OnTheIssuesLogo

Alan Lowenthal on Homeland Security

 

 


Supports targeting suspected terrorists, according to PVS.

Lowenthal supports the PVS survey question on terrorism

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'National Security: Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?'

Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q14 on Aug 30, 2012

Sponsored defunding nuclear-armed aircraft and nuclear R&D or testing.

Lowenthal co-sponsored SANE Act

Congressional Summary:Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act: Prohibits using funds in 2014 or thereafter:

  1. to arm a B-2 or B-52 aircraft with a nuclear weapon;
  2. for the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) or procurement of a long-range penetrating bomber aircraft;
  3. to make the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons; or
  4. for the B61 or W78 life extension program.

Opponent's argument against bill: (Twitchy blog, "Who said what?", twitchy.com): North Korea has evidently been conducting nuclear device tests, and the timing couldn't be better, of course, as President Obama is expected to call for a reduction in nuclear arms tonight in his State of the Union address. Mass. Rep. Ed Markey is totall

Source: H.R.1506 13-H1506 on Apr 11, 2013

Restrict domestic monitoring of phone calls.

Lowenthal signed restricting domestic monitoring of phone calls

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2014 or the USA FREEDOM Act: Congressional Summary:

  • Requires the FBI, when seeking phone call records, to show both relevance and a reasonable suspicion that the specific selection term is associated with a foreign power engaged in international terrorism.
  • Requires a judge approving the release, on a daily basis, of call detail records; and to limit production of records to a period of 180 days.
  • Requires a declassification review of each decision issued by the FISA court; and make such decisions publicly available, subject to permissible redactions.

    Opposing argument: (ACLU, "Surveillance Reform After the USA Freedom Act", June 3, 2015): The USA Freedom Act that passed by a 67-32 margin is not as strong as we wanted. It is markedly weaker than the original version of the USA Freedom Act that the ACLU first supported in 2013. We supported a sunset of the provisions in an effort to advance more comprehensive reform, including rejecting surveillance through cybersecurity information-sharing legislation. Notwithstanding this, however, it is very clear that the USA Freedom Act is a historic step forward.

    Opposing argument: (Cato Institute , "Cato scholars differ on USA Freedom Act", Oct., 2015): The privacy community remained divided over the USA Freedom Act. The final version of the bill reauthorized several expiring Patriot Act provisions, but limited bulk collection. Some legislators argued that to pass new legislation would only provide the government convenient new legal justification for its spying--which it would interpret broadly. On the opposite side of the argument stood some pro-privacy groups who held that modest reforms were better than no reforms at all.

    Source: H.R.2048&S.2685 14-H2048 on Apr 28, 2015

    End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act.

    Lowenthal co-sponsored USA FREEDOM Act

    Congressional summary:: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act or the USA FREEDOM Act: