Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Small business is the engine that drives our economic strength. The almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs each year.

Congress, for many decades, has acknowledged the important role small businesses play in the Federal procurement process. That is evidenced in the Small Business Act of 1953 which states: ``It is the declared policy of the Congress that the government should aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise and to ensure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the government be placed with small business enterprises.''

In 2006, the Federal Government spent over $417 billion on goods and services in 8.3 million separate contracts. Small businesses won a little over 21 percent of those contracts.

H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, seeks to assist small businesses' participation in the Federal procurement process.

Among its provisions, it expands and clarifies the definition of contract bundling to try to ensure that small businesses can fairly compete for Federal contracts. Contract bundling combines two or more contracts into a single larger package. Bundling can put small businesses at a disadvantage in the procurement process because the bid price usually goes beyond what small businesses can afford.

This legislation, the underlying legislation, sets a target of 25 percent for the overall number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses and a target of 8 percent for contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses. The bill also provides a mechanism for the SBA to work with Congress when it believes that the Federal contract was improperly bundled.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the majority on the Rules Committee reported out yet another restrictive rule, going back once again on the promise for a more open and fair legislative process. What makes this rule most unfortunate is that it does not include even one Republican amendment. So I think the question is begged, how can the majority claim to be fostering an open legislative process when it totally shuts out the minority?

During testimony at the Rules Committee, Small Business Ranking Member Chabot explained that the Government Oversight Committee subsequently made several major changes to the bill that would harm small businesses. He proposed several amendments to strike the harmful provisions and restore those in the original bill that came out of the Small Business Committee. Now these amendments were even supported by the Small Business Committee chairwoman, Ms. Velazquez, but the majority in the Rules Committee ignored both Committee Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot and did not make the amendments in order. That was totally uncalled for, and Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair with members from the majority party in order to be considered, that pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments to all Republican amendments apparently fair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend, my colleague from California, for having admitted on the record that the new majority has seen fit during this Congress to pass one open rule, and that was on the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, and I think that's important to be noted.

Now, rules where there are requirements with having to print amendments before the debate begins are not open rules, even though our friends on the majority side have tried to redefine definitions, redraft definitions. But the reality of the matter is that there has been an admission on the floor that there has been one open rule with regard to a noncontroversial bill, and that's the fact.

Now, why is that important? Because they were the party that campaigned on opening the process. So that's why it's a relevant fact that there has been one open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend, a great leader from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I would like to thank Mr. Cardoza, my good friend, and all those who have spoken during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my call for the defeat of this restrictive rule. It is an unfair rule, it is unnecessarily restrictive, and it closes down debate. For that reason, I urge the defeat of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The security of the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the primary function of the government of the United States. Since September 11, 2001, we have been working to rebuild our Nation, not only our buildings but also our sense of security. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate all domestic security activities on behalf of the American people was an important first step and has served as the foundation of our continuing efforts to protect our citizens.

Today, we consider the third authorization for the Department of Homeland Security. During consideration of this underlying legislation, Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to craft a bipartisan bill. The

bill sought to build a core capacity at the Department and bring about targeted personnel, contracting and policy changes. That bill passed the Homeland Security Committee unanimously.

But even though the bill passed out of the committee with unanimous support, the majority party is attempting to undo the bipartisan bill by coming forth with a manager's amendment that significantly alters the makeup of that bill. The manager's amendment strikes key provisions which address high-priority homeland security issues. Out of a total of 86 substantive bill provisions, 26, or almost a third, are amended by the manager's amendment and 16, 20 percent almost, are entirely struck.

Most of the provisions stricken by the manager's amendment had become part of the bill through Republican amendments in the committee process. For example, the manager's amendment strikes provisions on the Student and Exchange Visitor Program and eligible uses of interoperability grants, among others.

There are two provisions that the manager's amendment deletes that I think should be highlighted, Mr. Speaker. The first would strike post- employment lobbying restrictions. This provision being eliminated from the bill by the manager's amendment would codify the existing ban on senior Department of Homeland Security employees from one part of the Department lobbying other parts of the Department within 1 year of leaving the Department. That reform is stricken from the bill by the manager's amendment.

The second part of the bill being stricken is a sense of the Congress calling for implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish a single point of oversight of homeland security in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

Now, that is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and precisely it is one that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ran on in the elections, the promise to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Yet here they have an opportunity to follow through on their campaign promise, but, instead, they strike the provision from the bill through the manager's amendment. And they don't even allow for the provision to be debated in the form of an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the Castor amendment, which helps address concerns with the dual implementation of the Florida Uniform Port Access Credential and the Transportation Workers Identification Card, was made in order. But there was another glaring missed opportunity here by the majority on the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee had the opportunity to allow an open rule on this bill, but the suggestion that we do so, that we come forth with an open rule, was voted down by the majority on the Rules Committee. Instead, they decided to report out a restrictive rule, thereby shutting out Members who had worked diligently to prepare their amendments. They also blocked out any Member who may be watching the debate now or in the process of the developing, unfolding debate and has an idea to improve the bill. No, no, they're blocked out as well. They're shut out.

