Mr. Nadler objected to an amendment (the Fossella amendment) that would prohibit the expenditure of funds to enforce a court decision denying asylum to the partners of Chinese nationals whose asylum applications are based on a fear of forced abortions and forced sterilizations. (Mr. Nadler indicated that he was going to propose legislation to overturn this order and agreed that it was wrong.)
Mr. Nadler's objection was that "the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court". I think he is right in this view and commend him for it.
On the other hand, Mr. Nadler voted in favor of an amendment (the Poe amendment) providing that no funds be used to incarcerate two border patrol agents, apparently sentenced excessively. Now, this amendment passed with about 395 votes and from the debate, no one was arguing that these sentences were just. However, do we really want Congress to be engaged in this activity? Congress is not a court and did not conduct a trial, nor is the pardon power vested in Congress. I fail to see how Mr. Nadler's objection to the Fossella amendment does not apply with equal force to the Poe amendment. So, Mr. Nadler, why the vote in favor of the Poe Amendment?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Medical Marijuanna, Earmarks and Permanent Facilities in Iraq
There were 70 roll call votes in the last week. I'm going to look at Congressperson Nadler's record on a few of these votes.
Mr Nadler voted in favor of prohibiting spending money for permanent military facilities in Iraq. Although more symbolic than anything else, this sends a useful signal to both the Administration and the wider world.
Mr. Nadler voted in favor of an amendment offered by Congressperson Hinchey, providing that federal funds not be used to prosecute persons prescribed medical marijuanna in those states permitting the same. Clearly, for a number of reasons, from issues of Federalism to effective use of Federal resources, this seems like the right way to go.
Mr. Nadler voted against the Flake amendments to remove certain earmarks, including money for the Lobster Institute and the East Coast Shellfish Research Growers Association. Although, not a rollcall vote, I assume Mr. Nadler also voted against eliminating the $5,000,000 grant for the National Textile Center. On the merits, there doesn't seem to be any reason to use my tax dollars for these purposes. Was Mr. Nadler's vote the wrong one? For example, it's possible that these items were the price of more important provisions and there may be earmarks that benefit our Congressional district. In this regard, it is somewhat interesting that all but a handful of the opponents of these earmarks were Republicans.
Obviously, our district benefits from earmarks also. Mr. Nadler touts $350,000 for the Coalition for the Homeless, $200,000 for the Doe Fund, and $250,000 for the John Jay Center for Study of Gang Violence, $150,000 for the Hudson Guild Fulton Center, $200,000 for the Staten Island Passenger Rail Study and $200,000,000 for Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway Line. I assume that most of these organizations do good work. Presumably, one price of obtaining earmarks is going along with everyone else's earmarks. Would we all be better off if all of the earmarks were abolished? Is the 200,000,000 for the Second Avenue Subway Line in the same category as the others?
Mr Nadler voted in favor of prohibiting spending money for permanent military facilities in Iraq. Although more symbolic than anything else, this sends a useful signal to both the Administration and the wider world.
Mr. Nadler voted in favor of an amendment offered by Congressperson Hinchey, providing that federal funds not be used to prosecute persons prescribed medical marijuanna in those states permitting the same. Clearly, for a number of reasons, from issues of Federalism to effective use of Federal resources, this seems like the right way to go.
Mr. Nadler voted against the Flake amendments to remove certain earmarks, including money for the Lobster Institute and the East Coast Shellfish Research Growers Association. Although, not a rollcall vote, I assume Mr. Nadler also voted against eliminating the $5,000,000 grant for the National Textile Center. On the merits, there doesn't seem to be any reason to use my tax dollars for these purposes. Was Mr. Nadler's vote the wrong one? For example, it's possible that these items were the price of more important provisions and there may be earmarks that benefit our Congressional district. In this regard, it is somewhat interesting that all but a handful of the opponents of these earmarks were Republicans.
Obviously, our district benefits from earmarks also. Mr. Nadler touts $350,000 for the Coalition for the Homeless, $200,000 for the Doe Fund, and $250,000 for the John Jay Center for Study of Gang Violence, $150,000 for the Hudson Guild Fulton Center, $200,000 for the Staten Island Passenger Rail Study and $200,000,000 for Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway Line. I assume that most of these organizations do good work. Presumably, one price of obtaining earmarks is going along with everyone else's earmarks. Would we all be better off if all of the earmarks were abolished? Is the 200,000,000 for the Second Avenue Subway Line in the same category as the others?
National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Last week Congressperson Nadler introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 (HR 3189).
