Posts

,

What is a Senator?

What is a Senator?
Since 1787, the U.S. Senate has existed to bring representation to individual states and a minority opinion to the United States of America. Senators are an integral part of the news cycle. They are a voice for the electorate. They are composers of history. But what is a senator?

America is a country of democracy and relative stability in spite of bipartisanship. Surrounded by a world in which many are starving and living in poverty, however, it is important to look at the basics. Doing so gives Americans the ability to make a difference to those less fortunate. This is made possible by having a population of 323 million speak through elected representatives.

Qualifications of a U.S. Senator

The qualifications of a U.S. senator are simple. A senator must be at least 30 years old, must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years and must be a resident of the state which he or she is elected to represent. Their terms last for six years and there is no limit to the number of terms, as long as it is the will of the population in the senator’s state. Each state has two elected senators, who exist to bring individual voice and to be a part of the vital checks-and-balances system. This goes some of the way to answering the question ‘what is a senator?’.

Responsibilities of a Senator

The most important job of a U.S. senator is to be the voice of his or her constituents. As the accountable party to the state, a U.S. senator is responsible for voting on legislation that is to the benefit of the state as a whole. It also means that senators are responsible for taking phone calls, reading letters and meeting with his or her constituents.

In addition to their responsibility to the state, senators also serve on committees. Committees exist to examine major sectors of American life, including energy, health and the U.S. budget. It is a Senator’s responsibility to meet with lobbyists and determine amendments to existing legislation through the committee on which they serve.

U.S. senators also introduce and vote on legislation. Once a bill is introduced, it must be examined by the Senate. If it passes muster, the bill will then go to the House of Representatives (or vice versa). If the bill passes both houses of Congress, it will then go to the President of the United States to become a law.

What is a Senator?

So, what is a senator? A senator is someone that individuals elect to ensure that the country is going in a direction in which they want it to go. A senator is a voice for the state; an elected official responsible for ensuring the protection of human rights.

Unfortunately, much of the world does not have that same representation. The U.S has the power to create change and it starts with individual voices.

It is essential to exercise the right to vote and voice opinions through elected officials. Once senators are in office, citizens can write letters, email or call them to hold them accountable. They can make sure they are carrying out the state’s interest as well as using their position for good in the world.

– Eric Paulsen

Photo: Flickr

,

What Are the Qualifications for the House of Representatives?

qualifications for the house of representatives

The House of Representatives is the first line of defense for legislation in the United States. Some may not consider the House to be as elite as the Senate, but there is no denying that it is vital to the legislative process. Nineteen former presidents once served in the House of Representatives, more than the 16 who served in the Senate. But what qualifies someone to be elected to this legislative body?

The House of Representatives includes 435 members, with population size determining the number of representatives a state receives. The qualifications for the House of Representatives are less stringent than those for the Senate and the presidency. This was purposely done to limit the obstacles for ordinary people to become members. There are three formal qualifications, which are outlined in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

The first qualification outlined in the Constitution states that members of the House must be at least 25 years old. Despite this, the youngest member of the House of Representatives, William Charles Cole Claiborne, was only 22 when elected and only 24 when he was elected for a second time. Currently, the youngest member of the House, Elise Stefanik, is 33 years old, exceeding the requirement by eight years.

The second qualification, like that of the Senate, deals with citizenship. The constitution states that members of the House of Representatives must have U.S. citizenship for seven years upon election. This allows citizens who were not born in the United States, which is required for the presidency, to be elected into the House, which is crucial to immigrant representation. However, the number of immigrants serving has decreased significantly since the 1960s.

As of 2015, only 407 past and present members of Congress had been born outside of the United States out of the more than 12,000 who had served. 347 of these members served in the House of Representatives. From 1967 to 1974, no immigrants served in either the House or the Senate.

The last of the qualifications for the House of Representatives concerns residency and is the same for those serving in the Senate. Those elected to the House must be residents of the state which they represent at the time of election. However, this qualification does not require that representatives live in the district they represent.

The same article of the Constitution which outlines these qualifications also includes how members will be elected. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years without term limits. In addition to this, the House must confirm members who are elected before they may take the Oath of Office.

The House of Representatives was modeled for the people. It was designed to be accessible as well as an integral part of the legislative process. In addition, the Speaker of the House remains a prominent political figure within the government. Every moving part within our government serves a purpose and without one the system simply could not work. These qualifications for the House of Representatives ensure that these parts continue to work to the absolute best of their ability.

