Hello everyone!  The House is hearing the opening statements about the 2012 budget proposal.  Here is what I plan on saying.  Hopefully we can get some support on both sides and pass this bill through.  Wish me luck!

                   Good morning everyone.  Speaker Boehner, esteemed members of Congress, and my fellow Democrats.  It is my pleasure to be able to address you today.  I am Nancy Pelosi, the representative from California’s 8^th district.  But what I am here to talk to you about today is much greater than my personal constituency.  It is something that affects our country as a whole, and deserves our undivided attention.  The 2012 Budget Proposal is an issue of much importance that cannot, and should not, be put off or slowed down by politics.   It is an issue with direct ties to the very core beliefs of our founding fathers.  You see, this country was founded on a belief in an American dream.  That anyone who was willing to work hard and follow our laws can make something of their lives, regardless of where they came from, what they looked like, or who they were.

                Today this American dream is becoming harder and harder to achieve, but Americans began feeling this strain even before this most recent recession.  Over the past several years they began to see that hard work and tough decisions did not necessarily mean that they get to keep their slice of the economic pie, regardless of the role they played in creating such prosperity.  Those at the very top began to see their wealth increase, while the rest of Americans struggled just to maintain in a time of rising costs of living.  When their incomes did not keep up with these rising costs Americans were forced to stretch them further and further, sometimes being forced to raise their families on a single income when they hadn’t had to before.  But to rub salt on an already very open wound, the growing gap is being fostered by the difference in the way our tax code treats the different classes.  Americans are not blind to the gap between the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.  In fact, in a poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post between the 1^st and 4^th of this month, 68% of Americans believe that the current tax code favors the wealthy.  In a nation whose growth depends heavily on our middle class, this sentiment should be regarded as a great tragedy.  However, as disappointed as they are, our middle class is a part of the majority of Americans who realize that, in order to help raise money to solve the problem.  This bill, in accordance with the 67% of people recently polled this month by the New York Times, would force Americans making over $1 million a year to pay a 30% tax rate.  This bill would also eliminate the tax breaks that allow the wealthiest of Americans to get away with paying less than someone making less money.  At the same time, we would be making the necessary cuts to spending that isn’t effective, making our government leaner, and better able to save in sectors like the military, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Once we do receive the new tax dollars, we would be able to improve other aspects of the economy, including our infrastructure.  In a recent CNN and ORC joint Poll, 72% of Americans feel that we need to increase our spending to build and repair our roads, bridges, and schools, in order to better serve our citizens.  Not only would it bring newer, and safer, technology to our citizens, but it would make everyday life easier while, perhaps most importantly, creating jobs with the added bonus of not causing any new spending.

Creating jobs, as you all are fully aware of, is an aspect of the economy that still needs some help, and as members of congress it is our duty to try and help this job creation for our constituents.  We as democrats feel that this bill does an excellent job of doing just that.  The building of new infrastructure along with programs like Project Rebuild will create a plethora of new jobs, which in turn will allow for businesses to gain more profit.  The continuation of the payroll tax cut and tax incentives for on shore job growth gives businesses even more to hire, while the extension of unemployment benefits to the end of this year will give people more time to find these new jobs while staying in their homes.  This section of the bill is morally just and strongly supported, as 88% of Americans believe in spending more on infrastructure projects.  There is no reason for us as members of Congress to be opposed to something so helpful to the American people, and so necessary to the achievement of the American dream.

Another part of this American dream that is so fundamental to future economic stability is the ability to attain an education that can compete in a continually globalizing society.  This bill is a great advocate of education spending and for that reason, we as Democrats are strongly in support of it.  The money provided for this section of the bill will help states hire more qualified teachers, which is something that 75% of Americans in a recent CNN poll are strongly in favor of.  For every step of the education process, there is support for this bill, especially for those crucial first five years.  This is something that our nation in its entirety has been struggling with, and must be addressed if we as Americans plan on maintaining our position as a global hub for new findings and developments in all fields.  This bill even helps families afford college, something that has become a necessity in the globalized society we live in today.  All in all, it is an excellent response to the problems we face as a nation today.