National Security Letters are various provions of law providing that certain entities, such as phone companies and financial institutions, shall comply with requests for information from executive branch officials. For example, one such provision (18 USCA 2709)provides that phone companies and electronic communication service providers will comply with requests from the FBI for the name, address, length of service and billing records of any person if the FBI certifies that such records are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. A person receiving such a request may not disclose it. Twice a year, the FBI needs to inform the Congressional Intelligence Committees of requests made under this provision.
A similar provision (12 USCA 3414(a)(5))provides that financial institutions will comply with requests for financial records from the FBI.
The bill appears to:
(1) require a specific factual basis that the information or records sought by that letter pertain to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power;
(2) permit consultation by the recipient of a letter with legal counsel;
(3) generally permit disclosure of a national security letter after 30 days, but permits the FBI to obtain a court order that the period of non-disclosure will be extended for up to 180 days, if there is a specific danger arising from non-disclosure. Multiple extensions may be obtained;
(4) permits the recipient of a non-disclosure letter to file for judicial review; and
(5) requires notification when information obtained from a national security letter is being used in a proceeding.
The bill also permits the subject of a national security letter to sue the person issuing the letter for actual damages or up to $50,000, if contrary to law or without factual foundation. Five years after the date of the bill, the authority to issue these letters reverts to that existing before the PATRIOT Act. There are also provisions for the destruction of wrongful or outdated information.
This bill seems pretty reasonable. While I doubt the FBI will have that much interest in my records, if they did, I would want to be notified about it. The bill's provisions appear to strike a reasonable compromise between the FBI's legitimate needs to investigate and preventing the FBI from abusing its powers, by providing opportunities for judicial review.
National Security Letters are various provions of law providing that certain entities, such as phone companies and financial institutions, shall comply with requests for information from executive branch officials. For example, one such provision (18 USCA 2709)provides that phone companies and electronic communication service providers will comply with requests from the FBI for the name, address, length of service and billing records of any person if the FBI certifies that such records are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. A person receiving such a request may not disclose it. Twice a year, the FBI needs to inform the Congressional Intelligence Committees of requests made under this provision.
A similar provision (12 USCA 3414(a)(5))provides that financial institutions will comply with requests for financial records from the FBI.
The bill appears to:
(1) require a specific factual basis that the information or records sought by that letter pertain to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power;
(2) permit consultation by the recipient of a letter with legal counsel;
(3) generally permit disclosure of a national security letter after 30 days, but permits the FBI to obtain a court order that the period of non-disclosure will be extended for up to 180 days, if there is a specific danger arising from non-disclosure. Multiple extensions may be obtained;
(4) permits the recipient of a non-disclosure letter to file for judicial review; and
(5) requires notification when information obtained from a national security letter is being used in a proceeding.
The bill also permits the subject of a national security letter to sue the person issuing the letter for actual damages or up to $50,000, if contrary to law or without factual foundation. Five years after the date of the bill, the authority to issue these letters reverts to that existing before the PATRIOT Act. There are also provisions for the destruction of wrongful or outdated information.
This bill seems pretty reasonable. While I doubt the FBI will have that much interest in my records, if they did, I would want to be notified about it. The bill's provisions appear to strike a reasonable compromise between the FBI's legitimate needs to investigate and preventing the FBI from abusing its powers, by providing opportunities for judicial review.
Why
I used to be very involved in politics, but over time dropped out as my involvement wasn't leading to the achievement any of the goals I had when I started getting involved. Partly, that's a functtion of where I live and the local political situation.
I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. My local Congressperson is Jerrold Nadler. Generally, my impression is that he does a pretty good job. The purpose of this blog is to evaluate and track some of what he does to see if my belief is correct and to share this evaluation with others who share my views.
A couple of points that perhaps should be obvious:
(1) Good is a partially subjective concept. What I consider good is not necessarily what someone with a different ideology might consider good.
(2) Congressmembers have multi-faceted roles and full-time staff to help them do their jobs. Much of what they do is invisible to the public. Due to limitations on my time and effort, I'm not going to review everything and will concentrate mostly on bills sponsored and votes taken, though I may comment on other actions from time to time.
I invite others who are also constituents of Congressperson Nadler to share their views.
I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. My local Congressperson is Jerrold Nadler. Generally, my impression is that he does a pretty good job. The purpose of this blog is to evaluate and track some of what he does to see if my belief is correct and to share this evaluation with others who share my views.
A couple of points that perhaps should be obvious:
(1) Good is a partially subjective concept. What I consider good is not necessarily what someone with a different ideology might consider good.
(2) Congressmembers have multi-faceted roles and full-time staff to help them do their jobs. Much of what they do is invisible to the public. Due to limitations on my time and effort, I'm not going to review everything and will concentrate mostly on bills sponsored and votes taken, though I may comment on other actions from time to time.
I invite others who are also constituents of Congressperson Nadler to share their views.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)