.6684) of 2012, the House voted to replace sequestration with recommendations from six committees – Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means - to cancel $98 billion in cuts to discretionary funding. Both of these bills passed with Congressman Forbes’ support.

Question of the week: Which of these three legislative proposals do you support to avert sequestration?

( ) I support the bills passed in the House that provide alternative spending cuts.
( ) I support the plan offered by Senate Democrats to raise taxes.
( ) I support the plan offered by Senate Republicans to allow agencies to prioritize spending.
( ) I support sequestration.
( ) I support another solution (share your thoughts below).
( ) I don’t know.

Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]

Services

Other Services

Issues

More Issues