 For the reasons mentioned above, we as Democrats stand in support of this bill, and hope that the points brought up in this speech have convinced you to feel the same if you didn’t already.  I realize that this is a re-election year, and that some may be tempted to bring politics into something as essential as a balanced budget.  The American people need something to be done now, and it is our job as members of Congress to get the job done quickly, and smoothly.  Let us prevent something so clearly beneficial to the American people from becoming so painfully divisive, and come out with a bipartisan budget we can all be proud of.  I thank you for your time.

Hello there everyone.  Once again, I apologize for my inactivity on this blog of mine.  As you may have seen from the tweets over the past week or two, it has been quite a busy time for your representatives in Washington.  Ever since our deliberations on SOPA many other bills have been introduced to us, many of which have been on foreign policy.  An area of particular interest has been the Middle East, because the dynamics in the region have been rapidly changing.  Over the past year, so much has happened including the Arab Spring, the trials of former dictators like Mubarak and, of course, the finding and assassination of Osama bin Laden.  These rapid changes has led to the heightening of US attention to the region, and for good reason as our sons and daughters are still in the region diligently fighting for our freedom.  For as long as they are there, and for as long as there are people in the region who feel that the US should no longer exist, it is our duty to assert our interests and to insure that our allies in this struggle against terrorism and extremism are protected.  One of the allies we have a lot of concern for is Pakistan, which has led to the drafting of a new piece of legislation called The Pakistan Economic Assistance and Security Enhancement (or PEASE) Act of 2012.  In this blog entry, I will explain the details of this bill, the conditions it entails, and why I am in full support of its content. 

         Title 1 (section 101) of this bill has to do with the aid for democratic, economic, and social development in Pakistan.  This gives the president the authority to provide aid to Pakistan for 8 different items, the first of which being the ability to provide monetary assistance for democratic institutions.  The goal of this part of the legislation is to strengthen civilian rule and long-term stability.  The second item involves the judicial system, rule of law, and law enforcement.  Both of these are essential to protecting political rights of Pakistani citizens, and inuring that their views are not being overshadowed by the interests of other groups in government.  Item number 3 has to do with economic development, where item number 4 has to do with institutions (both governmental and nongovernmental) on the local, provincial, and national levels.  Item 5 deals with public education, which is extremely important in shaping the future generations of Pakistan, and making it more prosperous, stronger and safer democracy for its citizens.    Item 6 has to do with human rights.  This section of the legislation deals with strengthening organizations that promote human rights laws.  Section 7 deals with health care, and section 8 deals with using public diplomacy to promote a better understanding of the United States and to combat militant extremism.  I strongly support the passing of Title 1’s issues, as these are issues that I fight for in the United States as well.  I feel that all nations should strive for the same freedoms.  Now, I have received some emails with concerns on this section that I will address here.  Many are worried that, while this aid may be given with good intentions, the Pakistani government will not necessarily use the funds for these reasons.  This issue is what Section102 of Title 1 deals with.  It states that in order for the Pakistani government to continue receiving aid, or in order to prevent their aid being cut, they must continue to display progress in all 8 of the fronts that I listed above.  This gives them a monetary motive for continued progress, while allowing us to have some form of oversight in the region.  If we do not like what we see, President Obama will not hesitate to cut this aid as a response.
            Title 2 is Security Assistance for Pakistan, which is split up into 4 sections.  The first section is Section 201, which deals with the sense of Congress that security assistance of Pakistan should meet 4 criteria.  First, it should help cooperation between our troops and Pakistani troops, who have been our allies in the fight against terrorism in the region.  Their cooperation makes our troops safer, as Pakistani troops are more familiar with the area and can better navigate through areas that are more heavily inhabited by terrorists.  Secondly, security assistance should depend on Pakistan ending its support of terrorist groups like the Taliban.  We will not continue to aid Pakistan until it severs its ties with organizations such as these, as their ties create conflicts of interests.  The third criteria involves securing the Afghan-Pakistani border and getting rid of the treat being posed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents who thrive there.  This is a matter of national security for the United States, making it a huge priority to us and our safety.  The fourth is that our security assistance should be reliant upon the Pakistani government ending its persecution of Dr. Shakeel Afridi, who did a great service to the US by providing us with information that led to the successful operation that eliminated bin Laden.  The information he gave us allowed us to get rid of the most wanted, and one of the most dangerous, people in the world today.  This bettered our national security, and the Pakistani persecution of a man such as Dr. Afridi may prevent people from coming out with new information on future al-Qaeda and Taliban operations.  Section 202 states the purposes of our assistance; the first of which is to support Pakistan in their counterinsurgency efforts in order to secure their borders and prevent being used as a base for terrorism, and the second is to help spread the appreciation for democratic government and a military that is run my democratically selected civilian officials.  This is extremely important for the legitimacy of Pakistan’s government, both for now, and in the future.  This will also allow for better ties with the Pakistani government, as we will be better able to trust them and their motives.  Section 203 is more directly related to the financing of this bill.  It sets aside a part of the budget for fiscal years 2012-2015 in our budget.  Part one of this section states that this funding should be used on international military training, and for better training on counterinsurgency while building relations between civilians and the military.  This is important as there has been a lot of distrust between these two groups in the past, so building this relationship will lead to stronger support for the military by civilians and greater nationalism down the line.  Part two of this section deals with the creation of a foreign military financing program.  There would also be a part of this that would be set aside for the purchase of defense articles and services.  It would also be used for education and training in both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.  Section 203 also states that the President must provide a security plan for each of the fiscal years (2012-2015) that we will be providing funding to the appropriate committees.  This allows for oversight here in Washington, while giving committees the ability to give their input in a fair manner.  The last piece of Section 203 states that there should be a program established in order to rebuild areas that have been devastated by past combat.  This would build a new sense of hope for Pakistanis in those areas, while also giving them new infrastructure and a new sense of trust in the United States.  The last section in Title 2 is Section 204.  This section uses a national security waiver to prohibit military assistance from being provided to Pakistan beginning in the fiscal year of 2013 of the President fails at the beginning of each fiscal year to determine that Pakistan is taking action to do three things.  The first is to combat terrorist groups and prevent cross-border attacks.  This would also help in securing the border with Afghanistan.  The second is to dismantle nuclear weapons-material supply networks.  The third is to grant Dr. Afridi immunity from prosecution for giving us the information we needed to get the job done in terms of bin Laden.  This section also states that any action taken by Pakistan to hinder US military operations against al-Qaeda or the Taliban on (or near) the border with Afghanistan will be considered a violation.  This would allow for the withdrawal of any future military assistance at the discretion of our president.  The president’s decision, however, would be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
            I must say that this is a bill that I am in support of for many reasons, the first of which dealing with my personal convictions.  I am a strong supporter of funding for things such as education, military training, and strengthening national security here at home.  I also strongly believe that these are values that are universally important, and should be implemented all over the world.  Doing so in Pakistan would be a huge step toward bettering that nation, and bringing stability to the region as a whole.  Another reason this bill receives my support is because it eliminates a stronghold for terrorism, which betters our national security at home.  It also allows for our men and women in uniform to have better allies in their fight oversees.  President Obama also shares my view that brining stability and structure to Pakistan is in our interests in the long term, and will help secure the entire region.[ii]  This makes it an issue that democrats are rallying behind.  All of the above facts compel me to actively support this bill and to do my best to help it pass.  I hope that Republicans can follow in our footsteps, and get behind this important piece of legislation.  If you live in a district that I do not represent, I urge you to get in contact with your representative’s office and show your support for this bill.  It is important for them to see that you are vigilant in terms of the issues, and that they cannot be surprised when you hold them accountable for the way they vote on this issue.
            I hope that my explanation has allowed you to better understand this issue and my position on it.  This bill’s passing is necessary for the preservation of our interests in the region, and should not be taken lightly by anyone.  It has the potential to build another stable ally in a region where we don’t have many, and as such should be acted upon swiftly.  I appreciate your continued support, and the support you have shown m blog.  Please continue sending me emails with your concerns on the issues, and I will continue to do my best to address them.