It's unfortunate that the Rules Committee missed another opportunity to open the debate on this important legislation, as they promised during the campaign that they would; and because of that and the reasons that I have brought out, Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative Hayes of North Carolina which would strike section 407 of the bill, the section requiring DHS to buy American textiles and apparel, protective gear, badges and ID cards. The amendment would instead require that DHS buy items specified in the amendment only when those items are connected to national security functions within the Department. This amendment also includes language to ensure that these provisions comply with the World Trade Organization rules.

Mr. Speaker, this thoughtful amendment submitted by Mr. Hayes was unfortunately denied yesterday at the Rules Committee. If the previous question is defeated, the Hayes amendment would be made in order and the House would be able to have a full discussion on its merits.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I rise today in support of Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Organization (WHO).

Taiwan has one of the most developed health care systems in the world and has a strong, proven record on controlling infectious diseases. It was the first Asian State to eliminate polio and has successfully eradicated smallpox, rabies and malaria.

Because our world is increasingly interconnected, exclusion of Taiwan from the international community is neither logical nor appropriate. Every year, travelers make over forty million international trips through Taiwan. With the rapid spread of diseases, one vulnerable site constitutes a vulnerability for us all; one weak link in the international health front puts at risk all our efforts.

Madam Speaker, the WHO has excluded Taiwan because Communist China claims that its health care system will protect Taiwan. Past experience has convinced me that this is not the case. When an earthquake struck Taiwan in 1999, Communist China refused to allow assistance teams to fly through its airspace. This unreasonable restriction cost these assistance teams hours of flying time and may have cost lives. During the SARS outbreak in 2003, Communist China took days to report the Taiwan cases, which also cost lives.

For these and other reasons I rise in full support of Taiwan's application to be included in the World Health Organization.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Pembroke Pines Charter School as we consider H. Res. 344, a bill congratulating Charter Schools.

Forty states and the District of Columbia have charter schools, totaling nearly 4,000 schools nationally. Enrollment is approximately one million students or about 2 percent of the Nation's elementary, middle and high school enrollment. Over one-half of all charter schools are in Florida, Arizona, California, Ohio and Texas.

The City of Pembroke Pines Charter School is the only city-sponsored charter school in Florida. Madam Speaker, the Pembroke Pines Charter School, located in my district, is comprised of seven schools ranging from K-12 grades with a total enrollment of nearly 5,400 students. The school is so successful that there is a waiting list of 9,000 students desiring to attend the Pembroke Pines Charter Schools.

The Pembroke Pines Charter High School has recently been rated as one of the top two high schools in Broward County, with 93 percent of all Pembroke Pines charter school high school graduates attending college.

The Pembroke Pines Charter Schools were among those nominated to the Center for Education Reform to compete for the honor of being named one of the top charter schools in the Nation. Out of 4,000 charter schools nationwide, 52 charter schools received this acknowledgement of distinction.

Madam Speaker, two of these top charter schools are part of the Pembroke Pines Charter School System. Ms. Devarn Flowers, Principal of the West Campuses, and other city and school officials will attend a special recognition program at The Center for Education Reform in Washington, DC on May 15, 2007 to receive the ``top schools'' recognition for The Pembroke Pines Charter Schools.

I commend Ms. Devarn Flowers, the teachers, the administrators and especially the students of Pembroke Pines Charter Schools for their hard work. On the occasion of National Charter Schools week, I am enthusiastically supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 344.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is very important for the future of our children that they develop the skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success later in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education without the proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has long-term effects on their education.

We must do all we can so that low-income children do not begin their education at a disadvantage. That is why the Head Start program was created.

In order to give children the proper foundation they need to begin their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive early childhood education development services. These services include child development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten and for their continued educational success.

In fiscal year 2005, the Head Start program provided developmental services to over 900,000 children, 35,000 of them in my State of Florida. Most of the children that receive the critical developmental skills offered by the Head Start program come from low-income families, and at Head Start they receive the early educational foundation to do well in their later education and hopefully break the chain of poverty.

The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today builds on the success of the program and improves its weaknesses. It authorizes over $7 billion for fiscal year 2008, strengthens Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development and topics critical to school readiness.

