|
Jim Risch on Homeland Security
Republican Jr Senator; previously Governor
|
|
Do everything to maintain a fully-equipped military
The primary constitutional obligation of the federal government is to protect and defend the people, land, and resources of the United States of America. As a United States Senator, I am committed to maintaining a well-trained, fully-equipped military.
I will do everything in my power to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and national guardsmen and women have the resources they need to carry out and complete their missions.
Source: 2014 Idaho Senate campaign website, risch.senate.gov
, Jul 2, 2014
We all agree that the military and NSA should be funded
Q: You voted last week opposing cloture--essentially wanting to filibuster the house Republican bill to kill ObamaCare funding and keep the government running. What's the message there?A: The message to the American people is we are fighting
ObamaCare. That's what we told our folks at home we would do.
Q: What would congressional Republicans do, if ObamaCare were off the table, to get negotiations going about a budget?
A: Why don't we enact what we all agree on? We all agreed that the
National Parks should be funded. The Veterans Administration should be; we agreed that the military should be funded.
Q: Let me ask you about this from a security standpoint; about a budget impasse posing a serious threat.
A: The national security
items should come first. Republicans would love to take the National Security Agency and fund it in in its entirety. The other side is saying, "No, we aren't going to do this," what they call "piecemeal." I call that part of the appropriation process.
Source: ABC News Politics interview on 2014 Idaho Senate race
, Oct 2, 2013
Supports the Patriot Act
Q: Do you support or oppose the policy: “The Patriot Act harms civil liberties”?A: Oppose.
Source: Email interview on 2008 Senate race with OnTheIssues.org
, Jun 8, 2008
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
Congressional Summary: A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011. Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Smith, R-TX]: America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats. On Feb. 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct "roving"
wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American less safe.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Conyers, D-MI]: Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We didn't think that that was right then. We don't think it's right now. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I urge a "no" vote on the extension of these expiring provisions.
Status: Passed 86-12
Reference: FISA Sunsets Extension Act;
Bill H.514
; vote number 11-SV019
on Feb 17, 2011
Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Risch co-sponsored Resolution on UN
Congressional Summary:Expressing the conditions for the US becoming a signatory to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
- WHEREAS the ATT poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the US as well as to the constitutional rights of US citizens and US sovereignty;
- WHEREAS the ATT fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms;
- WHEREAS the ATT places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the US;
- WHEREAS the ATT will create opportunities to engage in 'lawfare' against the US via the misuse of the treaty's tribunals;
- WHEREAS the ATT could hinder the US from fulfilling its strategic and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as Taiwan & Israel;
- Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that--
- the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty,
and that the Senate should not ratify the ATT; and
- that no Federal funds should be authorized to implement the ATT.
Opponent's argument against bill:(United Nations press release, June 3, 2013):
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon str
Source: S.CON.RES.7 & H.CON.RES.23 : 13-SC007 on Mar 13, 2013
Military spouses don't lose voting residency while abroad.
Risch signed Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to matters of residency, and for other purposes. - Prohibits, for purposes of voting for a federal, state, or local office, deeming a person to have lost a residence or domicile in a state, acquired a residence or domicile in any other state, or become a resident in or of any other state solely because the person is absent from a state because the person is accompanying the person's spouse who is absent from the state in compliance with military or naval orders.
-
Prohibits a servicemember's spouse from either losing or acquiring a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation because of being absent or present in any U.S. tax jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember's military orders if the residence or domicile is the same for the servicemember and the spouse. Prohibits a spouse's income from being considered income earned in a tax jurisdiction if the spouse is not a resident or domiciliary of such jurisdiction when the spouse is in that jurisdiction solely to be with a servicemember serving under military orders.
- Suspends land rights residency requirements for spouses accompanying servicemembers serving under military orders.
Source: S.475&HR.1182 2009-S475 on Feb 25, 2009
Page last updated: Apr 24, 2016