– Megan Burtis

Photo: Google

,

North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2017

North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act
With rising tensions between the United States and North Korea, news coverage has been primarily focused on potential military action between the two countries. However, the United States has been making attempts at promoting human rights, democracy and freedom of information within the country. The latest attempt is the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act.

North Korea is notorious for being one of the world’s most oppressed, fascist countries in the world today. Under the rule of Kim Jong-Un, basic freedoms have been restricted to the point where they are practically non-existent. Enslavement, torture, rape, forced abortions and imprisonment are among the severe human rights problems within the country. Perceived opponents of the North Korean government and North Korean refugees who are sent back to the country have no choice but to go to prison camps where they are met with starvation, abuse and forced labor.

Chongsong Women’s Prison Camp

At a women’s prison camp in Chongsong, North Korea, women are subjected to psychological, physical and sexual abuse. Human Rights Watch conducted interviews with eight women while they were imprisoned. The women told them that among the abusers were prison guards and police interrogators from both the People’s Security Agency and State Security Department of North Korea.

“My life was in his hands, so I did everything he wanted and told him everything he asked,” said one of the women interviewed by the Human Rights Watch. “How could I do anything else?” The woman in this interview had been raped several times by a People’s Security Agency agent while he was questioning her after she was sent back from China to North Korea in 2010.

Earlier this month, the United Nations condemned North Korea for the country’s “long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights.” Koro Bessho, Japan’s U.N. ambassador, called out North Korea’s capital city Pyongyang for its history of abuse and expressed that the country needs to properly address its longstanding issues with human rights violations. Leaders representing nations all around the world are taking it upon themselves to help those in North Korea affected by this issue.

North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act

H.R. 2061, also known as the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2017, was introduced to the House of Representatives in April of this year. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida’s 27th congressional district sponsors the bill, and it currently has 16 co-sponsors. H.R. 2061 seeks to provide $10 million each year during the years 2018-2022 to promote human rights and freedom of information in North Korea as well as provide humanitarian assistance to North Korean refugees.

Through the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act, the President would have the authority to electronically share non-government controlled information inside North Korea, increasing its availability and presence. The President could also provide grants for the allocation of devices that would receive this information and create a grant program designed to develop and distribute methods; the grants could also go towards products that would allow North Koreans easier access to outside information.

H.R. 2061 would allow the Broadcasting Board of Governors to broadcast music, movies, TV and popular cultural references, and they would broadcast in Korean to North Korea about laws, rights and freedoms given through the North Korean Constitution.

In accordance with the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act, the State Department would be tasked with providing updates on the status of U.S. broadcasting in North Korea, whether it has met the 12-hour-per-day goal for broadcasting, and a plan for overcoming difficulties in having communication with North Korean citizens. In addition, the State Department would provide reports on efforts made to reunite Korean American citizens with their relatives in North Korea.

H.R. 2061 has made some progress in Congress; the bill passed in the House of Representatives in September and is currently moving through the Senate. With such a trajectory, there’s hope for the bill yet.

– Blake Chambers

Photo: Flickr

, ,

S.Res. 310: The Importance of Ending Pediatric AIDS

Pediatric AIDSHIV/AIDS is embedded in social and economic inequity and there exists a critical connection between the disease and poverty. There is strong evidence that the disease affects individuals of lower socioeconomic status and impoverished nations at a disproportionately high rate. This is also true when examining the occurrence of mother-to-child transmission, which accounts for more than 90 percent of HIV infections in children.

S. Res. 310, according to U.S. Congress, is a “resolution that recognizes the importance of a continued commitment to ending pediatric AIDS worldwide.” This is of extreme importance because, not only do children suffer the most from HIV/AIDS because of their developing immune systems, but they also are the key to eradicating the disease and breaking the cycle of infection. Without diagnosis and treatment, one-third of infected infants will die before the age of one, one-half will die before their second birthday and 80 percent will die before their fifth birthday.

As a leading cause of death among adolescents, AIDS is devastating the lives and hopes of millions of children worldwide. Pediatric HIV-related deaths have more than tripled since 2000, requiring immediate attention and resolution.

S. Res. 310 recognizes that women and children are in desperate need of HIV-related services. Data from 2016 shows that half of the 36,700,000 people worldwide who suffer from HIV are women and 2,100,000 are children. Despite the increased efforts by the U.S. and countries around the world, over 400 children were born HIV-positive every day in 2016. This legislation highlights that continued commitment is required in order to eradicate pediatric AIDS.

The resolution allows the U.S. to provide women and children with HIV counseling and testing services and to improve access to services and medicines that prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. The legislation also supports expanding treatment for pediatric and adolescent HIV, including greater access to more efficacious antiretroviral drug regimens, age-appropriate services and support for the caregivers of children and adolescents.

In the words of the resolution, “every mother should have the opportunity to fight for the life of her child; and every child and adolescent should have access to medicine to lead a long and healthy life.”

– Jamie Enright

Photo: Flickr

,

Legislation to Watch

Legislation
Legislation is one major factor that keeps the United States strong. Without rules and regulations, we simply wouldn’t be the United States. That being said, the year 2015 has been chock full of legislation plans.

In order to be a well-informed citizen, it is important to keep an eye on the current legislation that is in review by the government. The following list will showcase just a few of the many important happenings within Congress.

1. Affordable Care Act

For the nation’s endlessly controversial health care law, 2015 initially looks a little bit like 2012, with lots of uncertainty hinging on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. States that want to get a head start against the possibility of disruption will have to act quickly.

2. Global Food Security Act

In the last 24 years, we have seen the number of undernourished people in the world go down by 209 million people. Out of that 209 million, 203 million came from “developing regions.” This act would enable our government to craft a comprehensive strategy to enable food security, utilizing the funds, personnel and brainpower of at least 11 different departments and agencies. These organizations would then collaborate with others around the world to advance innovative, cost-effective plans with strong accountability mechanisms.

3. Food for Peace Reform Act

The bill eliminates monetization of the international food market, which GAO has previously criticized as “inefficient” and unsustainable for the recipient’s market. Removing monetization would allow U.S. aid to reach an additional 800,000 people while freeing up to $30 million per year. Under the current process, 25 cents is lost on every taxpayer dollar spent.

4. International Affairs Budget

The International Affairs Budget makes up only a mere one percent of the U.S. federal budget, but impacts all aspects of life in America. These funds are imperative for helping the world’s poor, and as global citizens, we must back initiatives that can save millions of lives both domestically and abroad.

5. School Testing

When governors and state school officials released the Common Core curriculum standards four and a half years ago, the new program was touted as a fair and accurate way to measure student achievement across state lines and cultivate the analytical skills that many argue American children will need in order to compete on a global scale.

This legislation is in no order of importance, as they are all equal in importance to help the United States facilitate positive growth both domestically and internationally.

– Alysha Biemolt

Sources: Governing, Borgen Project
Photo: The Whitehouse

AGOA: Strengthening Economic Relations

AGOAIn 2000, the United States Congress approved legislation entitled the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, in hopes to better economic relations between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. The legislation highlights key factors in trade between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa while providing many benefits.

The act was initially set to expire in 2008, but President George W. Bush signed the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004, which extended AGOA to 2015. The Act’s apparel special provision, which permits lesser-developed countries to use foreign fabric for their garment exports, was to expire in September 2007.

However, legislation passed by Congress in December 2006 extended it through 2012.

The legislation authorized the President of the United States to determine which sub-Saharan African countries would be eligible for AGOA on an annual basis. The eligibility criteria was to improve labor rights and movement toward a market-based economy. Each year, the president evaluates the sub-Saharan African countries and determines which countries should remain eligible.

Currently, there are 44 African countries eligible with AGOA.

 

What are the benefits of AGOA for African countries?

AGOA provides trade preferences for quota and duty-free entry into the United States for certain goods, expanding the benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, program.

AGOA expanded market access for textile and apparel goods into the United States for eligible countries, though many other goods are also included. This resulted in the growth of an apparel industry in southern Africa, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

In addition to growth in the textile and apparel industry, some AGOA countries have begun to export new products to the United States, such as cut flowers, horticultural products, automotives and steel.

;Agricultural products is a promising area for AGOA trade; however, much work needs to be done to assist African countries in meeting U.S. sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

 

What are the benefits of AGOA for US firms?

By creating tangible incentives for African countries to implement economic and commercial reform policies, AGOA contributes to better market opportunities and stronger commercial partners in Africa for U.S. companies. The Act strengthens commercial ties between Africa and the United States, while it helps to integrate Africa into the global economy.