It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best education possible. There are, Mr. Speaker, several provisions in the underlying legislation that I believe will help with this goal. First, the bill seeks to ensure that a greater number of Head Start teachers are better trained and educated in early childhood development, particularly in fundamental skills such as language, pre-reading and pre-mathematics, within 2 years.

Competition encourages better quality. As recommended by a 2005 GAO study, the bill seeks to increase competition among Head Start grantees to help weed out poor performers and offer stronger programs.

The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how Head Start funds are spent. This will help to fight financial abuse and further ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged children that they are meant to serve.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, Resident Commissioner Fortuno offered an amendment to this legislation to allow religious organizations to not ignore religion in their hiring practices. The provision was included in previous Head Start reauthorization bills. However, the majority on the Rules Committee blocked that amendment from consideration today by the full House.

Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations. Without the Fortuno amendment, faith-based Head Start grantees may decide to stop offering Head Start programs. That would hurt the children in those programs.

In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations requiring any organization that receives direct financial assistance from the Department, such as Head Start, to not engage in inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction or proselytizing as part of the program or services funded by HHS. So objections to the Fortuno amendment, in my opinion, are unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

We have two speakers remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Again, I thank my friend, Ms. Castor, for the time and her courtesy, and all those who have participated in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by Congressman Price of Georgia, which seeks to make regulations for emergency rear door exits and safety belts on vehicles used to transport children effective upon enactment of H.R. 1429. This extremely important amendment was denied by the Democrats in the majority last night in the Rules Committee.

In 1992, Congress required the issuance of regulations related to rear door emergency exits and safety restraints on Head Start transportation. Since the final rule for these new regulations was published in 2001, the effective date has been delayed three times.

Mr. Speaker, Congress required these regulations in order to ensure the safe operation of vehicles by Head Start agencies. Currently, the leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 7 is motor vehicle traffic crashes. Further delaying these requirements means allowing Head Start grantees to transport children using vehicles that are not designed specifically for the safe transport of children.

If the previous question is defeated, the Price amendment would be made in order and this delay would be put to an end. This issue, Mr. Speaker, needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved now and this authorization bill is clearly the most appropriate forum in which to do so. Any further delays in the implementation of these crucial safety regulations for children may endanger the lives of children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New Jersey for the time.

I rise in support of Mr. Smith's resolution.

I was listening to another dear friend whom I greatly admire, Mr. Wolf, and I want to thank once again Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Wolf of Virginia for consistently being the voices for the oppressed throughout the world.

Martin Luther King said, ``An injustice anywhere is an affront to justice everywhere.'' And that is what this resolution is about. The men and women who are languishing in the prisons in Vietnam, those being tortured, the people being tortured because of their religious beliefs, because of their views on issues, because of their political aspirations for democracy, they are being tortured systematically; and that regime needs to be condemned not only by history but by the Congress of the United States. And that is why I support so strongly this resolution by Mr. Smith.

And it is appropriate, as Mr. Wolf did, to bring out the torture also being committed by the regime in China, mainland China. That is also a fascist communist regime. These regimes continue to be communist, but by opening the economy, they manage to get massive investments from Big Business throughout the world.

And I heard Mr. Wolf talk about how now Mr. Spielberg apparently is lobbying for the Chinese communist regime. It doesn't surprise me, after having met for hours with Fidel Castro and having said that that was one of the greatest experiences of his life, comparable to the birth of his child. So it doesn't surprise me.

It doesn't surprise me about Big Business going into Vietnam and China and getting profits from the exploitation of the workers by the communist regimes.

So I want to simply thank the gentleman for the time, and I am in strong support of this resolution. It is consistent with the best traditions of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with our

colleagues a letter I recently sent to Secretary Rice

regarding the recent crackdown on advocates of human rights

and religious freedom in Vietnam. Even now, Vietnamese

authorities are continuing to harrass these activists,

including by blocking our ambassador's meetings with the

wives of detained dissidents. We must speak out against this

repression.

Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to express my deep

concern regarding the worsening human rights situation in

Vietnam in recent months. After joining the World Trade

Organization in January 2007, the politburo of the Vietnamese

Communist Party (VCP) has carried out a large-scale brutal

campaign of arrest against the nascent movement for democracy

in Vietnam. Ignoring all international criticism and

strenuous protests of the Vietnamese people, inside Vietnam

and abroad, the communist regime in Hanoi has shamefully

pushed ahead with its crackdown. The following events were

particularly disconcerting to me.

On February 18, 2007, the second day of the Lunar New Year,

which is the most sacred time in Vietnamese culture, the

communist security forces raided Father Nguyen Van Ly's

office within the Communal Residence of the Hue Archdiocese.

Father Ly was later banished to a remote, secluded area in

Hue.

On March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui

Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband,

Professor Nguyen Chinh Kiet, who is a leading member of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam. Professor

Kiet was in Europe at the time campaigning for democracy and

human rights in Vietnam.

On March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch and his wife

were brutally assaulted by security forces of Gia Lai

Province in the Central Highlands, who then arrested Reverend

Chinch on undisclosed charges.

Also on March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists

and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan,

were arrested in Hanoi and were told that they would be

detained for four months as part of an undisclosed

investigation.

On March 9, 2007, Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the

People's Democracy Party in Quang Ninh Province, and Mr. Pham

Van Troi, a member of the Committee for Human Rights in

Ha Tay, were summoned by security forces and threatened

with ``immeasurable consequences'' if they do not stop

their advocacy for human rights in Vietnam.

On March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under

the pen name Phuong Nam and one of the leading members of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam, was told

by security forces that he could be indicted at any time for

activity against the State.

Also on March 10, 2007, state security forces also raided

the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, a writer, on the

grounds that she advocated for ``people with grievances''

against the government. They took away two computers, two

cell phones, and hundreds of appeals that she had prepared

for victims of the government's abuses.

March 12, 2007, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local

governance for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP,

and Swedish International Development Agency, was arrested in

his hometown, Nghe An, less than a week after he returned

from a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in

Washington, D.C. His whereabouts are unknown at this time.

On April 5, 2007, the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi

rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) from

meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering

organized at the U.S. Ambassador's home. The police

reportedly used very hostile and undignified manners to

intervene in the meeting.

Furthermore, the Hanoi communist regime is still

imprisoning many political dissidents and labor advocates

such as Nguyen Vu Binh, Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy,

Nguyen Hoang Long, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huy Chuong, the

religious leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam,

Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, and more than 350 lay people of the

Protestant churches in the Central Highland.

The Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all

across the country, are very angered and distressed by what

they perceive as a new and aggressive plan of the Hanoi

government to reverse the progress of human rights in

Vietnam. They believe that Ambassador Marine and his staff

are not doing enough to stop these blatant violations of

human rights.

It seems to me that the Vietnamese government is conducting

this crackdown on advocates of human rights and religious

freedom because it believes that the U.S. has no further

leverage in the region. Now that Vietnam has been admitted to

the WTO, and met with the Holy See, they believe they can

respond in this brutal fashion to supporters of democracy and

freedom and we will not respond.

I hope that you will make clear to the Vietnamese

authorities that we will not stand by while this violence and

intimidation continues. I believe the State Department should

consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of

Particular Concern, and perhaps also consider canceling the

planned visit of the Vietnamese president and prime minister

later this year if the human rights situation in Vietnam has

not improved.

I appreciate the recent comments by Sean McCormack at Voice

of America expressing deep concern about the March 30 trial

and sentencing of Father Ly. I ask that you continue pressing

these issues with the Vietnamese government, including the

need to respect the basic human rights of all Vietnamese

citizens, especially the freedom of information, freedom of

expression, and freedom of religion. The Vietnamese people

should be able to choose their own leaders through free and

fair elections and to use the Internet freely without any

censures or restrictions.

I also ask that you encourage the Vietnamese authorities to

release all political prisoners and religious leaders who are

currently imprisoned because of their peaceful expression of

their ideas or to fight for their religious beliefs. Among

these prisoners are Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastors Nguyen Cong

Chinh and Hong Trung, lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, Le thi Cong

Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, Messiers Truong Quoc Huy, and Nguyen

Hoang Lon.

Lastly, I believe the Vietnamese-American community, a

young but energetic group comprised of more than one million

citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S.

government officials. They know the history, culture and

values of Vietnam. They also have scrutinized the history and

tactics of communism and the communist government's habits at

the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history

of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other

aspects of foreign policy, and the Vietnamese-American

community is a tremendous asset in this regard. I

respectfully request that you invite a small representation

of the Vietnamese-American community to join the U.S.

delegation in next month's human rights dialogue.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Oscar Sanchez Madan, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 1971 Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. That law established as national policy that wild free- roaming horses shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment and death; and to accomplish this, they are considered in the area where presently found as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. The law also directed that no wild free-roaming horse or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products. However, the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed that wild horses over 10 years old or that were not adopted after three attempts must be sold unconditionally.

While ``excess'' wild horses have been cited as the reason for the recent changes in law, there are fewer wild horses on the public lands today than there were a quarter of a century ago. In 1980, there were approximately 62,000 wild horses on public lands. Today, there are approximately 28,000. The underlying bill, H.R. 249, would undo the current practice and would prohibit the commercial sale of wild horses by the Bureau of Land Management.

With regard to process, again the majority likes to proclaim that they have offered another bill under what they are describing as an open rule. But it really is not an open rule. According to a survey of activities of the House Committee on Rules from the 104th Congress, an open rule is defined as ``one under which any Member may offer an amendment that complies with the standing rules of the House and the Budget Act.'' A modified open rule requiring preprinting in the Congressional Record is defined as a type of rule that permits the offering only of those amendments printed in the Congressional Record.

Because Members under this rule that bring the underlying legislation to the floor today must submit their amendments prior to floor consideration, they are prohibited from offering amendments on the floor as the debate progresses. So if a Member, for example, Mr. Speaker, is watching the debate and has an idea to improve the bill pursuant to the debate, he or she has an idea, this rule prevents that Member from offering their amendment. So by its very nature, the rule is restrictive. It is not an open rule. So for the sake of clarity and specificity, we would point that out for the record, and we think the majority should stop calling it an open rule.

I also want to point out that once again the majority offers this modified open rule on noncontroversial, bipartisan bills such as the one that we bring to the floor today, bills that really should be considered under suspension of the rules or under a genuinely open rule. If the majority really wants to live up to their campaign promise of a more open and bipartisan Congress, they should offer open rules, for example on this bill, and on bills where there is some controversy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Dr. Alfredo Manuel Pulido Lopez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Dr. Pulido Lopez is an independent journalist and a member of the Christian Liberation Movement. Before he became a human rights activist and a leader in the pro-democracy movement in a country oppressed by a totalitarian tyrant, he worked as a dentist. In 1998 he was forced from his job because of his support for democracy and the rule of law. In 2001, Dr. Pulido Lopez joined the ``El Mayor'' news agency in Camaguey, Cuba to expose the despotism and corruption of the tyranny as an independent journalist. He wrote on all aspects of totalitarian Cuban society and contributed to numerous foreign press agencies because he wished to make known the true nature of the regime that enslaves Cuba.

On March 18, 2003, as part of the regime's deplorable island wide crackdown on peaceful prodemocracy activists, Dr. Pulido Lopez was arrested because he wrote the truth about a ruthless and repressive tyranny. After a sham trial, where he was accused of ``endangering independence and the state's territorial integrity'' and of ``writing tendentious articles on various aspects of national and provincial life,'' Dr. Pulido Lopez was sentenced to 14 years in a totalitarian dungeon.

On April 18, 2006, Rebecca Rodriguez Souto, Dr. Pulido Lopez's wife, visited her husband and was immediately alarmed by his condition and the severity his deterioration. According to a report she filed with the Committee to Protect Journalists (CJP), Dr. Pulido Lopez is dangerously malnourished, deeply depressed, and having great difficulty breathing. Since his incarceration he has lost over 40 lbs and he finds it difficult to consume the grotesque food fed to the political prisoners. Despite his seriously declining health, Dr. Pulido Lopez continues to be caged in a totalitarian dungeon, sharing its squalor with at least 100 hardened common criminals. He has witnessed innumerable acts of violence and he must continually fear for his life.

Also fearing for her husband's life, Rebecca Rodriguez Souto has repeatedly requested that the tyranny release her husband on medical parole. She has yet to hear a response from the brutal tyrant's machinery. Dr. Pulido Lopez himself has stated that he has no real reason to ask for medical parole since he is an innocent man to begin with, and that what the dictatorship's officials really have to give him is his freedom. To his wife he has explained that with every day he is firmer in his convictions, that he will not renounce them, and that ``they (the tyranny) can do what they want.''

Dr. Pulido Lopez was arrested because of his belief in liberty. His commitment to freedom, in the face of his declining health and the regime's complete and utter disregard for human rights and dignity, is a testament to the heroism of the Cuban people. It is abominable that just 90 miles from our shores Castro's

subhuman gulags are full of men and women, like Dr. Pulido Lopez, who represent the very best of the Cuban nation.

Madam Speaker, we must speak out against this unconscionable crime against humanity. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Alfredo Manuel Pulido Lopez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the co-chairman of the Florida congressional delegation, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Small business, Mr. Speaker, is the engine that drives our economic strength. Small businesses employ over half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of U.S. private payroll.

Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs. We must not take the amazing performance of small businesses for granted, however, Mr. Speaker. They often don't have the financial structure and support to help them quickly recover from major natural disasters. If small businesses fail in the aftermath of a natural disaster, it only slows the recovery of the area.

Storms have often punished the community that I am honored to represent. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 storm, devastated much of South Florida. Until 2005, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest natural disaster in our history, causing over $26 billion of damage to South Florida. Entire communities were totally destroyed. Especially hard hit were many of the small businesses that make up a major part of the South Florida economy. Fifteen years later, the effects of that storm can still be felt.

The SBA was one of the many Federal agencies that suffered a breakdown in operations during the rebuilding efforts after the 2005 hurricane season. The disaster loan program of the SBA is the Federal Government's main source of natural disaster rebuilding assistance and has come under fire for problems and delays in granting loans to homeowners, renters and businesses affected by the hurricanes.

I think we need to do all that we can to ensure that the backbone of our country, small businesses, are not crippled in a storm's aftermath and that those small businesses can play a leading role in the recovery of affected areas.

This underlying legislation better prepares the SBA to handle future disasters by requiring, among other reforms, that the agency develop a comprehensive disaster response plan, improve training, streamline information tracking systems, follow-up processes and more efficiently distribute disaster loans by partnering with private lenders.

There is at least one point of contention in the underlying legislation. Section 211 modifies the subsidy rate assigned to SBA disaster loans by providing for double compensation under the provision that a disaster victim could receive both a grant and a loan for the same damage. This provision requires a direct appropriation. As such, it violates PAYGO rules.

The manager's amendment by the distinguished chairman, Ms. Velazquez, does correct the PAYGO problem by making the section subject to available appropriations. It still does not address the underlying issue in contention, however, Mr. Speaker, which is, why should someone be compensated twice for the same injury? It is a legitimate point of contention which obviously merits debate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I have no more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers and yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Lazaro Miguel Rodriguez Capote, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Rodriguez Capote is a member of the Cuban Pro Human Rights Party and a peaceful pro-democracy activist in totalitarian Cuba. As an opponent of the tyrannical regime in Havana, he has worked for basic human rights for the people of Cuba despite constant harassment and repression because he believes the Cuban people are entitled to basic human rights and democracy; in other words, freedom from tyranny.

On February 24, 1996, three U.S. citizens and a resident of Florida were assassinated when two civilian Brothers to the Rescue aircraft, on a humanitarian mission, were destroyed in international airspace by Cuban MiGs on the direct order of the Cuban dictator. The downing of the Brothers to the Rescue airplanes over international waters by the tyranny left an indelible impression on the consciences of Cuban pro- democracy activists and in countless millions throughout the world.

Mr. Rodriguez Capote was one of the many human rights activists in totalitarian Cuba who sought to commemorate the tragic deaths of these men but who was prohibited from demonstrating by the tyranny. Although Mr. Rodriguez Capote was threatened by state security thugs prior to his participation in peaceful demonstrations, he refused to allow his voice to be silenced. Consequently, he was wrongfully arrested on February 22, 2002 on trumped-up charges of ``espionage and enemy propaganda''.

Mr. Rodriguez Capote was summarily incarcerated and to this day languishes in grotesque subhuman conditions without having even been tried for a single crime. He is being held indefinitely in a totalitarian dungeon, suffering abhorrent conditions because he refuses to accept the reality inflicted upon Cuba by the tyranny. Since his incarceration he has held several hunger strikes to attract attention to the plight of Cuban political prisoners,

Mr. Rodriguez Capote is one of the many heroes of the peaceful Cuban democratic movement who are locked in the dungeons of the dictatorship for their beliefs. These men and women are symbols of freedom and democracy, who will always be remembered when freedom reigns again in Cuba.

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear, the brutal repression practiced by the tyranny in Havana is incompatible with the democratic values and the international law of our hemisphere. Mr. Rodriguez Capote is suffering in a dungeon because he believes in freedom, democracy and human rights. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Lazaro Miguel Rodriguez Capote and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At about 9 a.m. on July 5, 2005, three bombs went off within 50 seconds of each other in the London underground. Less than an hour later there was another explosion in one of London's double-decker buses. The bombings killed over 50 people and injured approximately 700.

On March 11, 2004, the Spanish people also faced an attack on their rail system. Like the attacks in London, in that attack the terrorists exploded multiple bombs on four trains packed with early morning commuters. The attacks killed almost 200 and left at least 1,800 injured in Madrid.

Mr. Speaker, those attacks were a warning to us on this side of the Atlantic that just as terrorists can take advantage of our airlines to carry out cowardly acts, they can do the same with our public service transportation systems. With this in mind, the House of Representatives last year passed comprehensive rail and mass transit security legislation. The legislation was included in H.R. 5814, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Unfortunately, the session of Congress ended before that important legislation could be enacted into law.

Public transit moves more people on a given day than any other mode of transportation worldwide. Transit sustains the economic vitality of any community. In heavily populated areas like Miami-Dade County, one of the counties that I am honored to represent, many people depend on public transit for cost efficiency and convenience. The provision of safe transit requires a significant investment in technology to protect infrastructure, equipment, workers and, of course, the passenger. H.R. 1401 makes it possible for Congress to invest in public transportation security.

And in my district, Miami-Dade Transit is also responsible for the evacuation of the general public, including disabled persons, in moments of crisis. This bill provides critical funding for evacuation improvements. Miami-Dade County would be eligible for funds, regardless of whether the evacuation is due to terrorism or natural disasters.

Although Miami-Dade Transit has a fleet of over 360 paratransit vehicles and over 1,000 buses and approximately 45 miles of rail, they do not have mobile communication service equipment. This means that all modes do not have a way to communicate with each other during an evacuation procedure. This bill takes into account those needs and provides for security improvements to stations' surveillance equipment, public awareness campaigns, and GPS systems.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes risk- based grants. In their final report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission criticized the existing process for allocation of Federal homeland security assistance grants, recommending that the distribution not, I quote, ``remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' Given the limited resources of Federal aid, distributing grants based on risk is really the only appropriate way to apportion grants. In order to ensure that our taxpayer funds are spent as efficiently and effectively as possible, we need to focus our resources at those sectors under the greatest threat.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I worked hard to ensure that Homeland Security grant funds are distributed through risk-based assessments. I commend the Homeland Security Committee for following through on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and including risk as the primary motive for distribution of grants in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report out a rule for this legislation. The rule that we are now debating closes out several important and germane amendments. Two amendments by my friend, Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, were excluded by the majority on the Rules Committee, even though they were germane and, obviously, from a key committee with jurisdiction. Another of my Florida colleagues, Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, offered an amendment last night that would have strengthened protections for all sensitive security information related to rail and mass transit plans and procedures. That amendment also was blocked by the majority on the Rules Committee. I think it was unnecessary and unfortunate for the majority in the Committee on Rules to continue to close the legislative process in the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, one thing, an additional point I would like to make, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the majority is now including in this section 2 language which allows the Speaker to postpone consideration of the bill at any time in every rule. It is including that language now in every rule.

It is interesting, since this is a structured rule, which means that the bill will be considered in the Committee of the Whole. This is very precedent-setting because in previous Congresses this language has never been included on structured rules. It is typically only included on a closed rule or a modified closed rule where the bill is being considered in the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. And in previous Congresses it was only included when debate was scheduled to last more than the traditional 1 hour in the House. So I find this strange, because when the House is in the Committee of the Whole, it can simply rise and postpone consideration. I find it curious as to why the new majority is extending this authority now to all rules, even when it doesn't seem necessary. Could it be that the majority is intending to quash the minority's lone procedural guarantee, the motion to recommit? I am afraid that that may be exactly what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, because there is no other procedural excuse for this language being included in a structured rule. It is not necessary for the Speaker to have this authority unless they want to postpone consideration just prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. This is just another example, Mr. Speaker, of the seemingly small, yet significant, precedents that the new Democratic majority is setting, creating new ways to silence the voice of the minority.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from New York, it is important to note when, again, seemingly small but significant precedents are changed. This is a precedent change. We have not seen it for many, many years. With regard to the motions to recommit, what we have seen in this Congress is that they often have been passing. But that is more precisely because the membership, when finding out the merits of the motions to recommit on a bipartisan basis have been supporting them.

But, no, it is of concern, and it is important to note that if there is a step being taken, as it seems that it is being taken, to limit that very important, often sole procedural remedy available to the minority which is the motion to recommit, that it is very disturbing.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure and privilege to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to a distinguished new Member who is already making an impact in this House with his forceful leadership and his knowledge and wisdom, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one such distinguished Member who had two germane amendments before the Rules Committee that were shut out. He is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order two amendments Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania offered last night at the Rules Committee. Mr. Dent, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, testified on behalf of his amendments, but the Democratic majority of the Rules Committee all voted against making these important amendments in order.

These amendments would establish a screening program for individuals who are arriving at or departing from the U.S. through covered transportation, namely, by passenger rail and bus. His amendments would also require carriers who provide transportation to people entering the U.S. to provide passenger information to Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. Dent's amendments would implement one of the key 9/11 Commission recommendations, which stated: ``Information systems able to detect potential terrorist indicators should be used at primary border inspection lines, in immigration services offices, and in intelligence and enforcement units.''

During the recent campaign, the Democrats pledged to enact all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. By not allowing Mr. Dent's amendments, they are ignoring a loophole for the terrorists to exploit and are reneging on a promise they made to the American people to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a copy of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Francisco Herodes Diaz Echemendia, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Diaz Echemendia is a member of the respected Pedro Luis Boitel organization named for Pedro Luis Boitel, a heroic, legendary Cuban political prisoner who died in a hunger strike in 1972. This organization, based in Placetas, Villa Clara, with provincial delegations throughout Cuba, has the primary objective of urging the Cuban tyranny to grant amnesty to all political prisoners and to abolish the indefensible ``political'' crimes in totalitarian Cuba. Well aware of the consequences associated with his involvement in Cuba's pro-democracy movement, Mr. Diaz Echemendia has never relinquished his dream that the men and women of Cuba deserve freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights.