Yours Truly,
Nancy

staff:

Two days ago, you guys stepped up once again to show the world just how much we care about protecting the Internet. Together, we generated more than 140,000 calls to Senators, spent more than 4,200 hours on the phone with their staffers, and blacked out 650,000 of our blogs to make our point and inspire others to get involved. And what’s more, this was on top of the 90,000 calls we sent to members of the House of Representatives a month ago. Incredible.

It’s now becoming clear just how much impact our action is having. On January 18th, only 31 members of Congress opposed these bills. Just one day later, 101 members of Congress publicly stood with us in opposition. We are being heard.

And as of today, it looks like both the Senate PIPA and House SOPA bills have been shelved, for the moment. It seems pretty likely that the bills won’t pass as written—a big first win. We now hope that Internet companies, the creative community and the content industry join together to innovate and devise new partnerships to combat online piracy. We’re confident there are effective ways to do this without damaging the Internet or diminishing our freedoms.

You’ve made a big difference in keeping the Internet a safe and open place for creators. Thank you again.

Hello once again to all of my readers.  First I would like to apologize for my inactivity on this blog of mine.  Life for me and your other representatives in congress has been very hectic over the past several weeks.  I did, however, want to take the time to write to you once again about an issue that has been at the fore front in my mind, and in the minds of all of the American people who are paying attention to this issue.  Many of you have been very up to date on the issue of SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act.  For those of you who have heard about it but are not quite sure what this bill entails, the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, was created with the intention of preventing online piracy of American intellectual property.  This bill would accomplish said goal by giving the Attorney General with the appropriate tools to shut down websites that facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, whether it is medicine or anything to do with music and movies on the internet.   It sounds like a novel idea in theory but, once again, the devil is in the details.  The problem with this bill is that it requires too little oversight.   There are little to no restrictions on which sites the government can and cannot shut down, giving it the ability to quell free speech.  For those of you living in my district there is more at stake, so I will take you through the bill step by step, and begin to explain the effects this bill can have, on whom it will have them, and my position on the bill as a whole.

            To begin, I feel the need to give you a bit more background on this bill because, while most of you know the general content in the bill, few know the nature of the companies involved on both sides of the issue, and why the nature of these companies make this such an interesting, and highly contested, topic of debate for Californians.  This bill specifically mentions the protection of two main groups, the first of which is the medical industry.  This bill aims to protect the medical industry by shutting down sites that sell, or are suspected of selling, counterfeit drugs and other dangerous goods and services.  By doing this, pharmaceutical companies would be saved from losing millions of dollars to counterfeit versions of their products.   The second group that this bill aims to protect includes those in the entertainment industry.  This part of the bill targets websites that host, or in any way allow for (or market sites that allow for) the illegal download or sale of music and/or movies.  While both of the above are novel concepts and aim to conquer issues that have been around for quite a long time, the way they go about doing so is what has caused so much media attention over the past several weeks.   If SOPA were to be implemented, the federal government would have the right to shut down any and all parties involved in the spread of these illegal drugs and pirated entertainment, which its supporters agree with.   Some of the biggest supporters of SOPA come from an area a few hours south of my district, where the crowned jewel of entertainment is located; Hollywood  and Los Angeles, California.  Many of its large networks like Time Warner Inc, The Walt Disney Company, Sony Music Ent., and Sony pictures, along with many other members of the entertainment and fashion industries, and multiple members of the sports world (like the NFL, the NBA, WWE, and the NHL) are all huge supporters of SOPA, as it is the first bill that offered them so much protection. [i]  However the way this bill goes about trying to find the providers of these illegal goods and services is what has led to so much uproar.  As Reuters so simply put it, the issue is with the fact that the government can punish any “service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks it considers to be facilitating illegal on-line activity, such as streaming pirated television programs, films or selling pharmaceuticals.”  The method that SOPA would use to get rid of sites that provide pirated goods would be to essentially create a blackout list of sites that the government can shut down and this is the heart of the issue.  This can involve companies like Bay Area-based Google and Wikipedia who may have no idea that their sites are being used to market pirated goods and services.  It can also lead to backlash like we have already seen from the group Hacker’s Anonymous, where other pages (ie government sites along with those of record labels) were shut down in retaliation to the closing of sites like Megaupload or Megavideo.  Understandably, these Bay Area companies are vehemently against this bill, for this reason. Such involvement can lead to these companies losing money, leading to layoffs that would affect members of my constituency, and the greater Bay Area.  SOPA gives the government the unbridled ability to shut down any sites based on mere suspicion of involvement, and because of this, I cannot in good conscious support this bill.
            I have come to this decision after a lot of careful consideration.  As I have stated on my twitter, and during many different interviews on the topic, we need to find a better solution than SOPA, and it needs to be one with a more targeted approach to punishing those who pirate music.  I feel especially strongly about this because these sites would be shut down without any form of a trial or court hearing.[ii]  With the terms the way they are, there is no form of oversight preventing censorship, and the only way for a site to clear their name would be an extensive court process in order to sue the federal government.  I must also consider the harm it can do to Bay Area companies in my district and others, and their employees.  If these companies were continually censored and forced to constantly be worried about policing their sites, they would lose money, which would in turn cause their employees to lose their jobs.  This harm would be devastating in times of economic hardship to all of the families in my district that are already feeling the pinch.  This debate has caused a split between Northern and Southern California, resulting in heated debate.  While, I understand the wants of the members of the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries, I cannot in good conscious allow for the innocent employees of these companies to feel the effects of another round of layoffs in an already difficult economy and job market.  I have a moral obligation to the Wiki and Google employees in my district, and to the hard working American people as their delegate to protect them and their livelihoods, and their ability to keep their American dreams alive.
            For me to even begin to consider supporting a bill of this kind, I would propose that several changes be made.  First I would require that companies that are suspected of pirating goods must be tried, as is the case with any other form of criminal activity.  All citizens have the right to a fair trial, and this piece of legislation violates that right.  Secondly, rather than shutting down or forcing censorship in terms of search engines like Google and Wikipedia, the government notifies these companies that they are advertising illicit site, with a 120 day window to remove these sites from their searches without dealing with any form of punishment.  By allowing them a time window, you are giving companies a fair chance to save their reputations as honest members of the American business community.  You also prevent them from suffering for the sins of others, who would still be punished.  This is a much more just and targeted way of dealing with those who infringe on copyright law.  If another bill were introduced with stipulations more in line with these mentioned above, I would be much more inclined to support them.
            I hope this long winded explanation shed some new light on the issues of this bill that you may not have been aware of, or further explained my position.  If you have any other questions, feel free to post a comment in the box below, send me a message, tweet, or email me.  I will do my best to accommodate everyone.

