Prove Congressman Nussle Wrong

[Katey]

WE MUST PROVE CONGRESSMAN NUSSLE WRONG:
"My bet is that I will get more calls (from constituents) suggesting I ought to stick to my position than from people suggesting we ought to be increasing foreign aid at a time like this when we're running the deficits we are," Nussle said last week. (in today's Reuters piece)
LET'S MAKE SURE HE GETS MANY MANY MORE CALLS IN FAVOR OF RESTORING THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET!!
Jim Nussle Slashes Funding that Would Help Millions Fighting AIDS! Take Action: Urge Representative Nussle to Stop Blocking Funding for Global AIDS Programs
Congressman Jim Nussle, who primarily represents Northeast Iowa, has let down people fighting AIDS around the world. His recent actions have made it very difficult for the US to do its fair share to stop AIDS. His actions will make it much harder for the US to fully fund the President's emergency AIDS plan. They make it much harder to fund the broader initiative called for by humanitarian and religious groups. What happened to Jim Nussle?s conscience? Has he forgotten the faces of the children he met in Africa last year? Please call Representative Nussle this week and ask to restore the President?s Budget Request for International Affairs for 2005 in order to fight AIDS and save lives. It is not too late for him to change his position ? he will have an opportunity to do the right thing when the House-Senate conference considers the Budget in a few weeks.
Call 202-225-2911 and ask for Chris Bliley and Call 202-226-7270 and ask for Rich Meade or Brett Coulson. Tell them you are calling from Iowa. You do not have to be an expert and this will only take five minutes. Fax a letter to Nussle?s office - Fax: 202-225-9129. Also, stop by one of Rep. Nussle?s local offices and make sure staffers there know how concerned you are. Tell them that you would like Congressman Nussle to support the President?s
Budget Request and the President?s AIDS Initiative. Urge him to restore full funding for the International Affairs budget in the House-Senate Conference and back the amount recently approved by the Senate.
Suggested talking points: "I am extremely disappointed in your plan to cut $4.5 billion from the President's request for international affairs in FY
NOTE: It was only a little over a year ago that Jim Nussle visited four African countries. Two of these, Namibia and South Africa are among the hardest hit in the world, with about one-quarter of all pregnant women there living with AIDS. Upon his return he told C-Span:
"I was just in Africa, about two weeks ago . . . I was in South Africa . . Eight million children are orphaned as a result of this terrible disease. . . If for no other reason we need to be involved for our own national security. So I do support the President's initiative. We should be
involved in Africa."

 

[meegannie]

But you're NOT calling from Iowa, you're just wasting a poor staff assistant's time. Also, the phones have caller ID, so if your number doesn't have an area code from Iowa, they'll know you're not calling from their district.

 

[Katey]

This is not a waste of a staff members time nor so they think so. I spoke to them from Canada on this and i certainly did not seem as if I was as you say"wasting there time"I'm sorry you feel it is.. and I dont feel thats a very appropriate statement considering the depth of the HIV/AIDS crisis.. that anyone should consider this a waste of a staff members time

QUOTE]Congressman Jim Nussle, who primarily represents Northeast Iowa, has let down people fighting AIDS around the world[/QUOTE]

 

[nbcrusader]

meegannie's point was that Nussle's challenge related to his constituents, not everyone who thought the issue was important.

 

[meegannie]

meegannie's point was that Nussle's challenge related to his constituents, not everyone who thought the issue was important.

Thanks

I FULLY agree with the cause, I'm just saying that people from outside his district calling in won't make any difference whatsoever. I'm not trying to mean, I'm just saying that that members are elected by and serve their constituents, and that's how congressional offices function. If someone (in the US) calls from outside their district, they SHOULD forward them to their representative because that's who they should be calling in the first place. It's just like if you send a letter to Nussle from somewhere else in the US, his office will just forward it via inside mail to the correct office. If you want to make a difference, there are ways of doing it that are much more effective than others.

