(Great to see Rep. Solis, one of the most progressive members of Congress, posting here. Come back often! – promoted by dday)

Hello to my friends at Calitics! 

The 5th Annual Congressional Tri-Caucus Minority Health Summit will be held this weekend in San Diego.  This year’s Summit is being hosted by the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, with support from The California Endowment and others.  At least twelve members of the Congressional Hispanic, Black, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses are scheduled to attend, including Reps. John Conyers (MI-14), Raul Grijalva (AZ-7), and Mike Honda (CA-15).

Five years ago, I conceived the idea of the Tri-Caucus Minority Health Summit as a forum for members of Congress to hear firsthand about the health challenges facing communities of color and innovative solutions to address them.  Indeed, the need to reduce health disparities is great.  Despite recent gains in health care, disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status remain prevalent.  For example, more than 70% of Latinos across the country are considered overweight or obese, including 25% of Latino children.  In 2005, 86% of babies born with HIV and AIDS were of color. 

The Summit will cover topics such as SCHIP, homelessness, tobacco cessation, veterans’ health, and HIV/AIDS.  It also will include discussion of H.R. 3014, comprehensive, bi-partisan legislation I introduced last week with Congresswomen Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands) and Madeleine Bordallo (Guam) to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.  H.R. 3014 has 70 original co-sponsors, including House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (SC-6).

Over 200 people are expected to attend this weekend’s Summit in San Diego.  As Chair of the Hispanic Caucus’ Task Force on Health and a member of the House Health Subcommittee, I look forward to hearing from the panelists and attendees and to sharing the information I gather at the Summit with organizations in my district and with my colleagues in Congress.

For more information about the Summit, visit www.ccalac.org.

Congresswoman Hilda Solis
www.house.gov/solis
www.youtube.com/rephildasolis

As I mentioned, the CDP affirmed their support for net neutrality this weekend with a strong resolution that reflected the concerns of both labor interests and the progressive movement.  Brad Parker of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) commended the process in the Sunday session as proof that the Progressive Caucus and the more institutional elements of the CDP can work together.  On that score alone, it’s a win. 

The best part, by the way, was that Speed Matters (the CWA’s astroturf campaign) spent major dollars creating a glossy brochure that they put on everybody’s seat this morning, and it included what they thought would be the resolution.  Biggest waste of money I’ve ever seen.  Ha!

As for how to translate this into policy, since after all it is merely a nonbinding resolution, that’s what I’d like to address.  These resolutions sit on some corner of the CDP website and collect e-dust.  They have no meaning unless they are publicized.  So here’s what I propose.

Every Democratic member of Congress and the state legislature should be getting calls this week.  You should say, “Hello, I’m a constituent, the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution supporting the preservation of a free and open Internet.  I would like (the congresscritter) to abide by the wishes of his/her party and support any legislation codifying the principle of net neutrality.  If you would like to look at the text I can fax it to you.”  Let’s hold our representatives to the demands of the Party they represent, as well as their constituents. 

The preservation of a free and open Internet is critical to the continued innovation and entrepreneurship of this country, as well as the free flow of information needed for a well-informed citizenry and the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  We can move this forward in California.  We know that, at the state level, Mark Leno sought to introduce net neutrality legislation back in February.  That needs to return next year and we need to organize around it right now.

This can also work for other resolutions, especially the one on parole and sentencing reform that passed this weekend.  Really they are completely useless unless publicized in this manner.  Let’s allow them to have some impact, otherwise the hard work crafting them and managing them on the Resolutions Committee goes to naught, and nobody wants that.

On the flip, I’ve added the resolution text if you want to fax it to your legislators.  Please call Congress and the State Legislature today.

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

I would say that the mood of participants coming out of the executive board meeting of the CDP in Sacramento was a 180 from the mood coming out of the Convention.  Clearly there was a lot of upset over the way the final session of the Convention ended, and many felt that the small-d democratic process was not being respected.  That was most certainly not the case this weekend, which shows to me that the message was received by the leadership in the party.  There were debates and issues raised and passionate sentiments about various matters, but in the end everyone had their say, votes were held, and the system worked.  That’s about the most you can ask for.

Progressives hold far slimmer numbers at an executive board meeting than they do at a convention.  Yet the work that came out of this meeting, in particular on resolutions, was far more progressive, because they are the most organized group in the party and they take the process seriously, and in addition are prepared to work within it to arrive at the desired results.  A very strong antiwar resolution, an impressive resolution supporting parole and sentencing reform, and finally the breakthrough on net neutrality are all successes to be lauded.  They were diligent, tireless and skillful at understanding the system, and that bore fruit.  Ultimately, those resolutions have little more than symbolic value.  The attempt to restore pre-primary delegate caucuses failed, but there was a concession on opening the filing process, and most important, small-d democratic processes were respected and seen through.  That the Party Chair felt the need to make several statements regarding a 58-county strategy and financial matters shows that there is an understanding that members have some serious concerns about resource allocation.  This is a major victory for those who would like to see their spot on the map receive the care and attention they feel it needs.  The Finance Chair, Erik Bradley, made every effort to welcome new voices into the process.  He is seeking people in every county for low-donor events and input on spending money in those counties, and everyone should take him up on it instead of privately grumbling.

I think everyone should be pleased with the way in which the CDP is better reflecting the views and concerns of its constituents, and how Democrats of all stripes are getting involved from inside the tent to make the party more effective and responsive.  Aside from one ill-timed comment from the Chairman about “the blogs,” I’m pleased with how things went.

As you may remember, at the end of the first quarter I was extremely impressed to see Charlie Brown have a $200,00+ warchest advantage over embattled Congressman John Doolittle. That just isn’t how it is supposed to work, the goal of the challenger is just to try and limit the financial advantage of the incumbent and raise enough to compete.

But there is nothing normal about this race…

David Whitney explains:

The second quarter of an off-year in the two-year congressional campaign cycle generally shows increasing income, as Brown’s did — jumping from about $89,000 in the first three months to $193,000 in April, May and June.

But for Doolittle, the trend was the other direction. His campaign took in $128,000 in the first quarter and barely topped $100,000 in the second.

Earlier in the story, Whitney explained where things stand:

Rep. John Doolittle’s cachet with big Washington, D.C., campaign financiers seems to have plummeted in the aftermath of the FBI’s April 13 raid on his Oakton, Va., house, and the eight-term Roseville Republican heads toward the 2008 election season with his campaign still in debt and receipts on the decline.

Meanwhile, the campaign of Democrat Charlie Brown, who came within 3 points of defeating Doolittle in November, is gaining steam. Brown’s campaign raised almost twice as much as Doolittle’s in the last three months and ended the six-month mark with a net cash balance of $251,000. Doolittle posted $32,250 in debts.

Doolittle’s biggest expense during the three-month period was $50,000 in fundraising payments to Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, a company owned by his wife and operated out of the couple’s house. It was the company’s records that the FBI was after in the April raid, conducted as part of the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the Doolittles’ relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Even with the hefty campaign payments to Julie Doolittle’s company, Sierra Dominion still was owed more than $76,000 in commissions from the 2006 race.

Thanks to the unethical arrangement where the Doolittle family pockets a percentage of the fundraising, Charlie Brown has now widened his fundraising advantage.

And how often, this far out, do you hear of a challenger beating an incumbent in PAC contributions? Time to run and hide…

Doolittle’s receipts from the big-bucks political action committees, most of which are in Washington, fell from $27,925 in the first quarter to $14,850 in the second — $4,000 less than Brown took in.

Doolittle’s campaign spokesman, Gordon Hinkle, referred calls Sunday night to political consultant Richard Temple, whose office was closed. Doolittle chief of staff Ron Rogers did not return a call.

These financial reports are going to further dry up DC money for Doolittle who is on track to lose electorally in 2008 if he isn’t jailed before then. Let’s keep up the momentum and see stories like this at the end of the third quarter — help out Charlie Brown.

Over the flip you’ll find a summary of Sunday’s proceedings from the e-Board meeting in Sacramento. I apologize for the outage this morning, it was a technical glitch that was out of my control. I appreciate your patience, and hopefully it won’t happen again.

One more thing, I was told that I should remind everybody that the platform meetings will be held concurrently with the regional meetings. So, now you have two reasons to attend your regional meeting. Sweet!

Rules

The Central valley Dems want their own vice-chair.  The Rules Cmte. rejected this proposal, as that vice chair would represent only 10% of the State’s Dems as opposed to over 40% for the North and South Chairs.  However, the Rules Committee presented a four-section chair plan that would provide for some regional balance.

A substitute plan was presented to end the regional divisions, but only requiring a male and female vice chair.  The substitute motion to end the regional divisions passed the executive board and will be in effect for the next party officer election cycle.

Other rules changed accounting techniques for delegates to the pre-convention endorsement meetings and other technical matters.

Resolutions

I’ll post the resolution calendar when I get a chance. The resolutions began smoothly, with only 1 pull in the first four sections. Daraka Larrimore-Hall pulled a resolution on tuition for colleges and universities to not only stop tuition hikes, but to also include a reduction in fees. This resolution passed.

In the fifth group, resolutions 42 and 43 were pulled. Resolution 42, regional planning was opposed by a Napa delegate, as they were worried that regional concerns of the Bay Area would overwhelm Napa planning. The concerns were eventually addressed, and a compromise measure passed.

Resolution 43 was a Committee resolution that dealt with the impeachment/resignation of AG Alberto Gonzalez. The Cmte decided to pass a resolution with resignation not impeachment. A substitute motion to call for resignation failed. Incidentally, I voted for the impeachment measure in Committee, as I felt it didn’t really threaten the Speaker’s position. As I’ve said before in other contexts, there must be a left pole that is to the left of the majority, or we slip to the right.  Alberto Gonzalez is a crook and is doing substantial harm to the Justice Department. But, the resolution proceeded only as (yet another) call for resignation.

Section 6’s consent calendar passed without any pulls, and so on we move to Chris Stampolis of the CDC, then the DNC report.

DNC Denver Convention Delegate Selection

Now, for the plan to  appoint delegates. The affirmative action plan for this year increased the LGBT and youth goal targets (in terms of %).

The Committee presented a plan for April 13 Caucuses to choose delegates, which would allow potential delegates to choose a candidate after the Feb. 5 primary.  A motion was made to move the caucus date from April 13 to a date that would require a pre-Feb5 announcement of preference date. Many delegates seem to prefer a pre-Feb5 announcement date, at least judging from the comments here for the reason that it wouldn’t allow the “jonny-come-lately” types to move to the victors. The amendment failed to gather a majority, and the April 13 seems set to proceed. The plan passed, and will move to the DNC for final approval.

The meeting is now adjourned.