Yours Truly,
Nancy

            Hello again everyone.  Before I even begin discussing the topic at hand today, I would first like to thank all of you once again for visiting my blog site.  This my third blog post (of many to come I would hope) and I have already received an amazing amount of visits to my site, along with a lot of positive feedback.  For as long as you support me in this blog, I will continue to post my thoughts on current pieces of legislature that are on the House floor, and to allow for your comments bellow.  Now that I have expressed my thanks, I would just like to inform you about a new piece of legislation that is currently up for debate, to inform you of the kinds of changes I would like to see made, and to put my views out in the open for you to see; no playing politics, just plain English.
            Last week a bill was brought to the House floor for deliberation that has been the topic of heated debate, and I would just like to take the time to explain just what is in this bill, what considerations I am taking into account, and how it will affect my constituency and Americans as a whole.  This bill is called HB52341, but is better known as The Justice in Immigration and Border Security Act (JIBSA for short).  Its objective is to strengthen border security, but also to create a guest-worker program for immigrants who have already entered the country.  It would also allow these immigrants to possibly become citizens.  It all looks great at first glance; however the devil, as always, is in the details.  There are what can make or break this bill in the House, so I would like to explain my views on each part, and why they are relevant to my decision on how to vote.  The first part is very similar to a law passed in another state recently and, once again, it is drawing a lot of controversy.  This particular part of the bill states that law enforcement is required to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, during the enforcement of any other law where there is reasonable suspicion that a person is undocumented.  To put it simply, if you are pulled over the officer involved is required to try and determine your immigration status.  If you, however “look” like an undocumented person, they must detain you.  As some of you may remember, an extremely controversial law with similar stipulations was passed in the state or Arizona this past year.  This stark resemblance makes it impossible for me to be in support of this part of the bill because, as we have seen, this can lead to incidents where even American citizens would be forced to carry proof of their status.  I just cannot bring myself to agree with the harassment of everyday citizens, and with putting our law enforcement officers in a position that they have not been properly trained for.  It is unfair and, to be quite frank, unbelievable that this was entered into the bill in the first place.
             The next part of the bill calls for triple-layer fencing along the southern border with Mexico, along with the hiring of 1,000 new border agents.  Once again, I find myself disagreeing with this part of the bill.  A triple layer fence will cost the American people around $7 billion that we cannot afford to spend, and will only lead to more loss of life when people try more dangerous modes of accessing the American dream.  Hiring more border patrol, however, is a more sensible way of dealing with the issue, and will lead to fewer costs for the American people.  This bill also proposes the use of National Guard troops to patrol the border, which President Obama and I agree would be a good move to make.          
            The next part of this bill is the part that I am the most passionate about.  This section establishes a system for determining who can stay and who must leave the country, based on how long they have been here and a lack of a criminal record.  It incorporates parts of the Dream Act that I care deeply about, but have certain aspects that I am not fully supportive of.  It has 3 parts, the first of which states those immigrants that have been here for 5 years may stay in America and apply for citizenship, as long as they pay back taxes, learn English, and have no criminal record.  I am fully supportive of allowing immigrants who have been here for long periods of time to stay, and this part of the bill hits home for me.  A member of my own constituency named Steven Li was detained by ICE last year, however this young man was a college student at San Francisco City College, and has lived here since he was 11 years old.  He came here from Peru, his country of birth, but remembers little to nothing about how to be a functioning citizen there, as he has been here from such a young age.  Educated youth are not a threat to us as a nation yet they, along with their families, are being arrested, detained, and even deported with no means of survival outside of our nation.  Steven Li, and youth like him should be allowed to stay, so I am in support of this.  The next section states that immigrants who have been here between 2 and 5 years must leave the country but may apply for a green card, which would let them return immediately as a documented worker, rather than deporting them.  While, I feel that there are other ways this could be handled (like allowing them to file for a work permit and green card while they are still here) I can accept this part of the legislation in order to gain more bipartisan support.  The third piece of the legislation states that anyone that has been here for less than 2 years must return home immediately, but if they don’t, they will be subject to deportation.  I don’t feel that this is the best way to go about it; I feel that this section should be removed completely and that those whom this section affects should be treated the same as undocumented people who have been in America for 2 to 5 years.  I plan to bring up this amendment during deliberations.
The last three parts of the bill are as follows:

1.      Expanding jail cell capacity to 40% for those awaiting deportation.

2.      Declared English as the national language, and states that proficiency in  English will now be a condition for US Citizenship.

3.      Declares illegal immigration a felony, punishable by prison and deportation.

            I do not agree with expanding jail capacity by any means.  Our nation’s jails are already overcrowded, forcing us to release criminals back into our communities without completing their sentences. Putting additional stress on an already overworked jail system is irresponsible, and would only harm our citizens in the long run.  I would propose to amend the bill by removing this section completely.  I also do not feel that English should be declared the national language, nor should proficiency in English be a stipulation for citizenship.  America is a nation of immigrants, and we have gone throughout our entire history without having an official language.  My family emigrated from Italy, and were not forced to learn English, neither should anyone else’s.  As for the piece about declaring illegal immigration a felony after this bill’s ratification, I feel that this is fair.  While I agree that those who are already here should be allowed to stay here, I do feel that we must do a better job of securing our borders in order to keep our great nation safe from future harm.  Laws that are stricter in nature in terms of prevention are a great mode by which to do so, as they encourage immigration the legal way.

            While I know that some of the changes I proposed may be considered controversial by some, I feel that they are fair in their nature and, realistically speaking, should be able to pass in the end.  If they do pass, then I would gladly vote this bill through.  I look forward to working toward the best interests of my constituency, and the American people as a whole.  I will continue to post more blogs as developments unfold.  Thank you again for your continued faith in me as your representative.  I take my duties seriously, and will continue to fight tirelessly to do what is best.

-Nancy