 

[jkayet]

What meegannie means is that Congressional offices only reply to THEIR constituents. Meegannie and I both worked on the hill as hill staffers, and everytime someone from another state or district called, we'd talk to them, but since they aren't voting for that particular Member of Congress, their opinion isn't logged - that particular Representative does NOT in fact represent them. It's great to call YOUR Representative, however if you call others who don't actually represent you, you are basically taking time away from them and their duties to their constituents. A Rep. is to vote according to THEIR constituents views, not anyone elses. Hope that makes sense!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I understand what you're saying regarding each representative only being responsible for their own constituents. It's the same here: each MP only deals with his/her constituents and is supposed to refer non-constituents to their own MP.

However, here it's also acceptable to write to/call/lobby an MP who doesn't directly represent you if they're responsible for a particular decision you're concerned by. I've written to numerous government officials, the home secretary, foreign secretary, education secretary and several other MPs with responsibility for particular subjects.

So...isn't there anything like this in the US which would make it acceptable for someone who's not one of Nussle's constituents to lobby him regarding this specific decision?

 

[nbcrusader]

So...isn't there anything like this in the US which would make it acceptable for someone who's not one of Nussle's constituents to lobby him regarding this specific decision?

It is acceptable, and many people do contact representatives other than their own. Representatives, however, tend to focus on their own constituents. Correspondence from a non-constituent may be round-filed.

 

[jkayet]

So...isn't there anything like this in the US which would make it acceptable for someone who's not one of Nussle's constituents to lobby him regarding this specific decision?

Well, as Meegannie mentioned, it is standard protocol to forward letters on to the representative that handles whatever district the person writing is from. It's called congressional courtesy or something like that...
I suppose it probably happens with huge bills more frequently (for instance, Sen McCain v Sen McConnell on campaign finance) but I'd still imagine ALL letters would be sent to the person representing that District or State. Usually if you are concerned with that particular issue, you call YOUR Rep or Sen so they can convey your views to the person putting forth the bill. I hope that made sense. I tried!

 

[Katey]

Hey guys thanks for all your responses here and I value them. And yes I understand them and how they work. However I think because Nussle, is the Republican who put together the House budget plan, it is sometimes better to go to the source. I know that isnt perhaps the proper way of doing things . But on as this basically effect an International level I know he has been getting calls and letters from NGO's and people all over the states and on an International level. I did get a return e-mail from a staffer and they did speak to me on the phone.. weither that was lip service or not I can't know but it only took a minute of my time to do so..

similar like how it occurs in Canada , we should send such letters or calls to MP however half the time they don't know what the heck your speaking about and you end up educating them(trust me) and it's easier just to go to the source.. Of course I alway's send a copy as well to my local MP just so he is in the know and out of courtsey.

Basically this budget is an issue and the HIV/AIDS emergency is so big that sometimes you bang any dust bin lid no matter if it your or your neighbours or how big a sound it makes. I think it might take you 10 minute to write and mail a letter, or a minute to call, maybe they will listen maybe they will disregard it or send it on I don't know.. What can it hurt ,

Look if people don't think you should send a letter to Nussle or call then thats well and good on your part then send it to your local guy but a favour if you are against this budget then at leat send it..

 

[jkayet]

If I sounded dismissive at all of the issues, I didn't intend on that. I worked at an organzation specifically dealing with AIDS in Africa and do plan to keep working in the international development field - we definitely agree on the importance of the issues.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Well, as Meegannie mentioned, it is standard protocol to forward letters on to the representative that handles whatever district the person writing is from. It's called congressional courtesy or something like that...
I suppose it probably happens with huge bills more frequently (for instance, Sen McCain v Sen McConnell on campaign finance) but I'd still imagine ALL letters would be sent to the person representing that District or State. Usually if you are concerned with that particular issue, you call YOUR Rep or Sen so they can convey your views to the person putting forth the bill. I hope that made sense. I tried!

It did make sense, thank-you.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is acceptable, and many people do contact representatives other than their own. Representatives, however, tend to focus on their own constituents. Correspondence from a non-constituent may be round-filed.

When I worked in my congressman's office we were very receptive to listening to outside contituents, but we were more likely to take action for the consitiuents from the area in which he represented. Since that IS who would be voting in the next election.