U.S. firms may find new opportunities in privatizations of African state-owned enterprises or in partnership with African companies in infrastructure projects.

– Alaina Grote

Sources: AGOA, International Trade Administration
Photo: Financial Mail

House Approves $1 Trillion Spending Package

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a $1 trillion government spending package on Thursday, December 11. The agreement will keep the government open into next year. With major opposition from House Democrats, the bill narrowly squeaked by on a 219-206 vote. The Senate passed a two-day funding bill after the House vote, dodging a government shutdown that would have started at midnight on the 12th.

House Democrats interrupted plans for a Thursday afternoon vote on the bill because of opposition to provisions entailing more relaxed regulations on Wall Street and with campaign finance laws. This opposition incited a rare case in which House Democrats became pitted against President Obama, who approved of the deal for its inclusion of several of his specific spending priorities. These priorities include more funds to fight Islamic State militants, help combat the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and distribute more Pell Grants for college students.

The clash began on Tuesday when Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) strongly opposed the bill’s weakening of a certain provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial services law that was created to protect taxpayers from risks resulting from complex financial trades by large banks. Democrats were further dissatisfied with a provision that significantly increased the funding private donors can grant to political conventions. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted she was not made fully aware of the provision’s extent before the package’s initial unveiling.

After Democrats voted against advancing the bill on Thursday afternoon, House GOP leaders took the bill off the floor and the White House began trying to drudge up Democratic support for the package. President Obama and Vice President Biden began personally calling House Democrats in the final few hours before the dreaded government shutdown, encouraging them to view the bill more favorably. Meanwhile White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough went to Capitol Hill in an effort to change dubious Democrats’ minds, insisting that passing the deal would place more confidence into the economy. Democrats exiting the meeting claimed that McDonough had told them the federal government could not survive on constant short-term continuing resolutions.

Some Democrats supported the bill, arguing in favor of the fact that it does contain several democratic spending priorities. Notably, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is the second-highest-ranking House Democrat, openly supported the package. Some Republicans, on the other hand, opposed the bill on the grounds that it would not be able to succeed in reining in the President’s order. This internal opposition meant that Republicans needed Democratic votes in order to pass the deal.

Eventually many House Democrats decided to offer up their support for the legislation, enough to ultimately ensure that it successfully passed. 57 Democrats ended up crossing the divide to vote in favor of the bill along with 162 Republicans. The deal has arisen out of weeks of negotiations between Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), and their respective party leaders.

– Shenel Ozisik

Sources: USA Today, Politico
Photo: ABC

, , , , ,

5 Facts About the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014

Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014
On Tuesday, U.S. lawmakers introduced the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., jointly introduced this legislation, which would end restrictions on international food aid programs.

“More than anything else, the mission of America’s food aid program is to save lives,” Coons said. “Our current system for acquiring and distributing food aid is inefficient and often hurts the very communities it is trying to help.”

1. Feed More People
The reformed food aid legislation would feed about 9 million people around the world.

2. Greater Efficiency
The legislation would make hundreds of millions of dollars more available per year. Currently, the food aid program has restrictions that require food to be produced in the United States rather than purchased locally. It costs more and takes months to reach people in disaster areas. It would also allow U.S. locally or regionally acquired commodities, cash transfers or vouchers to be used for aid.

3. Small Effect on U.S. Agriculture
U.S. food aid contributed merely 0.86 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports between 2002 and 2011 and just 1.41 percent of net farm income.

4. Let USAID Ship Food on Any Available Vessels
Currently, half of food aid must also be transported on U.S. vessels, which takes months and costs more. The cargo preference requirement means that aid is shipped at 46 percent higher than the market rate.

5. End Monetization
“Monetization” is a requirement that says 15 percent of all U.S. donated food must be sold first by aid organizations, which produces cash that funds development projects. Removing this would save 25 cents out of every taxpayer dollar, would feed 800,000 more people and make about $30 million per year more available. Many development supporters argue that monetization upsets local markets.

“At a time when our budget is strained and U.S. resources are limited, Congress needs to find ways to be more efficient and effective with every dollar,” Corker said.

– Colleen Moore

Sources: Reuters, Agri-Pulse
Photo: Africa Green Media

10 Foreign Aid Quotes from Congress

Foreign Aid Quotes
Although Congress is known to disagree amongst itself, there is one issue that many members of the Democratic and Republican Party do agree on: the importance of foreign aid. Here are 10 quotes made by members of Congress stressing the need to continue funding foreign aid.