Because of his belief in these inalienable rights, Mr. Diaz Echemendia was arrested by the dictatorship on August 9, 1990 on absurd charges of ``enemy propaganda, sabotage, and disrespect'' which amounted to nothing more than his decision to voice the truth about totalitarian Cuba. For his supposed ``crime'' Mr. Diaz Echemendia was wrongfully and cruelly ``sentenced'' to twenty years and ten months in the totalitarian gulag.

On September 10, 1997, after being held in a subhuman dungeon for seven years, over thirty of the tyrant's security thugs savagely attacked Mr. Diaz Echemendia and other incarcerated human rights activists. Mr. Diaz Echemendia was mercilessly punched and kicked on the neck, ribs, back and face. By the time the thugs ceased committing their crimes against him he had suffered severe injuries to his left arm and his nose and lips had been split wide open. To add insult to injury he and his fellow political prisoners were handcuffed and unable to defend themselves against their attackers throughout the entire brutal assault.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Diaz Echemendia languishes in conditions that according to Amnesty International are rat infested and crawling with mice and cockroaches, with nothing but a small hole in the ground as a ``bathroom''. In prison Mr. Diaz Echemendia has been beaten and tortured at the orders of a racist, brutal, maniacal tyrant, simply for dreaming that the Cuban people must have basic and fundamental universal human rights.

Madam Speaker, this is only one of the abhorrent episodes of violence that are continually carried out on countless innocent Cuban men and women languishing in the darkness and infernal hell that is Castro's gulag. Let me be clear, Mr. Diaz Echemendia suffers cruel and malignant acts of hatred and horror, which have often left him, like many others on that oppressed island, in critical condition without any access to medical care. And yet, though the tyranny has attempted to destroy Mr. Diaz Echemendia, he will never cease in his commitment to freedom for Cuba.

My colleagues, it is unconscionable that just 90 miles from our shores Mr. Diaz Echemendia is languishing in a totalitarian gulag for his belief in freedom. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Francisco Herodes Diaz Echemendia and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for the time.

I rise to strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor. For obviously substantive grounds, I oppose the legislation being brought to the floor.

I think that we are at a decisive time, more even than a critical time, a decisive time in the conflict in Iraq. And I think that now to be substantively, as this legislation does, tying the hands of our military personnel and, in effect, saying, well, if things don't go totally appropriately, totally correctly, if they don't go right, then you must withdraw.

And I think about other wars in the past and what would have happened if we would have had those kinds of requisites. If we had tied the hands of the military leaders in the past, there would have been disaster then. There would be disaster now if this legislation passes.

And for procedural reasons also, Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against this legislation. As strongly as I oppose some of the amendments that were brought forth to the Rules Committee, I supported the right of Members to bring forth those ideas and have them considered, but the majority in the Rules Committee rejected them.

During the time that we were in the majority, we never brought a wartime supplemental bill to this floor with a closed rule. It is unfortunate that the majority is doing so today.

For the substantive reasons that I have mentioned and many others, Mr. Speaker, as well as the significant procedural reasons that I have touched upon, that this House is being closed down with regard to the ability to present amendments today, I urge rejection of this rule as well as of the legislation being brought forth today.

Madam Speaker, on the second anniversary of the enactment of Communist China's anti-secession legislation aimed at Taiwan, I wish to alert my colleagues of the tense military situation in the Taiwan Strait.

Communist China at present has nearly a thousand guided missiles deployed along its southeastern coast, threatening the 23 million people living on Taiwan. Madam Speaker, as the world's leading democracy, the United States must make clear to Communist China that its ever expanding military buildup will only intensify the arms race in the Asia Pacific region and derail future cooperation.

In addition to Communist China's military intimidation of Taiwan, its strategy to isolate Taiwan can be seen by its actions around the world, including encouraging other nations to de-recognize Taiwan, and doing everything possible to prevent Taiwan from participating in international organizations. Congress must encourage our Administration to carry out policies to help Taiwan participate in international organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Community for Democracy and others.

Madam Speaker, it must be made clear to Communist China that it is in its interest to act responsibly in the international arena. Communist China must not be allowed to be a military threat to its neighbors. Communist China's anti-secession law against Taiwan has severely hurt the stability of the Taiwanese people and should be rescinded at once. In addition, it is imperative that Communist China fully consult the United States and the international community as it develops its space program, especially space surveillance and the military use of space.