1. “Foreign aid must be viewed as an investment, not an expense…but when foreign aid is carefully guided and targeted at a specific issue, it can and must be effective.” – U.S. Representative Kay Granger (R-TX), Huffington Post, June 2011

2. “The world we live in takes a multifaceted approach. To the American taxpayer: We need to be investing in improving people’s lives before the terrorists try to take over.” – U.S. Senator, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Foreign Policy magazine, February 2011

3. “For development to play its full role in our national security structure, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) must be a strong agency with the resources to accomplish the missions we give it. But during the last two decades, decision-makers have not made it easy for USAID to perform its vital function. Even as we have rediscovered the importance of foreign assistance, we find ourselves with a frail foundation to support a robust development strategy. I believe the starting point for any future design of our assistance programs and organization should not be the status quo, but rather the period in which we had a well functioning and well-resourced aid agency.” – U.S. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), Statement on Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act, July 2009

4.“The right question to ask is: are we really spending too much on non-defense programs? The answer is clearly no. Non-defense discretionary spending levels are essentially unchanged from 2001. There is no reason we shouldn’t be able to afford them today.” – U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), June 2011

5.”The real problem in America’s spending is not foreign aid, which is a very small part of our budget.” – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Town Hall meeting, July 2011

6. “We face tremendous foreign policy and national security challenges worldwide, from helping countries manage peaceful, democratic transitions in the Middle East, to preventing violence, conflict, and terrorism from engulfing key partners, and to leading humanitarian responses to forestall drought, famine, and natural disasters. We are only able to achieve these aims with a strong State Department and USAID.” – U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Press release, July 2011

7. “Leaders of both parties have affirmed that U.S. power is a three-legged stool of military might, diplomatic skill and development. The foreign aid bill’s diplomatic and development objectives pay dividends by helping avoid military deployments to protect U.S. interests, which are far more costly in both life and treasure. Robust engagement is no less necessary to achieve strategic security imperatives in this belt-tightening atmosphere. Investments in health, education, humanitarian aid for refugees and disaster victims and micro-loans for entrepreneurs are critical to fostering stability around the world. It would be senseless to let our response to a fiscal challenge create a national security crisis.” – U.S. Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY), Op-Ed in Politico, February 2011

8. “Our top military leaders are adamant that International Affairs programs are a critical to our national security. Our top business leaders are adamant that these programs are critical to our economic future. I’ve seen firsthand how these programs work beyond the frontline states and these cuts will seriously restrict our ability to keep Americans safe and advance our economic interests.” – Former U.S. Congressman and Ambassador Mark Green, July 2011

9. “Foreign aid is important. If it’s done right, it spreads America’s influence around the world in a positive way.” – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Town Hall meeting, July 2011

10. (In support of continuing aid to Egypt) “Cut off all aid immediately and you will take an economy that is already floundering and probably drive it into chaos, and that is not in anyone’s national security interests.” – Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J

– Mary Penn

Sources: Huffington Post, InterAction
Photo: Politico

 

Read Humanitarian Quotes.

Congressional Support for the Global Fund

globalfund
On March 21, 2013, Congress reaffirmed its support for the Global Fund by passing a continuing resolution that ensures support and funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDs, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Even with increased tension within Congress over budget cuts and a very tight budget, Congress has shown it understands how necessary and critical the work done by the Global Fund and its affiliates is in fighting these life-threatening diseases.

The Global Fund has helped combat these diseases and improve health by focusing on development assistance. A large part of its strategy has to do with providing the funds necessary in development and implementation of new technology and interventions that have and will continue to change the trajectory of these dangerous diseases. This funding comes from a lot of different sources, yet, the United States is by far the largest donor. With the US’s aid, the Global Fund is able to finance interventions in more than 150 countries across the globe.

This means that the world is on track to halve the amount of people affected by tuberculosis by 2015 (as compared to the 1990s numbers). Elimination of malaria in many territories is occurring and will continue to occur with the help of the Global Fund. New infections of HIV are on the decline in many countries as awareness and preventive methods are becoming more and more common. With the continued support of the United States – which comes across through Congress’ support of the bill – these numbers will only improve. The number of people affected by tuberculosis will continue on a downward spiral. More and more territories will be malaria free and HIV prevention will be a bigger concern than treating HIV.

– Angela Hooks

Source: allAfrica
Photo: The Global Fund